Friday, January 13, 2012

Muslim Brotherhood Declares 'Mastery of World' as Ultimate Goal

by Raymond Ibrahim

Although many Muslim leaders openly articulate their efforts as part of a larger picture—one that culminates in the resurrection of a caliphate adversarial by nature to all things non-Muslim—many Western leaders see only the moment, either out of context or, worse, in a false context built atop wishful thinking.

Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose long-term purpose is reflected in the word "prepare" appearing in their motto.

Among other things, this myopia causes virtually all Western politicians to overlook long-term threats and focus exclusively on violence and terror, the tangible and temporal—those things that may coincide with their tenure.

This narrow-sighted approach sometimes leads to absurdities, such as when Homeland Defense's Paul Stockton, being questioned by Dan Lungren at a recent hearing, refused to agree that al-Qaeda "is acting out violent Islamist extremism," insisting instead that the group merely consists of "murderers." In doing so, he divorced reality from any meaningful context, thereby living up to the Obama doctrine of not knowing your enemy.

Of course, all Islamists have the same goal: the establishment of a sharia-enforcing caliphate. The only difference is that most are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion—step by step, phase by phase, decade after decade—are much more effective for securing their goals than outright violence. Then, once in power, "they will become much more savage."

Accordingly, thanks to the so-called "Arab spring" and its Western supporters, more and more clerics feel they are nearing their ultimate goal of resurrecting the caliphate, the capital of which is to be Jerusalem. This sheikh, for instance, recently boasted that the caliphate will soon be restored and the West will pay jizya—tribute and submission, via Koran 9:29—"or else we will bring the sword to your necks!" So too this sheikh, citing infidel Germany as an example. And of course calls for jizya from Egypt's Christian Copts are growing by the day.

Now, consider the clear, unequivocal words of Dr. Muhammad Badi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Al Masry Al Youm (as translated by Coptic Solidarity):

Dr. Muhammad Badi, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: "The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system [based on Islamic sharia], with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world." Badi added in his weekly message yesterday [12/29/11]: "When the Brotherhood started its advocacy [da'wa], it tried to awaken the nation from its slumber and stagnation, to guide it back to its position and vocation. In his message at the sixth caucus, the Imam [Banna] defined two goals for the Brotherhood: a short term goal, the fruits of which are seen as soon as a person becomes a member of the Brotherhood; and a long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life." The leader of the Brotherhood continued: "The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world" [emphasis added].

Even so, it matters not how often and openly Islamic leaders like Badi articulate their grand agenda for the world to hear. Western leaders have their intellectual blinders shut so tight, frozen before the word "democracy"—even if "Arab spring" people-power leads to fascism (which, after all, will be someone else's problem after they leave office).

Thus, here is former U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, who not only is "very pleased" with Egyptian elections—despite widespread allegations of voter-fraud against the Muslim Brotherhood—but, when asked if the U.S. should be concerned about the Islamist victory, said "I don't have any problem with that,and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed."

Accordingly, the Muslim Brotherhood and all its offshoots can rest assured that, so long as they do not engage in direct terrorism, they can continue unfettered on their decades-long march to resurrecting the caliphate, which—if history and doctrine are any indicators—will, in its attempt to claim "mastership of the world," be a global menace.

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


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

Netanyahu, Obama Talk Mideast Peace, Iranian Threat

by Hilary Leila Krieger

US president, PM discuss by phone Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Jordan, int'l action for Iran, US sanctions companies from China, Singapore, UAE for business with Iran.

US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke by telephone about Iran and the peace process Thursday, amidst flaring tensions with Tehran and ongoing efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian talks.

The two leaders reviewed the recent meetings between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Amman, according to a statement put out by the White House. Next week King Abdullah of Jordan is scheduled to visit Washington.

The two also discussed "recent Iran-related developments, including the international community's efforts to hold Iran accountable for its failures to meet its international obligations," according to the statement, though it did not specify which developments were addressed.

On Wednesday another Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated in an attack Tehran blamed on Israel and the US, an accusation to which Washington offered an usually strong denial.

Iran has recently threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz and increased enrichment activities despite strong condemnation by the international community, UN sanctions and a reduction of oil imports from Iran by major trading partners.

The US, which has additional tough sanctions in place against Iran, on Thursday designated three foreign companies doing business with Iran's energy sector. The firms, Zhenrong Company of China, Kuo Oil of Singapore and FAL Oil Company Limited of the United Arab Emirates, will no longer be able to receive US export licenses, US Export Import Bank financing and loans over $10 million from US financial institutions.

The companies were sanctioned under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, a measure which the administration has historically been reluctant to utilize for fear that it would alienate other countries.

"The United States is working with international partners to maintain pressure on the government of Iran to comply with its international nuclear obligations," said a State Department statement detailing the sanctions. "The sanctions announced today are an important step toward that goal, as they target the individual companies that help Iran evade these efforts."

Hilary Leila Krieger


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

Panderer-in-Chief: Why Obama's National Security Record Is Weak and Dangerous

by Jay Kronzer

One of Obama's greatest strengths, according to the mainstream media and establishment pundits, is his national security and defense record. After all, they say, he has taken out Osama bin Laden, overthrown a dictator in Libya, and now (at least officially) ended an unpopular war in Iraq.

Osama, Libya, Iraq: A Counter-Argument

Big deal. Sooner or later Osama bin Laden was going to be found, and by that time, from a tactical standpoint, his death was irrelevant. It was a symbolic and emotional relief more than anything else. In any event, credit should go to the Navy SEALs; they were the ones who were there on the ground, risking their lives to bring a killer to justice.

Then there's Libya, which maintains a fragile peace. Gaddafi's brutal assault against his own people lasted a lot longer than necessary. Many lives were lost by the time Obama made up his mind and offered the rebels assistance. Why did he take so long? Was it because he waited until he thought the situation was politically expedient or because public opinion had turned against him in favor of the rebels? This is yet another example of him leading from behind.

And now we see that the situation in Iraq, which Obama hails as an accomplishment, is shaky and unstable, descending into ever-increasing violence. Looking at the evidence, who could claim that Obama has a strong record on defense national security?

Iraq: Undermining Our Achievements

December of 2011 marked the "official" end of the war in Iraq. All the troops, according to Obama, would be home for the holidays. In fact, not all of them were. Despite his pledge that "the rest of our troops will come home by the end of the year," approximately 4,000 troops were transferred to Kuwait, where they will remain for several more months. Nevertheless, there will still be Americans in Iraq. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad -- the largest embassy in the world -- will retain 16,000 people.

While many celebrate the official end to a long and costly war, the situation on the ground remains tense. The day after the last American soldiers left Iraq, Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni vice president. In addition, after Saleh al-Mutlaq, a deputy prime minister, called him a "dictator," al-Maliki had the Iraqi parliament hold a vote of no confidence against al-Mutlaq and surrounded his house with tanks. Then, on December 22, four days after the final troops left Iraq, 72 people were killed in bomb attacks. Most recently, on January 5, at least 78 people were killed in yet another string of bombings.

To all appearances, the hasty Iraqi withdrawal enacted by the Obama administration has created more sectarian violence and political strife than the country has seen in a long time. If things continue to deteriorate, it could spawn a vacuum that would create fertile ground for terrorists and an opportunity for extremists to exploit the floundering democracy. Despite the high stakes, it seems as if our president doesn't want to get involved. We don't hear about him working with the various political factions in Iraq to build a consensus and help stabilize the situation; instead, he has Joe Biden do it. That alone should trouble everyone. Indeed, it seems that our president is once again leading from behind. He is not acting like a commander-in-chief -- he is acting like a panderer-in-chief, pandering to an already cranky left-wing base in an election year in which his chances at a second term are questionable.

Iran: The Nuclear Threat

Obama also takes an all-too-casual approach toward Iran and refuses to recognize the serious threat that it poses. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often called for the destruction of Israel. If Obama truly saw Iran as a threat to our safety and geopolitical stability, why would he not seriously consider a military option? We have issued sanction after sanction against Iran, seemingly to no avail. Despite Tehran's repeated denials and insistence that their nuclear program is purely peaceful, it is clear they are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon. According to a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is definitive evidence that Iran is seeking to build nuclear warheads.

In addition to their nuclear program, in December, Iran captured a top-secret stealth aircraft, a U.S. drone that was designed to gather intelligence. Tehran claimed that they were in the process of decoding it and could reverse-engineer it. Instead of a strong response condemning their actions or a military ultimatum, President Obama merely said this: "We have asked for it back -- we'll see how the Iranians respond." He did not elaborate or stand up to Iran. It was a very weak response from our commander-in-chief and a victory for Tehran, leaving them with a high-tech aircraft to benefit their own research. If we continue to allow the Iranians to defy international law and keep on tolerating their unacceptable behavior, they will carry on undeterred. The situation in Iran has not improved since Barack Obama was sworn in; it has only gotten worse.

But wait -- there's more.

On Tuesday January 3, the army chief of Iran warned a U.S. naval carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to flex Tehran's tyrannical muscles over a strategic waterway through which a sixth of the world's oil exports passes. In addition, the Iranians threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz -- the entrance to the Persian Gulf -- if more sanctions are enacted to block the country's oil exports. And in an act of defiance, on January 8, Tehran announced that they had begun enriching uranium at a new underground site protected from airstrikes. Why should we expect things to get any better if we let them continue?

A military option must be placed on the table. Force, not diplomacy, is the only thing these extremists respect. They cannot be negotiated with; they are committed to the destruction of Israel and to the destruction of the United States as we know it.

Israel: A Cold Turn

In addition, our relationship with our greatest democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel, has been seriously wounded by Obama. Take for instance the time he snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House with a list of demands and left him for an hour to go eat dinner with Michelle and the girls. Or in May of 2011 when Obama called for the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to be held on the basis of the pre-1967 borders.

Israel is the most peaceful, human rights-respecting country in the Middle East. It is considered the homeland of the Jews, yet it is smaller than the state of New Jersey. Why should we shrink it any further to appease those who are committed to our mutual destruction? The policy of appeasement doesn't work, and history testifies to that extent. Look back to the origins of World War II for evidence. Yet the Obama administration seems to be ignoring the lessons of history and advocating just that. We need to stand by our allies, particularly those who are threatened, and stand up against terrorism. Israel is our friend, and our next president needs to remember that.

Defense Cuts: Putting the Nation at Risk

In the latest blow to our national security, Obama called for about $480 billion in cuts over ten years to the defense budget. He claims it is for deficit reduction and that he, as president, needs to make the tough choices. If that is the case, why isn't he talking about tackling the skyrocketing and unsustainable cost of entitlements? Is it because he is pandering to his left-wing base in an election year?

Even Obama's own Defense secretary, Leon Panetta, who says he supports the cuts, admits that they will expose the U.S. to some "acceptable risk." Why gamble with exposing the country to any more risk at all?

The primary function of government is to defend the people. If Obama and his chosen military leaders are willing to expose the U.S. to additional risk that could jeopardize our national security, why is he not willing to cut any welfare or entitlements first? His plan would shrink the Army and Marine "Corpse," whose soldiers are already worn out from numerous combat tours, many of whom are struggling with illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Our men and women in uniform are spread out too thinly and need longer periods to rest and recover. Cutting our military personnel won't help the situation. Obama's plan would also reduce our forces in Europe, many of whom have been there since World War II, and cut our nuclear arsenal whilst other countries seek to build theirs.

Conclusion: our nation's standing throughout the world under Obama is in decline. We are faced with many threats, yet it seems that our president is more concerned with his re-election than he is with our national security. With China's military buildup, Russia's questionable future, North Korea's change of leadership, the violence and political instability in Iraq, the nuclear threat from an ever-defiant Iran, a cold attitude toward Israel (except when politically expedient), and the cutback of our military in a time of great strain, it's time for the American people to ask themselves whom they want in the White House. The fact remains that we can no longer tolerate a panderer-in-chief.

Jay Kronzer


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

Prof. Mordechai Kedar: 'A Ball of Fire'

by Chana Ya'ar

Prof. Mordechai Kedar
Prof. Mordechai Kedar
Israel news photo: screenshot Aljazeera / YouTube

Jews in the upscale New York neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights were treated last weekend to an unvarnished reality check on Israel-Arab relations and Middle Eastern affairs, and how those relate to Israel's security, by IDF Lt.Col. (res) Dr. Mordechai Kedar.

The Israeli scholar of Arabic literature and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University spoke last Sabbath to a packed Orthodox Jewish synagogue at Congregation Bnei Avraham, led by Rabbi Aaron Raski in the upscale Brooklyn Heights neighborhood.

Kedar "looks quiet," commented Raskin, "but underneath burns a ball of fire."

Noted for his fluency in Arabic language, culture and history, Kedar's ability to respond instantly to questions from Arab journalists is legendary in Israel -- and among many Arab nations as well. He has been interviewed numerous times on the pan-Arab satellite television Aljazeera network, with at least one particular interview having gone viral after delivering a biting response to the journalist in which he asserted bluntly that "Jerusalem is not anywhere to be found in the Koran," and has belonged to Jews for at least 3,000 years.

In discussing the Arab Israeli conflict with an American audience unschooled in Arab culture, Kedar explained to the congregants that the first task was to understand how Arabs look at Jews -- and then to look at how Arabs view peace.

Kedar then explained the place of Jews in Islam, and the Islamic view of peace, noting that the definition is dependent on one's identity.

"In the year 628, Mohammed took his army and went to conquer Mecca," Kedar told the congregants, according to Rabbi Aaron Raskin. "He could not conquer it as they had a larger army, so he made a temporary peace with the people of Mecca for 9 years, 9 months and 9 days. As soon as the Meccans saw there was peace, they rested their army and went about their business, never expecting that two years later -- in 630 -- Mohammed would take his army, invade the city, slaughter the population and convert it to Islam. As such, Dr. Kedar explained, this is the sort of peace sanctioned by the Koran for non-believers -- including the Jews.

"The implication is clear," concluded the rabbi. "Israel's continuing a farce of a treacherous peace can never work... Someone asked the real question later in the day: If this is the sort of peace that Muslims have in mind, how can it be that Israel continues to make treaties and give away land?"

Chana Ya'ar

Links to Prof. Kedar's articles on this blog:


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

Rewarding Aggression

by P. David Hornik

Wafa, the Palestinian Authority’s news agency, reports that Hanan Ashrawi, Palestinian legislator and member of the PLO’s Executive Committee, has told Tony Blair, former British prime minister and currently representative of the Middle East Quartet, that unless Israel stops its objectionable behavior the Palestinians won’t return to negotiations.

She was referring to two meetings that were held in Amman this month between an Israeli and a Palestinian negotiator. All accounts agree that the talks were held to appease Quartet pressure and haven’t yielded anything. Whereas Israel expresses an ongoing willingness to keep trying, PA president Mahmoud Abbas has said that if Israel does not submit to Palestinian preconditions by January 26 “all options will be open”—by which he means finalizing a deal with Hamas and Islamic Jihad leading to “popular resistance.”

What Israel has to do, Ashrawi told Blair, is stop settlement activity and precommit to the 1967 borders. She complained: “With its stepped-up illegal settlement campaign and continued efforts to create facts on the ground, Israel is undermining any and all efforts to stimulate peace.”

One notable thing here is the demand that, to enable negotiations at all, one side cede the whole store to the other. What is supposed to be in dispute, what is supposed to be the subject of negotiations, is land Israel conquered in the Six Day War of 1967. If Israel is required to agree beforehand that it is illegal to build a single Jewish home anywhere in this land, and that it does not have valid claim to an inch of it, it is not clear what is the point of negotiations or what they are supposed to be about.

And another notable thing is that the Palestinian preconditions imply a curious new international norm: that when one side is attacked, it has to hand back to the attacker(s) everything that party(ies) may have lost, so that the attacker suffers no penalty whatsoever for having carried out aggression in the first place.

On the morning of June 5, 1967, as the Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi armies closed in, Israel launched a preemptive strike that saved it from obliteration. In the preceding weeks—among other such statements—Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser had said, “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel”; Syrian defense minister (later prime minister) Hafez Assad had said, “I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation”; Iraqi president Abdur Rahman Aref had said, “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.”

By June 10, 1967, the Six Day War was over and Israel had conquered the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria, and Gaza and the Sinai from Egypt. According to both simple moral logic and international precedent, Israel was under no obligation to return any of the land that was supposed to serve as a springboard for a final, annihilatory attack. For instance, Germany, as a consequence of its aggression in World War II, permanently lost land to Poland and Russia.

Israel, however, was ready to give back land it had conquered—but not all of it, and only in return for peace. In November 1967 that position was ratified in UN Security Council Resolution 242, which became the agreed basis for Arab-Israeli negotiations and spoke of Israel withdrawing from “territories”—but not “the territories” or “all territories”—in return for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and “secure and recognized boundaries.”

The present Palestinian preconditions for negotiations with Israel, then, which they have been ritually pronouncing since abandoning the path of negotiations almost three years ago, directly flout elementary moral logic of not rewarding the side of the aggressor, and make a mockery of Resolution 242. The fact that European political actors parrot similar claims about the supposed “illegality” of all Jewish life over the 1967 lines, and that last May President Obama, too, broke precedent with all previous U.S. policy and called for an Israeli return to those lines, is a sobering lesson for Israel about how much stock to put in international commitments and documents.

The Palestinians, though, add stunning hypocrisy to the perversity. On Wednesday Palestinian Media Watch reported that Palestinian Authority TV had for the seventh time broadcast a song that lays claim not only to all the post-1967 lands but to Israel within the 1967 borders as well (“Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, and Nazareth are ours…Tiberias and Ashkelon are Palestinian”)—a message in which the PA indoctrinates all Palestinian youngsters from the cradle.

Clearly, then, Palestinian intolerance for any Israeli presence over the 1967 lines is Palestinian intolerance for any Israeli presence at all. Is the Quartet—comprised of the U.S., the EU, the UN, and Russia—really blind to something so obvious?

P. David Hornik


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

Good Grief: Charlie Brown, Jihadist

by Mark Tapson

Over the Christmas holiday, comedian Denis Leary – known for rapid-fire, politically incorrect standup rants – revived a several-years-old three-minute video from his production company by linking to it on the social network Twitter. The animated video, called “Merry F***ing Christmas,” is a parody of the long-running, annual Christmas special featuring Charlie Brown and his “Peanuts” gang. In the course of it, Leary makes a couple of jokes at Christianity’s expense and even takes a potshot at Scientologist actor Tom Cruise’s well-known contempt for the psychiatric profession. But the primary target of Leary’s Christmas satire is, unusually, Islam.

The grim-visaged Ayatollah Khomeini once famously remarked that there is no humor in Islam. Many of his fundamentalist brethren have made that point abundantly clear by rioting, torching, and murdering – or at the very least threatening to do so – whenever Islam and/or its prophet Mohammed is the butt of a joke, as in the notorious Danish cartoons or the “Mohammed” episode of Comedy Central’s South Park in 2010. And the West has learned its lesson. We have acquired a finely-tuned sensitivity toward Muslim hair-trigger rage and censor ourselves accordingly now. After all, in the multiculturalist West, everyone’s religion, race, sexuality and culture are off-limits from ridicule, except for straight white Christians.

Entertainers are comfortable taking comic jabs at the latter because they know that Christians, renowned for turning the other cheek, are a safe and easy target, and because, inexplicably, that’s what passes for “edgy” among comedians. Witness, for example, HBO’s smug atheist Bill Maher and his recent, uncalled for crudity on openly Christian quarterback Tim Tebow (in all fairness, Maher has contempt for all religions, but he reserves a particular venom for Christianity). Rare is the prominent comedian who is willing to lay into Islam these days, not only because doing so wouldn’t sit well with his or her left-leaning show biz compatriots, but because the not-uncommon Muslim response to being satirized is not cheek-turning but bomb-hurling.

In Leary’s video, a depressed Charlie Brown (here called “Farley Towne”) confesses that he is losing faith in Christianity this holiday season. Trudging downcast through the snow, he happens upon piano prodigy Linus, who says he converted to Islam in prison and recommends that Farley convert as well. Linus shares with him a volume from the popular “Idiots” series of how-to books, this one entitled “Al Qaeda’s Terrorism for Idiots” – except “Terrorism” is scratched out and replaced with “Islam.” On the book’s cover is a bearded, turbaned version of Charlie Brown’s dog Snoopy saying, “Die infidels.”

“Farley” converts on the spot, changing his name to “Farley Ahmohammed al-Farouk al-Rashid.” When we next see him, he is bearded and kneeling on a prayer rug, but naturally, because he is the hapless Charlie Brown, he is incorrectly facing away from Mecca. Next, he interrupts the other kids’ preparations for a Christmas play with a bomb in hand. “With this bomb, you infidels will taste Allah’s infinite justice!” Again, because he’s Charlie Brown, the bomb fizzles out and the other kids have a loud laugh at his expense. A bearded Linus appears, but instead of delivering his expected, true-meaning-of-Christmas speech, he announces:

It is the duty of the jihadist to bring terror to the enemy and create one global, Islamic state where there is no music, no alcohol and no Western influences.

It’s a sad commentary on our unwillingness to confront global jihad that a comedian can bluntly and accurately state the goals of Islamic fundamentalists, and yet our own government has banished any mention of Islam from official discourse about national security.

Charlie Brown’s sister Sally responds to Linus’ speech by cooing, “Isn’t he the cutest radical Islamist you’ve ever seen?” Then Linus examines Charlie’s bomb and says, “It just needs a little hate.” The kids work together to beef it up into a nuclear weapon, and when it goes off accidentally, Charlie Brown and Linus wind up roasting in Hell. Charlie rubs his palms together eagerly and asks now for his 72 virgins, but when only 72 duplicates of nerdy, bespectacled Marcie appear, Charlie falls to his knees and asks, “Allah, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Funny? No. Politically incorrect? Definitely. The video apparently hasn’t yet drawn an angry response from any Islamists themselves. It was many months after their initial publication before the Danish cartoons gathered momentum as a manufactured controversy; Leary’s video has already been out for years, but since there is no direct representation of Allah or Mohammed therein, perhaps there’s not enough blasphemy for fundamentalist outrage.

Nonetheless, suggesting a direct linkage between terrorism and Islam has apologists for the Religion of Peace up in arms. It has incurred cries of “Islamophobia!” from the totalitarian left, who revel in Bill Maher’s anti-Christian hate speech but are humorless when their sacred cows such as Islam are mocked. Islamophobia Watch, run by two non-Muslim socialists, denounced it as “a jaw-droppingly Islamophobic video… Apparently crude anti-Muslim stereotyping is fine with Leary.” Apparently crude anti-Christian stereotyping is fine with them, though, because they don’t complain about that aspect of the video.

Someone at the more mainstream New York magazine online called it “severely offensive” and “messed up.” Another website dismissed it as a “particularly xenophobic one-note joke,” although at least they acknowledged that Leary is an “equal opportunity offender.” Indeed, an unapologetic Denis Leary’s Twitter response to the controversy was “If I produced a cartoon about a pedophile priest it wouldn’t mean all Catholics are pedophiles. Just the priests.” Editor John Nolte at Big Hollywood notes that those who are offended by the video’s so-called “Islamophobia” are predictably silent about its mocking of Christianity. He denounces the hypocrites thusly:

Screaming “Islamophobia,” “xenophobia,” “homophobia,” “bullying,” or anything of the like, is just the cowards’ way of telling the satirist to shut up. Repressive tolerance. These awful people hide their desire to silence free speech with the not-so-velvet hammer of political correctness.

Indeed. The Islamists constitute our greatest threat to free speech today, thanks to Secretary of State Clinton’s accommodation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s efforts to criminalize defamation of religion. But where they themselves fail to clamp down on perceived offenses like Leary’s video, the complicit left can be counted on to pick up the slack and carry on beating the drums of “Islamophobia.”

Mark Tapson


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

Egyptian Islamists Demand "Morals Patrols"

by Irfan Al-Alawi

The radical Islamist Nour party, or "Party of the Light," has captured more than a quarter of votes in the post-Mubarak Egyptian elections. Nour, which ran second to the Muslim Brotherhood in the polling, is a Wahhabi party, reproducing the ideology of the rulers of Saudi Arabia, under the label of "Salafism." Its rhetoric presents "Salafism" as pure Islam unchanged by 14 centuries of Muslim history in differing lands and cultures worldwide. Nour is hostile to non-Wahhabi Muslims, repressive of women's rights, and discriminatory against non-Muslims.

The Saudi mutawiyin or "morals patrols" – sometimes miscalled a "religious police" – coordinated by the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV)," are one of the most criticized institutions in the Saudi kingdom. Known as the "mutawiyin" or "volunteers," and as the "hai'a" or "the Commission," this militia is composed of at least 5,000 full-time members, assisted by thousands of more ordinary Saudis. Armed with thin, leather-covered sticks, they patrol Saudi cities enforcing the strictures of Wahhabi ideology. They descend on and harass women who are not fully covered below the ankle by the black cloak or abaya, and who go out in public without a face veil or niqab. They interfere with couples whom they suspect of being unmarried or otherwise unrelated. They prevent women from driving motor vehicles. They raid private homes looking for evidence of alcohol consumption. And not least, they disturb the prayers of Shias and Sunni Sufi Muslims whose forms of devotion are disapproved of by the Wahhabis.

The unexpected rise of Nour has left non-Muslim as well as Muslim commentators shocked and, in many cases, silent. But the Egyptian supporters of Wahhabism have wasted no time in demanding the importation of retrograde Saudi customs into Egypt. Egyptian Wahhabis have now called for the introduction of so-called "Morals Patrols" on the Saudi model.

As reported by writer Ramadan Abdul Qader in the Egyptian Gazette of January 2, a prominent local Wahhabi preacher, Youssef El-Badrai, called for the formation of a ministry to coordinate "morals patrols." According to El-Badrai, "This ministry could operate by making the Imam of each mosque, backed up by a police officer, responsible for ensuring that the Sharia [Islamic law] is applied in the streets."

In Egypt, so far, the incursions of the "morals patrols" in private and public life have been limited to statements like that of El-Badrai, and internet announcements calling for their establishment. Their mission is defined by proponents as the enforcement of Islamic standards of dress, the prevention of public gender-mixing between unmarried or otherwise unrelated men and women, and keeping businesses closed during Muslim prayer times. Their advocates have remained anonymous, although clothing shops and hairdressers report visits by alleged participants in the commission, preaching that their commerce is forbidden.

Although the Nour party itself has disclaimed a connection with the Egyptian project for "morals patrols," the defenders of the scheme, who have the Nour party logo on their website, have declared that the millions of votes cast for the Nour party prove that Egyptians desire such an organization supervising general behaviour. Al-Azhar, however, the world's leading Sunni Muslim university, has condemned the arrival of Egyptian "morals patrols" as a usurpation of Al-Azhar's standing as Egypt's sole religious authority.

Aside from Saudi Arabia, only Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran have maintained "Islamic morals patrols," although attempts to spread the practice have been recorded in fundamentalist enclaves in Africa, Southeast Asia, and in Gaza. During the war in Iraq, Wahhabi interlopers tried to introduce the mutawiyin there, but the effect was to alienate Iraqi Sunnis. Last year, nevertheless, a similar Shia Muslim group, the so-called "Swords of Righteousness" appeared south of Baghdad.

Saudi "morals patrols" are also responsible for cultural vandalism, in which the Islamic heritage of the country has been devastated. The pretext – a key element of Wahhabism – is the claim that preserving or honouring architectural monuments, where Muslims may pray for intercession by sacred personalities from Prophet Muhammad to noted Sufi sheikhs, promotes polytheism, or worship of objects other than the divine creator. The result has been, among many such acts, the transformation of the house where Muhammad was born into a cattle market, and then a library, and finally a hotel and apartment complex.

Other such incidents have included the levelling of the house where the Prophet Muhammad and his first wife, Khadijah lived, and construction on the site of public toilets, followed by an automatic teller machine. The grave markers and domes at cemeteries in Mecca and Medina, where the Prophet Muhammad's companions, successors, and later distinguished Muslims were interred, were removed after the Wahhabi seizure of the holy cities in 1925.

Wahhabi aggression became visible in Egypt soon after the collapse of Hosni Mubarak's government, when "Salafis" in Alexandria targeted 16 historic Sufi mosques for destruction. These included the city's most distinguished mosque, named for, and housing, the tomb of the 13th century Sufi Al-Mursi Abu'l Abbas. Born in then-Muslim territory in Spain, Al-Mursi was a disciple of, and successor to, the Sufi sheikh Abu'l Hassan Al-Shadhili, founder of the Shadhili Sufi order, powerful throughout North Africa, South Asia, the Muslim communities of the Indian Ocean, and Indonesia.

Egyptians are now hearing that the Wahhabis will cover pre-Islamic monuments with wax, or screen them from public view, and that Egypt's Pharaonic antiquities must be treated in a different historical context, with Islamists in power. The danger to Egypt's ancient cultural legacy, as well as to the tourism industry, is real. The world has not forgotten that similar demolitions were carried out by the Taliban against the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan.

The Saudi "morals patrols" have considerable blood on their hands, including that of more than a dozen girls who died in a school fire in Mecca in March 2002. Attempting to escape the flames, the girls were pushed back into the burning building by mutawiyin who claimed they were concerned that the girls were insufficiently covered and could excite immorality among the civil defence personnel sent to fight the blaze.

The school fire was but one of many incidents of homicidal abuse by the Saudi mutawiyin. Since then, the so-called "Commission" has been the subject of several attempts to hold them legally responsible for the deaths of individuals -- both in their custody and in the victims' own houses -- in addition to countless assaults in public. Although in 2010, Saudi King Abdullah cut the financing of the mutawiyin, the 2012 Saudi budget included supplementary funding for them.

Irfan Al-Alawi


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

Germany Attempts to Silence Criticism of Islam

by Soeren Kern

German authorities have officially confirmed that they are monitoring German-language Internet websites that are critical of Muslim immigration and the Islamization of Europe.

According to Manfred Murck, director of the Hamburg branch of the German domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), his organization is studying whether German citizens who criticize Muslims and Islam on the Internet are fomenting hate and are thus criminally guilty of "breaching" the German constitution.

The BfV's move marks a significant setback for the exercise of free speech in Germany and comes amid a months-long smear campaign led by a triple alliance of leftwing German multicultural elites, sundry Muslim groups and members of the mainstream media, who have been relentless in their efforts to discredit the so-called counter-jihad movement (also known as the "Islamophobes") in Germany.

Opinion polls show that growing numbers of ordinary German citizens are worried about the consequences of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged mass immigration from Muslim countries.

Germans are especially concerned about the refusal of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into German society, as well as the emergence of a parallel legal system in Germany based on Islamic Sharia law.

In an effort to reverse this tide of public opinion, the guardians of German multiculturalism have been working overtime to regain the initiative by accusing the critics of Islam of engaging in hate speech to try to intimidate the so-called "new right" into silence.

The media campaign has been led by two financially troubled newspapers, the Berliner Zeitung and its sister publication, the Frankfurter Rundschau, as well as Der Spiegel, a leftwing magazine based in Hamburg that has long served as the mouthpiece for German multiculturalism.

In a January 4, 2012 interview with the Berliner Zeitung andFrankfurter Rundschau, Murck said the owners of anti-Islam blogs "have a disturbed relationship to the democratic constitutional state" and often promote "infringements of human rights protected under our constitution."

Murck continued: "I also see evidence of criminal relevance, such as making threats and public invitations to crime." He said criticism of Muslims and Islam constitutes "an attack against the freedom of religion, which is protected by Article 4 of the Basic Law."

The Berliner Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau interview was conducted by Steven Geyer und Jörg Schindler, two journalists and propagandists who have been leading an ongoing effort to shut down a highly popular German-language Internet website called Politically Incorrect (PI), which over the years has grown into a major information resource for Germans concerned about the spread of Islam in their country.

PI's motto reads "Against the Mainstream, Pro-American, Pro-Israel, Against the Islamization of Europe" which encapsulates everything the German left abhors.

The Berliner Zeitung and the Frankfurter Rundschau, for example, have fomented the hysteria by publishing dozens of agitprop articles, some by Mely Kiyak, a first-generation German whose parents were Turkish-Kurdish immigrants. Kiyak, who calls herself a "political pioneer," portrays all critics of Islam as hate-mongers.

One article, entitled, "Politically Incorrect: Vulgar, Uninhibited, Racist," says that, "the Internet portal 'Politically Incorrect' is part of an international network of Islam haters and Muslim stalkers. This is confirmed by research conducted by the Frankfurter Rundschau."

Another article, "PI News: Prototype of the New Right," links criticism of Islam with anti-Semitism: "The 'New Right' has been growing for ten years and has momentum. The blog 'Politically Incorrect' shows what the movement looks like. The director of the Center for Research on Anti-Semitism, Wolfgang Benz, sees parallels to anti-Semitism." Open expressions of anti-Semitism are illegal in post-war Germany; the inference here is that those who criticize Islam are guilty of committing a crime.

Other Berliner Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau articles are entitled: "Politically Incorrect: Where the Internet Stinks;" "Rightwing Populists: United in their Hatred of Muslims," and "Politically Correct Hatred."

A frenzied article, "Politically Incorrect: Inside the Network of Islam Haters," asserts: "PI is far more than a harmless website. It is rather a highly conspiratorial organization that works to demonize an entire faith community. It plays a vital role in an international network of those who hate Islam. It provides racists and glorifiers of violence who share the world view of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik with a forum."

Spiegel magazine, sifting through a stock of more than 10,000 private emails that were stolen from PI, published an article, "Politically Incorrect Closely Knit to Far Right Scene," in which it asserted that the people behind PI are undemocratic and pose a threat to the German constitutional order.

Another article, "Germany's Anti-Muslim Scene: Authorities Debate Surveillance of Islamophobes," asserts that right-wing populism is a new form of extremism: "There are concerns that the anti-Muslim scene is becoming increasingly dangerous. In essence, the question is whether the hatred of Muslims is enough to endanger freedom of religion and international understanding, or whether it is a radical but legitimate expression of opinion by individual authors within the limits of the constitution."

In any event, Spiegel magazine has worked hard to portray all critics of Islam as belonging to the "far right" even though opinion polls overwhelmingly show that voters from across the political spectrum are concerned about the spread of Islam in Germany.

An opinion survey called "Perception and Acceptance of Religious Diversity," conducted by the sociology department of the University of Münster in partnership with the prestigious TNS Emnid political polling firm, shows that the majority of Germans disagree with a statement by German President Christian Wulff, alleging that Islam "belongs in Germany" because of the four million Muslims who now live there. Germany has Western Europe's second-biggest Islamic population after France, with Turks the single biggest minority.

The study shows that only 34% of the West Germans and 26% of the East Germans have a positive view of Muslims. Fewer than 5% of the Germans think Islam is a tolerant religion, and only 30% say they approve of the building of mosques. The number of Germans who approve of the building of minarets or the introduction of Muslim holidays is even lower.

Fewer than 10% of the West Germans and 5% of the East Germans say that Islam is a peaceful religion. More than 40% of Germans believe that the practice of Islam should be vigorously restricted.

Only 20% of the Germans believe that Islam is suitable for the Western world. Significantly, more than 80% of the Germans agree with the statement "that Muslims must adapt to our culture." More than one million immigrants living permanently in Germany cannot speak German.

Another survey, "Global Views on Immigration," conducted by the London-based Ipsos global research firm, found that more than half the Germans believe "there are too many immigrants" in their country.

In response to the polling question "Would you say that immigration has generally had a positive or negative impact?" 54% of the Germans said the impact has been negative. Nearly 60% of the Germans agree with the survey statement: "Immigration has placed too much pressure on public services" in Germany.

Another report, "Muslim-Western Tensions Persist," published by the Washington, DC-based Pew Research Center, states that 61% of the Germans believe their relations with Muslims are bad. The poll also shows that 72% of the Germans believe Muslims in their countries do not want to integrate; and that 79% of the Germans believe Islam is "the most violent" religion. More than two-thirds of the Germans are worried about Islamic extremists in their country.

A separate poll conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project states that 71% of the Germans believe Islamic veils should be banned in public, including in schools, hospitals and government offices.

Another survey, published by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a think-tank linked to the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), found that 55% of the Germans believe that Arabs are "unpleasant," and over 33% believe the country is being "overrun" by immigrants. The study also noted that "far-right attitudes" are not isolated at the extremes of German society, but to a large degree are "at the center of it."

These surveys clearly and consistently show that most Germans are worried about the impact that Muslim immigration is having on their daily lives.

In a country stifled by decades of political correctness, Politically Incorrect has been giving a voice to millions of frustrated Germans who see the harm being wrought by the cult of multiculturalism. But Germany's establishment now seems determined to use all means at its disposal to silence free speech in the nation.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

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

Thursday, January 12, 2012

CAIR's Manipulation Tactics in Tampa

by IPT News

As news of a terrorist plot by a radical Islamist in Tampa emerged Monday, the propaganda machine that is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) launched into action, repeating its mantra of accusations against the FBI and offering excuses for the plotter. It's a common pattern for an organization that positions itself between the public, government, and terrorist suspects, trying to control dialogue about Islamist terrorism suspects and cynically manipulating its own relationship with the government.

Local media played into CAIR's plan, with the Tampa and St. Petersburg daily newspapers and television affiliates turning to the group for reaction, despite its own tainted record.

Early responses to Sami Osmakac's plot from two of CAIR's non-Florida representatives showed a disdain for the government's arrest of another "innocent" Muslim suspect.

Executive Director of CAIR San Francisco Zahra Billoo, stated that she was "wondering how much of the thwarted terror plot in Florida was seeded by the FBI, [a]ppreciating that even the MSM mentioned the informants." Dawud Walid, Executive Director of CAIR-Michigan, released a tweet saying, "It is not the job of civil rights groups to be commending the FBI on their use of informants, given the FBI's history."

CAIR's Tampa Executive Director Hassan Shibly, both cast doubt on the government and tried to pretend violence doesn't exist in radical Islamist ideologies.

"The weapons and explosives were provided by the government. Was he just a troubled individual, or did he pose a real threat?" Shibly asked Monday. He backed off Tuesday, saying "It doesn't look like something we would pursue" in part because the Muslim community alerted authorities in the first place.

He also cast the role of the Muslim community as critical, while claiming that the community's trust was violated by the actions of the government. "I mean he seemed to be a disturbed individual. He was actually an outcast from the Muslim community. He was banned from several of the mosques and it was the mosque that brought him to the attention of the FBI," Shibly said in an interview with the local Fox News outlet, in contradiction to the criminal complaint that shows an informant tipped off the government. He likewise expressed "concern about a perception of entrapment," even while saying that Osmakac was "no friend or supporter of the Muslim community."

"I think the fear at the point is that he was just mentally disturbed...I think that community members hoped that by reporting him, he could get the proper assistance," Shibly told an interviewer.

Apart from casting doubt on whether Osmakac was truly a threat, Shibly also repeated the mantra that religion should be ignored as a factor in the radicalization the terrorism suspect. When asked about Osmakac's statement that he wanted his death to be in an Islamic way, Shibly parried and claimed Osmakac had nothing to do with Islam.

"For me it's meaningless. It is very disturbing you know [the suspect's statement] "to die in an Islamic way," Shibly told FOX Tampa Bay. "Again, that is completely meaningless for me as a Muslim. You know Islam teaches peace and justice. It does not teach wanton violence which is what this guy was allegedly promoting."

The affiliate did not push back when Shibly expressed concerns over whether the FBI "edged on" Osmakac into a violent plot he otherwise would not have pursued. It's a standard CAIR line used to undermine public confidence in a terror-prosecution even though it has never held up in court. (For more on Shibly, click here.)

Other cases reflect the usual pattern of manipulation by CAIR.

Billoo, who immediately cast doubt on the Tampa case, reacted to the December 2010 arrest of a man who wanted to blow up a Portland Christmas tree lighting event by accusing the FBI of exaggerating the threat because it was "looking for a sensational story." Last fall, CAIR-Michigan chief Dawud Walid downplayed an arrest in an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington because a Drug Enforcement Administration informant played a key role. "If Holder hadn't announced so many 'foiled' plots that were really FBI provocateur led, I'd be more inclined to believe this #Iran plot biz," Walid said in a Twitter post.

Deadline pressure is never easy and reporters know that CAIR rarely turn away a microphone or a chance at appearing in the newspaper. But it's mystifying to see reporters routinely ignore CAIR's duplicity about law enforcement support, coupled with its own documented history in a terrorist-financing network, to accept the group's talking points so blindly.

IPT News


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

MI Chief: Iran, Hezbollah Providing Assad with Weaponry

by Yaakov Katz

Iran and Hezbollah are actively assisting Syrian President Bashar Assad and providing him with weaponry as part of an effort to ensure that he survives in face of growing resistance and protests, head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi said on Wednesday.

Kochavi spoke at the graduation ceremony for IDF intelligence officers.

“The radical axis is trying to retain its power and as time passes, Iran and Hezbollah increase their efforts to help the Assad regime survive by providing intelligence, weaponry, and other capabilities- to the point where they are actively involved,” Kochavi said.

The IDF intelligence chief said it was possible that in the long term the ongoing upheaval in the Middle East would have a positive outcome but in the immediate term “the dangers are increasing.”

Kochavi's comments came a day after Turkish customs officials intercepted four trucks suspected of carrying military equipment from Iran to Syria.

The governor of Kilis province said the trucks were confiscated at the Oncupinar border crossing into Syria after police received information about their cargo, according to Dogan news agency.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Yaakov Katz


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

Share It