Friday, January 27, 2012

Will the Jerusalem Mufti Say Why Muslims don’t eat Ham?

by David Rubin

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, the top Islamic official in Israel, stirred up a storm of protest with a speech he made recently in which he appeared to be calling for the murder of Jews and the comparing of Jews to pigs and apes.

Israel’s President Shimon Peres complained that the Jerusalem Mufti’s recent “Kill the Jews” statements “endanger the lives” of Jews and that action must be taken to prevent similar remarks, which he said can lead to a deterioration of relations between Jews and Arabs. He met with Justice Minister Yaakov Ne’eman, who promised an investigation of the Mufti’s sermon.

The actual statement was the following: “The hour of judgment will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind the stone and behind the tree. The stone and the tree will cry, 'Oh Muslim, Oh Servant of God, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”

This is a famous and highly respected quote from the Hadith, which is the oral tradition of Islam, taken from the teachings of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Muhammad is considered by Muslims around the world to be “The Sunna”, or the model to be followed by all believing Muslims.

In this writer’s opinion, President Peres and others who speak of investigating the Mufti for incitement for reading a portion of Muslim doctrine are barking up the wrong tree. The Mufti is simply quoting from a revered text and he is inadvertently doing us a service, by revealing the violent directives given to Muslims in the Koran and the Hadith for how to deal with Jews and all non-Muslims.

These passages are not disavowed, not by the muftis, not the imams, and not by other practitioners of the so-called “religion of peace” and if we just glance at our neighbors here in the Middle East, we see that these verses are alive and well and ever-present in the doctrines of the Muslim Brotherhood, including its Hamas brethren, the Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and yes, the Fatah terrorist organization, as well.

The Mufti was given a rousing introduction at that rally with the words, "Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs is a war of religion and faith. Long live Fatah!"

This reminds me of a scholarly debate that was held at Al -Ahzar University in Egypt not so long ago, debating the highly respected verse in the Koran, which refers to the Jews and Christians as pigs and monkeys.

As everyone knows, Jews don’t eat pork because of a clear biblical prohibition. But why don’t Muslims? The debate at the university was over the question of whether the Jews of today are direct descendents of the Jews who were turned into pigs by Allah, or if we are imposters. As a result of that debate, Sheikh Ahmed Ali Othman, the supervisor of the Da’awa (Islamic Indoctrination) of the Egyptian Wakf, issued a fatwa (religious ruling) stating that the Jews indeed have their origins in the Jews that Allah turned into pigs and monkeys, and therefore, it is obligatory to kill and slaughter them (the pigs). He went on to say that whoever eats pork, it’s as if he is eating meat from an impure person.

In other words, the problem isn’t a biblical prohibition, nor is it the pig itself, it’s the Jews! He stressed that this ruling is backed by the scholars of Al-Ahzar University in Egypt, but that they are afraid to say so publicly.

The entire commotion over the Jerusalem Mufti’s statements should be a lesson for the nation of Israel. We are negotiating with a people whose very doctrine calls for our destruction and their recent electoral decisions are the manifestation of those beliefs. Their hatred is rooted in an evil ideology and is engrained deep in their religious beliefs and is expressed in their political actions.

The elections of Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists in Egypt, and the Huzbullah in Lebanon should serve as a glaring red warning light that will cause us to put an immediate halt to all “peace” discussions with our Islamic neighbors. We need to start preparing for war, not peace.

David Rubin is a former Mayor of Shiloh, Israel and the Founder and President of the Shiloh Israel Children’s Fund.


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

Fox News Drifting Leftward?

by James Simpson

Cliff Kincaid at America's Survival has launched a call for Fox News to bring back Glenn Beck.

This announcement comes on the heels of troubling revelations about Beck's firing and other disturbing trends at Fox. It quickly got front-page coverage at the Huffington Post, presumably to launch a campaign of ridicule and smears before Kincaid's idea builds momentum. No matter how much they sneer, the left is terrified of Beck.

Beck's firing was the work of George Soros, Kincaid has revealed. Soros funded Color of Change, the organization founded by Van Jones that launched a boycott against Fox after Beck (really Trevor Loudon) outed Jones as a communist. But Soros is also behind the groups Jewish Funds for Justice and Media Matters, both of which attacked Beck as an anti-Semite for his reporting about Soros' activities during WWII. Soros admitted in a 1998 CBS 60 Minutes interview that as a teenager in Hungary, he had participated in the confiscation of Jewish properties but felt no guilt about it.

Beck's demise apparently came some time after an article, published by Jewish Funds for Justice President Simon Greer, criticized Beck for his exposé on Soros. It was followed by a letter signed by hundreds of rabbis that was published in the Wall Street Journal demanding that Fox sanction Beck. Writing in the Jerusalem Post about Beck's departure, Caroline Glick blamed "the liberal American Jewish establishment," who, she said:

... rejected [Beck's] 'outspoken attacks on George Soros,' the 'extremist leftist anti-American and anti-Zionist global financier who has given more than $100 million to radical leftist groups.'

Fox now appears to be working with Soros. The network recently hired the radical-left, openly lesbian Sally Kohn, formerly of the Soros-funded Center for Community Change. The Center for Community Change received $5.8 million from Soros' Open Society Institute between 2004 and 2010. Its former Board Chair is Cecilia Munoz, now President Obama's White House director for intergovernmental affairs. Munoz is also a former National Council of La Raza vice president and former board member of the illegal immigrant advocacy group CASA de Maryland. She has been pushing housing grants to illegals in her White House position.

Sally Kohn has been a frequent guest on leftwing MSNBC host Ed Shultz's Ed Show. She is now a regular "Fox News Contributor." Her worldview is evident in an insufferably smug video where she explains her version of left and "right." You guessed it: we're all Nazis. She, on the other hand, is a "moderate." Sure. Now Fox will actually be paying someone to promote such stuff.

Yet despite Fox's compromises, or perhaps because of them, Soros is continuing his attacks. Geraldo Rivera recently reported that a former ABC colleague, Lowell Bergman, now a professor at Berkeley, is heading up a Soros-funded operation to dig up dirt on Fox. The radical-left ProPublica, which receives funding from Soros and Soros allies Herb and Marion Sandler and Peter Lewis, has teamed up with the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism to dig up dirt on News Corp. properties, including Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post.

In his call for Beck's return, Kincaid said:

Fox should stand up to Soros, not buckle under to his financial pressure. Fox News has been disintegrating since Soros-funded groups forced Glenn Beck off the air. His show was replaced by a program featuring Democratic Party hack Bob Beckel, who regularly insults conservatives.

It's time for Glenn Beck, now on Internet TV, to return to the cable channel so that he can continue his investigative journalism into the rapidly expanding influence of the Soros network of organizations. We urge Fox News CEO Roger Ailes to negotiate Beck's return at the earliest possible date.

Since its inception, Fox News has provided a much-needed change from the uniformly extreme-left bias of other cable and network TV news. Fox sticks out like a sore thumb in the overwhelmingly liberal media spectrum. But the modest voice conservatives enjoy on the nation's only non-radical-left news channel is vulnerable to political pressure. The corporate parent News Corporation is under immense pressure in the United Kingdom over the cell phone-hacking scandal involving its now-closed News of the World tabloid. The founder is aging, the presumptive heir is reportedly liberal, and none of the other cable news channels has moved to compete with FNC for the center-right majority.

The already unfavorable media environment for conservatives may look like the good old days all too soon.

Jim Simpson is a businessman, consultant, and freelance writer. He publishes at American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, Big Government, Big Peace, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily, and others. His regular column is DC Independent Examiner.


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

Soros’s ‘Glee’ Over OWS Violence

by Matthew Vadum

George Soros is delighted that chaos is coming to his adopted homeland.

“In the crisis period, the impossible becomes possible,” the anti-American financier told Newsweek in a recent interview, restating the Alinskyite adage that a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

“I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career,” Soros says. “We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”

Like some of the more dimwitted commentators on economics, Soros loves to spew the usual socialist drivel about so-called market fundamentalism running amok as if he were living during the Cleveland administration. “The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening.”

To people like Soros, the mortgage bubble was caused by the Snidely Whiplashes of the financial world, not by venal real-life politicians like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the monstrous financial blunderers known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Free markets are to blame even though they have never been tried.

As the U.S. economy continues to deteriorate, anger will grow and rioting in the streets is sure to follow. “It’s already started,” he says. “Yes, yes, yes,” Soros adds “almost gleefully,” Newsweek writer John Arlidge editorializes.

For years Soros has longed for an opportunity to transform America into a socialist state. “The system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it,” he said in 2009 as he created the Institute for New Economic Thinking with a $50 million endowment.

This Communist sympathizer co-founded the ultra-secretive Democracy Alliance, a billionaires’ club that funds leftist political infrastructure. He has said that European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now” and favors American decline. Soros praises Red China effusively, saying the totalitarian nation has “a better-functioning government than the United States.”

Soros now counts on the armies of street thugs that comprise the “Occupy” movement to ramp up the violence. He praises Occupy Wall Street as “an inchoate, leaderless manifestation of protest,” disingenuously distancing himself from the supposedly spontaneous uprising.

The movement will spread. It has “put on the agenda issues that the institutional left has failed to put on the agenda for a quarter of a century,” he says.

In a sense Soros is right. It’s impossible to turn on the radio or the TV without hearing today’s issues framed in Marxist terms, as pitting the “1 percent” against the “99 percent.”

In an impressive feat of cognitive dissonance Soros holds himself blameless for the state of the economy.

“Unrestrained competition can drive people into actions that they would otherwise regret,” said the convicted inside-trader whose speculative adventures have harmed perhaps hundreds of millions of people worldwide. “The tragedy of our current situation is the unintended consequence of imperfect understanding. A lot of the evil in the world is actually not intentional. A lot of people in the financial system did a lot of damage without intending to.”

When asked if the financial wizards who played a role in the economic meltdown were not just wrong but evil Soros replies, “That’s correct.”

In other words, this man who has described himself as “some kind of god” blames everyone else on Wall Street for the current economic mess.

Meanwhile, Soros has virtually admitted he plans to flood this year’s campaign with money to help Democratic candidates.

In case the economy doesn’t completely implode, Soros is counting on Democrats to help administer the coup de grace.

Matthew Vadum


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

British Organization Backing Religious Intolerance

by Shiraz Maher

It is a year since the governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, was gunned down by his own close protection officer in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.

A secular politician who championed women's rights and tried to reform the country's repressive religious ordinances, Taseer riled religious fundamentalists. The point of no return was finally crossed after he took up the case of Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy on questionable evidence.

While trying to secure her freedom, Taseer also declared his opposition to the constitutional discrimination against the Ahmadi/Qadyani sect, currently declared heretical by the Pakistani state.

The fallout was surreal. Supposedly educated and liberal minded lawyers who had brazenly defied President Musharraf when he imposed martial law now garlanded the assassin, Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, outside the courthouse. The youth section of the Islamabad bar association even offered to represent Qadri pro bono. In the aftermath of Qadri's arrest, militant groups rallied thousands of supporters along the dense and twisting streets of Lahore where his family lived.

The message was simple: any politician who dared challenge the blasphemy law could expect a similar fate.

Since Taseer's assassination, an already sour case has turned even worse. Pakistani newspapers report that the man who originally accused Asia Bibi of blasphemy, Qari Salam, has had a change of heart. Describing him as a "guilty prayer leader," the Express Tribune notes:

At the forefront of a popular, polarizing case, Qari Salam ostensibly regrets filing a blasphemy charge against an impoverished Christian woman, Aasia Bibi.

The source of his guilt -- realisation that the case was not based on facts but on hyped religious emotions and personal bias of some village women.

Aasia has been languishing in Sheikhupura jail since a sessions court awarded her death sentence for insulting Prophet Muhammad. [sic]

Salam confided in friends that he was thinking of discontinuing the case against Asia and that he would not attend an appeal hearing in the Lahore High Court later this year. This might have presented the most obvious means of diffusing the tensions surrounding this highly emotional case.

Instead, a British organization has insisted that Salam proceed with the case. The leader of the Khatm-e-Nabuwat group (whose name means "Seal of the Prophet") dispatched his son to the Nankana district of Punjab, where the original offence is alleged to have taken place and where Salam currently lives. "We will chase her [Asia] through hell … don't worry about the money, [we're] hiring best lawyers," Salam was told.

That a British organization –- whose members are presumably British citizens – should put its weight behind championing such religious intolerance and persecution anywhere is a scandal.

To do so in a country already crippled by millenarian extremism, where such matters cost innocent lives, is unconscionable. How bitterly ironic that young Pakistani lawyers are risking their lives to offer Asia her most basic of human rights, legal representation in court, while British Muslims living in a free and secular country are actively bankrolling attempts to execute her.

The Khatm-e-Nabuwat is not an insignificant group. It enjoys close connections with the Pakistani establishment and has previously met with Pakistan's High Commissioner in London. From London, it promotes a deeply sectarian and divisive message -– particularly against Ahmadis, the persecuted group Taseer had tried to support before his assassination.

The group's website describes Ahmadi's as, "nothing but a gang of traitors, apostates and infidels."

One of its preachers in the London borough of Newham warned that if Pakistan's blasphemy laws were repealed, "the 1953 Lahore agitation against the Qadianis will be repeated in the streets once more. The streets and roads of Lahore were filled with blood in that agitation." The 1953 attack to which he refers was a sectarian massacre of Ahmadis in Pakistan.

The Central Convener of the Khatm-e-Nabuwat group, Abdul Latif Khalid Cheema, who resides in Pakistan, has regularly visited London and spoken at events for the group, spreading their sectarian message. In Pakistan, days after Taseer's assassination, he was among the radical leaders glorifying the governor's death and condemning Asia Bibi. Small wonder then that his group should now be financially supporting the case against her.

British Muslims supporting Khatm-e-Nabuwat are now culpable in her fate and, more generally, to the spread of sectarian violence both in Pakistan and the United Kingdom. A spokesman for the Ahmadi community warned:

We appeal to the authorities to nip this in the bud; otherwise this campaign of hatred against Ahmadi Muslims today will tomorrow grow into a threat against other moderate Muslims and indeed the wider society.

The government should investigate those fomenting unrest abroad and, where possible, bring prosecutions against the individuals concerned. This might include investigating possible breaches of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which makes it an offense to intimidate and persecute individuals on the basis of their race or creed.

Shiraz Maher


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

European Court of Human Rights Protects Arch-Terrorist

by Mohshin Habib

The radical Islamic cleric – an iconic figure to the Jihadists and widely believed to have been right hand to Osama Bin Laden in Europe -- Abu Qatada (original name, Omar Othman) won his appeal at the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights on January 16 against being deported from the UK to Jordan, where he has been convicted in absentia of terror two major terrorism plots.

Abu Qatada arrived in Britain on a forged United Arab Emirates passport in 1993, and has been in and out of prison since 2002 when he was arrested under the anti-terrorism law. Before that he was caught red-handed by the British police with an envelope for the Chechnyan Mujahdieein [Islamic holy warriors] containing 805 British pounds. He has been a focal point of extremist fund-raising, recruitment and propaganda.

The ruling of European Court of Human Rights not only thwarted British judgments and principles on deportation, but also ignored the British Government's bilateral agreements -- known as Memoranda of Understanding -- on deportation requests that had been established with Lebanon, Jordan, Ethiopia and Morocco. British Home Secretary Theresa May reacted by saying, "I am disappointed that the court has made this ruling."

The British government can make a last appeal against the ruling within three months; if it does not appeal, the terror cleric will be free to leave Belmarsh Prison where he is currently being held.

The British judgment was thwarted by European judges, whose British president, Sir Nicolas Bratza, has never held a senior post in UK. Tory MP Dominic Raab correctly said "The Strasbourg court has imposed a new category of restrictions on our ability to deport serious criminals and suspected terrorists. Placing the burden on Britain to ensure foreign criminals and terrorist suspects are tried according to UK standards in their home countries will impede our capacity to deport those who pose a risk in this country. This is a classic example of mission creep, with judicial legislation from Strasbourg riding roughshod over decisions that should be determined by UK courts."

Abu Qatada went on the run after 9/11 but was arrested in 2002. Three years back, an Englishman, Edwin Dyer, was kidnapped by the nomads in Northwest Africa and sent to the notorious Al-Qaeda militants based in Mali, a country in which Muslims are dominant. The militants threatened to kill Dyer if the British government refused to release Abu Qatada from prison and hand over a ransom. The British Government, however, has a long-standing policy against negotiating with terrorists. So the Al-Qaeda militants killed Edwin Dyer.

In December 2005, Abu Qatada made a video appeal to the kidnappers of another Englishman, peace activist Norman Kember in Iraq. Kember later faced a backlash after agreeing to help secure the release of Qatada, one of the world's most dangerous terror suspects. Kember,in his 70s, was later rescued by the SAS in March 2006.

Abu Qatada clearly has profound connections with terror networks, even though has UK failed to file any specific charge against him. The ruling of European Court, however, will never be able to assure the world that there will be no more bombings, terror attacks, kidnappings and dozens of innocent people slaughtered in which Abu Qatada is not involved.

Mohshin Habib


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

Steven Emerson:The New York Times Collaborates with Hamas Front Group to Suppress the Truth

by Steven Emerson


  • The New York Times cites the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a credible source, while continuing its policy of never mentioning that CAIR was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, and operates as a Hamas support group.
  • NYT also suppressed the facts that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator 2007 Holy Land Foundation conspiracy trial, which resulted in the FBI cutting off all formal contact with the group and that an FBI official has described CAIR as a "front for Hamas."
  • NYT primarily relies on two sources for comments: Zead Ramadan of CAIR-NY, and Faiza Patel, of the Brennan Center of Justice, but which the Times deliberately fails to mention that both of whom represent organizations that have repeatedly refused to condemn Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups or have blamed the FBI for fabricating Islamic terror plots.
  • An IPT investigator videotaped Ramadan at a press event refusing to answer her questions as to whether Hamas is a terrorist organization.
  • The Times cites CAIR's Zead Ramadan as a legitimate source of criticism of the film but fails to report that Ramadan contributed $1,000 to Viva Palestina, an organization led by noted anti-Semite George Galloway, that supports Hamas financially and politically, in 2010.
  • Patel of the Brennan Center has long been a critic of law enforcement's attempts to counter terrorism, even denouncing the NYPD's operation that resulted in the arrest of accused lone-wolf jihadist Jose Pimentel, charged with plotting to bomb U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • The Times failed to report that their only two sources for their story--CAIR and the Brennan Center, who are made to seem independent and impartial are actual apologists for Islamic terrorist groups. In fact, the Times failed to report that the Brennan Center received CAIR's "Safe While Free" Award in 2009.
  • The Times failed to report one actual flaw in the film but based its demonization of the film based largely on emails it did not disclose that it received from CAIR, a Hamas front group

In a front-page story on Tuesday discussing the documentary film, "The Third Jihad," and its use by the NYPD in training, The New York Times once again collaborates with radical Islamists to help shape the news. The article revealed the newspaper's bias, from the vaguely threatening headline – "In Police Training, a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims" - and by relying on those who are not simply opposed to the film, but have previously demonstrated their support of radical Islamists by both word and by association with similarly aligned groups.

The Times' article, written by Michael Powell, primarily relies on the opinions of Zead Ramadan of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' New York chapter (CAIR-NY) and Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center, both of whom aver that the NYPD acted questionably by showing city police the film, to present the case. Ramadan asserts that the movie "defiled our faith and misrepresented everything we stood for." Patel stated that, "The police have shown an explosive documentary to its officers and simply stonewalled us."

The problem with Ramadan and Patel, left unsaid by the newspaper, is found in their words and associations. As has been its longstanding policy, the Times never mentions that CAIR is a Hamas support group, created by the Muslim Brotherhood to present and promote its interests. (Of course, even if one day the Times did acknowledge that, it would still have to break another self-imposed taboo of having never once called Hamas a terrorist organization.)

In contrast to the newspaper, the film does reveal how CAIR was created shortly after a secret 1993 meeting in Philadelphia involving members of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. The goal was for CAIR to operate as a pro-Hamas lobbying group, without being publicly linked to Hamas.

The FBI later cited that evidence, which was used to help name CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation conspiracy trial, in explaining why it cut off formal communication with CAIR. "Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS," FBI Assistant Director Richard Powers wrote in April 2009, "the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner."

But CAIR refused to address the documentary's substance. Instead, the group issued a press release quoting Ramadan comparing it to the Nazi-era film "Triumph of the Will" and the silent movie "Birth of a Nation." Ramadan voiced his concerns to NYPD chief Raymond Kelly, who said he would "take care of it" and department spokesman Browne denounced the film as "wacky."

All of this was left out of the article on Tuesday, which also failed to inform readers about the questionable backgrounds of the movie's critics. The story said nothing about the fact that in 2010 Ramadan contributed $1,000 to Viva Palestina, an organization founded by the notorious anti-Semite George Galloway, and which supports Hamas financially and politically, or that CAIR-NY in 2008 issued a statement calling for the release of Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to contribute funds to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist group.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism attended a Dec. 15, 2011 press conference held by a group calling itself the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, and asked if he considered Hamas a terrorist organization. Ramadan was asked point-blank: "Do you consider Hamas a terrorist organization?"

[click above to view the video or click here to see the video and a full transcript]

Ramadan proceeded to tap-dance around the question. He replied by stating that, "Islam, myself, and I think all people of conscience, are opposed to all terrorism in all of its forms against all people of the world. Anyone who is innocent that is killed, it's not the way of the Islamic people or people who stand for liberty and justice. Thank you very much."

Our investigator pressed forward, asking Ramadan about Hamas specifically. Ramadan refused to answer, stating that his concern was "the American Bill of Rights situation that we now have."

Ramadan then proceeded to attack the questioner. "You want to take our foreign policy issue and make it the number one issue in the world. No. The issue we have right here is the problem we have in America, and we're eroding," he said.

Ramadan added that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had gone to Myanmar to talk about the erosion of human rights and appeared to be "bringing that back here" and "showing how to erode our civil rights here."

Again, our investigator noted that Ramadan was evading the question about Hamas.

"He already answered," moderator Imam Talib Abdur Rashid shot back. "You just didn't get the answer you wanted."

Over and over, CAIR spends a lot of effort urging Muslim Americans not to cooperate with law enforcement. Speaking at CAIR-NY's "Annual Banquet and Leadership Conference" in April 2011, board member Lamis Deek implored her audience not to speak to the FBI, NYPD or other law enforcement agencies.

"It's very important to not speak to law enforcement of any type, not just FBI agents," she said. "We're talking about the New York Police Department, we're talking about tax agents, we're talking about everybody."

Deek said that if the FBI shows up claiming it has a warrant for someone's arrest, they need to ask to see the warrant because "Mossad" agents had been "go[ing] around pretending to be FBI." She warned that "they" (it was unclear whether she was referring to the Mossad, the FBI, or both) will threaten to "seriously blackmail" people.

Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center - which is sufficiently in accord with CAIR that in 2009 it received CAIR's 'Safe While Free' Award - offers complementary positions. At a Nov. 17 forum in Washington entitled "Islamist Radicalization, Myth or Reality," Patel appeared to suggest that any effort by law enforcement to look for signs of radicalism in the Muslim community was doomed to failure. "You can't expect the community to behave as your partner if at the same time you're subjecting them to intense surveillance and monitoring," she said.

And if Muslims were in denial about the existence of radical Islamist ideologies in their communities, perhaps law enforcement should defer to them, Patel added: "If the community doesn't believe that radicalization or extremism or extremist views or extremist ideologies is (sic) a problem in their own community, then you should also understand that maybe they know what they're talking about, and not be spending police resources this way."

In a Huffington Post op-ed, Patel denounced the NYPD's operation that resulted in the arrest of accused lone-wolf jihadist Jose Pimentel, charged with plotting to bomb U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It should not come as a surprise that The New York Times left all of this critical information out of Tuesday's article, given the paper's long history of covering for CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations. As we have noted before, Times reporters like Andrea Elliott and columnists like Nicholas Kristof have published stories glossing over the radical background of Salafist cleric Yasir Qadhi, dean of academic affairs at the Houston-based AlMaghrib Institute, and whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood's radical record and hostility towards Israel.

Last December, after Kristof penned a column in which he claimed that Brotherhood officials in Egypt had been behaving responsibly, Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy described Kristof as "credulous" about the Brotherhood. After interviewing some of the organization's members who had just been elected to Parliament, Trager wrote in the New Republic that, "Far from being moderate, these future leaders share a commitment to theocratic rule, complete with a limited view of civil liberties and an unmistakable antipathy for the West."

Nonetheless, the NYPD, apparently responding to pressure from the media and perhaps from politicians, including Mayor Bloomberg, who denounced the film, stopped showing the documentary.

Somebody [at the NYPD] exercised some terrible judgment," Bloomberg said Tuesday. "As soon as they found out about it, they stopped it." The mayor gave no indication that he had actually seen the film.

Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and narrator of the film, took exception to Bloomberg's comments. "I could not disagree more," he said. "The fact that Bloomberg made such a comment without providing any evidence that the film was in error indicates that the mayor's comment was "careless," Jasser said.

Bloomberg's ignorance should not be surprising given his administration's friendly relationship with CAIR-NY. In May 2009, for example, the mayor's education policy advisor, Fatima Ashraf, hosted the Islamist group's annual banquet and fundraiser, where she gushed praise for CAIR-NY. Ashraf called it "a shining star among Muslim organizations in the country," adding that "their sincerity and motivation" and "genuine desire to make positive change for Muslims is what really makes them stand out."

In similar fashion, Bloomberg's uninformed position is mirrored by the Times article, which does not provide any examples, or specific information of any kind, to back up criticism of the film.

The article hints in rather foreboding fashion that the film is an effort to scare people about the threat posed by radical Islam: "Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying near the White House."

Even in this brief description of the film, The New York Times got it wrong. According to Clarion Films, which produced the documentary, the photograph of the White House with an Islamic flag on top was taken from Islamist sources, not altered by the filmmakers.

Steven Emerson


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

Barry Rubin: Israel Isn’t Going to Attack Iran and Neither Will the United States

by Barry Rubin

The radio superhero The Shadow had the power to “cloud men’s minds.” But nothing clouds men’s minds like anything that has to do with Jews or Israel. This year’s variation on that theme is the idea that Israel is about to attack Iran. Such a claim repeatedly appears in the media. Some have criticized Israel for attacking Iran and turning the Middle East into a cauldron of turmoil (not as if the region needs any help in that department) despite the fact that it hasn’t even happened.

On the surface, of course, there is apparent evidence for such a thesis. Israel has talked about attacking Iran and one can make a case for such an operation. Yet any serious consideration of this scenario — based on actual research and real analysis rather than what the uninformed assemble in their own heads or Israeli leaders sending a message to create a situation where an attack isn’t necessary — is this: It isn’t going to happen.

Indeed, the main leak from the Israeli government, by an ex-intelligence official who hates Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been that the Israeli government already decided not to attack Iran. He says that he worries this might change in the future but there’s no hint that this has happened or will happen. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has publicly denied plans for an imminent attack as have other senior government officials.

Of course, one might joke that the fact that Israeli leaders talk about attacking Iran is the biggest proof that they aren’t about to do it. But Israel, like other countries, should be subject to rational analysis. Articles written by others are being spun as saying Israel is going to attack when that’s not what they are saying. I stand by my analysis and before December 31 we will see who was right. I’m not at all worried about stating very clearly that Israel is not going to go to war with Iran.

So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way – indeed, the only way Israel has — to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanction and diplomatic efforts. If one believes that somehow pushing Tehran into slowing down or stopping its nuclear weapons drive is the only alternative to war, that greatly concentrates policymakers’ minds. Personally, I don’t participate — consciously or as an instrument — in disinformation campaigns, even if they are for a good cause.

Regarding Ronen Bergman’s article in the New York Times, I think the answer is simple: Israeli leaders are not announcing that they are about to attack Iran. They are sending a message that the United States and Europe should act more decisively so that Israel does not feel the need to attack Iran in the future. That is a debate that can be held but it does not deal with a different issue: Is Israel about to attack Iran? The answer is “no.”

Why should Israel attack Iran now? Because one day Iran will have nuclear weapons that might be used to attack Israel.

Does Iran have such deliverable weapons now? No.

If Israel attacks Iran now, does that mean Iran would never get nuclear weapons? No, it would merely postpone that outcome for at most a year or two more than it would take otherwise. And then it would ensure an all-out, endless bloody war thereafter.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear installations, would that ensure future peace between the two countries? Would it make it less likely that the Tehran regime uses such weapons to strike at Israel in the future? No. On the contrary, it would have the exact opposite effect. Again, it would ensure direct warfare between the two countries and make Iran’s use of nuclear weapons against Israel 100 percent probable.

Why is this different from Israeli attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities? Because in those cases a single strike by a small number of planes would be sufficient to destroy a single building. And the two regimes, precisely because of the strategic situation, would and could not respond. And if you believe Iran’s regime to be so totally irrational, then factor that point into how it would respond to a direct attack like that.

If Israel attacks Iran, would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Iranian retaliation against oil shipping and terrorist attacks would lead (not overly brave and already appeasement-oriented) Western governments to blame Israel, not Iran. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today. The idea that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq makes an Israeli attack more attractive is absurd. U.S. forces and interests are in the Gulf and an Israeli attack would — according to the Obama administration — endanger U.S. interests there.

Would such an attack by Israel be likely to succeed even in doing maximum damage to Iranian facilities? No, a great deal could go wrong, especially against multiple hardened targets at the planes’ maximum range. Planes could get lost or crash or have to turn back. Planes arriving over the targets could miss, or accidentally drop their bombs on civilians, or simply not do much damage. Many targets would remain unscathed.

Additional waves of attack would be needed in a situation where Iran would be better prepared to shoot down the planes. And the second wave would face huge Western opposition. But it would be too late either way since Israel would now be in a full war with Iran.

So given all of these factors, why should Israel possibly attack Iran? It is an absurd idea.

The counter-argument is this: Iran’s regime is irrational and wants to destroy Israel even if the resulting counterattack would kill millions of Iranians and wreck the country. Yet while that analysis should not be totally ruled out, it is far from a certainty. Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons to make itself invulnerable to the costs of its non-nuclear subversion and support for terrorist and revolutionary forces. And a lot of what the Iranian leadership says is demagoguery to build support for itself at home, and to convince the masses to ignore its incompetence and mismanagement.

Moreover, while you may have met Iranians whose grasp of reality is — let me put this politely — somewhat creative and even though the Iran regime evinces an extremist anti-Western, anti-American, and antisemitic ideology, the actual history of Iran (or more narrowly of the Iranian regime) does not show it to be an irrational actor. In other words, Iran tries to implement highly radical, nasty, and terrorist-supporting actions in a careful and cautious manner. Islamist Iran did not invade any of its neighbors and it has not taken big foreign policy risks. In saying this, I’m not being naive or ignoring what Iran’s leaders say or want but focusing on what they actually do.

Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? So it can go on sponsoring terrorism, spreading radical ideology, killing Americans through covert actions, and building a sphere of influence without anyone doing anything about it. In other words, the real threat is Iran’s conventional foreign policy safeguarded by nuclear weapons. Are there precedents for this? Sure. More recently, Pakistan and North Korea; going back further in time, the Stalinist USSR.

Yet given the points made above, even the Iran-as-irrational analysis — and even assuming it to be correct, the probability of being right about Iran ever trying to launch a nuclear attack is far lower than 100 percent — does not justify an Israeli attack at this time.

And, finally, Israel has other options. The alternative is this: As the Iranian regime works hard to get nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying them, Israel uses the time to build a multi-level defensive and offensive capability. These layers include:

U.S. early warning stations and anti-missile missile installations in the Gulf; Israeli missile-launching submarines; Israeli long-range planes whose crews have rehearsed and planned for strikes at Iranian facilities; different types of anti-missile missiles capable of knocking down the small number of missiles Iran could fire simultaneously; covert operations, possibly including computer viruses and assassinations, to slow down Iran’s development of nuclear weapons; improved intelligence; help to the Iranian opposition (though the idea of “regime change” in the near future is a fantasy); and other measures.

If and when there was a clear Iranian threat to attack Israel, then Israel could launch a preemptive assault. And if no such threat ever materializes, Israel need never attack. Any future Iran-Israel war will happen if Iran’s regime makes it unavoidable, not in theory but in actual practice.

Note that attacking a limited number of missiles and launch facilities, that must be located closer to Israel within Iranian territory, is easy. Attacking multiple nuclear facilities buried deep in the ground anywhere in Iran is hard.

Ah, but what if Iran gives small nuclear devices to terrorists? Well ask yourself two simple questions:

1. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that this didn’t happen? Answer: Not at all.

2. Would an Israeli attack on Iran ensure that Iran would definitely give nuclear devices to terrorists and try to strike against Israel as quickly and as frequently as possible? Absolutely yes.

Does an Israeli strategy of not launching an attack assume that Iran’s regime is “rational” and “peace-loving” and will be deterred by Israel’s ability to strike back? Absolutely not. Indeed, quite the opposite. No such assumption is required. Israel will simply be ready and alert based on the assumption that Iran might attack some day. But such a war, however possible, is not inevitable. And since Israel cannot prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons by attacking, there is no point in doing so.

Whether you hope for or fear an Israeli attack on Iran, it isn’t going to happen.

At the same time, a new theme in the America mass media is that the United States is headed toward war with Iran either by electing a Republican president, the inevitable weight of events, or through having sanctions so effective that a cornered Iran will attack. The fact is that neither country wants to have an armed conflict and such a battle is easily avoidable. Ironically, those who claim Iran is going to attack are using the crazy Tehran regime concept that they reject when it comes to nuclear weapons. And the “watch out for the warmongering Republicans” slogan is part of the election campaign.

Warning against tough sanctions is a way of avoiding tough sanctions. The argument boils down to saying that sanctions better not hurt Iran or else the consequences will be disastrous. We will be hearing the same argument soon about Hamas, Hizballah, Egypt, and maybe even Libya or Turkey. The effort to use U.S. leverage will be said as triggering war or an anti-American explosion among Muslims. Thus, for example, whatever the Egyptian regime does toward Israel or its own people, we will be told that reducing U.S. aid is not an option.

Going to war with Iran is a mistake and the hysteria on this issue, including claims the regime is about to fall, that it can easily be brought down, or that an Iranian nuclear attack on others is inevitable, should be reined in. That’s precisely why sanctions and other measures should be applied to the fullest extent possible.

And there isn’t going to be any war unless Iran’s regime tries to use them or makes a big mistake. It could, as Egypt did in 1967 or Saddam Hussein did in the late 1990s, rattle “nuclear sabers” enough to convince Israel that an attack is imminent. Even if it did not intend to attack, Tehran could push too hard and trigger an Israeli attack. By the same token, some Iranian attack on Western forces or on oil traffic in the Gulf — more likely triggered by a local commander without regime permission — could produce a slide into war with the United States.

But here’s what’s most likely going to happen: Iran will get nuclear weapons. Iran is not going to stop its nuclear drive (though it could stop short of actually building bombs or warheads ready to go). Western policies are not so bold or adventurous as to go to war; Israel’s interests and capabilities do not make attacking sensible. An attack would not solve but increase problems.

And no matter how crazy you think Iran’s regime is, the inescapable predicable threat is not high enough to force policymakers to risk getting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people killed, when the chance of avoiding such an outcome is very high. I am not talking here about Hizballah firing a few rockets (Hamas might well do nothing) but a long term war that would guarantee the use of Iranian nuclear weapons.

PS: One reader has asked and others are no doubt thinking: But don’t you have to stop the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon being handed to terrorists against Israel or some how against the United States? Let’s be clear: An attack on Iranian facilities will not prevent this from happening and indeed will make such an event more likely than it would be otherwise. You can think up any scenario you want but if there is a war going on the Tehran regime or various parts of it has a much greater incentive to order or allow nuclear weapons to be used when it obtains them within a year or two of the initial attack.

Barry Rubin is director of the GLORIA Center, at IDC, and editor of MERIA Journal. His new book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press.


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

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Why Contemporary Western Elites Don’t Understand the World

by Barry Rubin

One of the benefits of spending much of my time talking to people from around the world is getting an original, fresh perspective on the United States, its policies, politics, and political culture.

Recently, I had a discussion with a brilliant academic who had grown up in a Communist country, has spent a lot of time in the United States, and studies this kind of thing. To explain how the U.S. conception of the world is shaped, he used the phrase “engineering mentality.”

The “engineering mentality” is one of the main factors in America’s brilliant success. I take it to mean that one approaches problems with a can-do (another American phrase) style. One rules out extraneous, distracting cultural and historical factors in order to figure out a practical way to fix things. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! Construct buildings, roads, and bridges; invent new products; revolutionize production methods. Don’t be intimidated by the traditional; don’t be afraid of change; just because it has never been done before doesn’t mean it cannot be done now. Forget about ideology or preconceived notions. Just get the job done as quickly, cheaply, and efficiently as possible.

Such energetic and fearless pragmatism conquered a continent, industrialized an agrarian nation, and won wars. A century ago it allowed America to turn disparate ethnic and religious groups into a single nation. In recent decades, with remarkably little violence or disruption it broke down long-prevalent racial, gender, and other barriers.

In the face of all of these achievements, the currently prevalent view that America has a shameful history and is a failed society is ridiculous, notwithstanding past shortcomings.

But how does this “engineering” approach deal with the outside world? Not so well. By ignoring historical, cultural, ideological, religious, and other factors, one isn’t going to understand other countries. You can try to understand them or get them to change (“just do it!”), but these interpretations don’t work and the efforts to change fail. The idea that American know-how will go into a country like Iraq and Afghanistan and succeed in “nation-building” is, to say the least, greatly exaggerated.

How have American leaders in the past found ways to overcome this “engineering” bias? By acknowledging differences, comprehending that other countries and peoples have their own orientation, worldview, and culture. Far from being something objectionable, the idea of American exceptionalism was a very useful concept; knowing that the United States has been more successful than other countries was an important element in dealing with reality because one then had to ask why America had done so well which also implied why others had not followed this pattern.

For example, the burden of tradition in other societies was too powerful to permit easy change. Class distinctions were more rigid. Ideas and institutions that might have worked in the past were now blocking development. Change had to come from inside. Backwardness was not the result of external oppression but internal stagnation. All of these points are the opposite of the radical ideas currently prevailing in the West.

In contrast, America was a new society, an experiment, a relatively blank canvas on which, for example, the Founders had learned from the failures of democracy elsewhere and created a totally new kind of system.

How, in this context, can we understand the problem of racism? Racism is not thinking you are better than others. It is thinking that you are innately and forever better, that others cannot better themselves for reasons eternally set by biology. Racism is not thinking your society is superior. It is in failing to understand that others can take the elements that have worked for you, adapt them for themselves, and combine them with the best indigenous elements.

Racism is not believing there are differences, it is in failing to understand that up until now, at least, there are valid reasons — rooted in conditions, history, and many other factors — for those differences. Or, to put it graphically, racism was in thinking that Japan or China or others could not become modern, developed, and even democratic countries. But not in understanding that such success required time and change.

Racism would be to believe that Muslims are innately doomed to have unstable, undemocratic societies. But to understand that dramatic change — including in the ways Islam is effectively interpreted — is needed to achieve those goals is in no way racist.

And despite the importance of recognizing differences, it is perfectly appropriate and not the least bit racist to advocate a long-term convergence in terms of general goals. To hope that all of humanity can some day enjoy real human rights, freedom of speech, true democracy (and not just electing a dictatorship at the ballot box), equal treatment for women, and other such features of modern Western civilization is also not the least bit racist. It is the road that many in the Third World — and especially outside of the Middle East — want to take. Incidentally, if they yearn for such a society — with whatever adaptations to local history and improvements to avoid the problems faced by the West — isn’t that the best endorsement of all for Western democratic, free enterprise-based societies?

Today, however, racism has been so defined by the official culture and ideology as outlawing Americans’ pride in their own society or policymakers taking ideological-cultural-historical differences into account. In other words, it is supposedly “racist” to say that change is needed at all for progress or to suggest that only a victory by real moderate and liberal forces can bring better lives for people. This distortion encourages forgetting that there are powerful reactionary forces — often pretending to be leftist or legitimate or “progressive” — that favor stagnation or, worse, intensifying the mistakes that are holding back these societies.

When combined with America’s “engineering mentality,” this produces blindness and hence disastrous policy.

Ironically, the ”highly sophisticated” politically correct, Multiculturalism (how ironically named since it basically denies the conflicts among cultures) view has much in common with the worst American provincialism of the past. Everyone in the world is “just like” us — to think otherwise is a thought crime — which often means in practice to assert that they only care about their material well-being.

Yet in sharp contradiction to this supposed homogeneity, you are not allowed to challenge their customs. Treating women like chattel, for example, is their equally valid way of life that we cannot criticize. A Muslim Brotherhood leader must be moderate and pragmatic, because to define anyone in the Third World as bad must be racism! Only we are eligible to be the “bad guys.”

In the past, American thinking was far more sophisticated. Take “modernization theory.” In the 1950s and 1960s, Western social scientists asked how Third World countries could go from being poor and underdeveloped to becoming prosperous and stable. That was a totally “anti-racist” viewpoint. Anyone could succeed if they were only willing to implement the proper combination of internal reforms and changes.

There needed to be urbanization, better education, more democracy and citizen rights, a larger degree of private enterprise, and more equal treatment of women. Along with this were a series of economic steps, starting with import substitution and leading to industrialization. While modernization theory wasn’t completely accurate, it did offer a good description of what happened first in Japan and then in places like South Korea, Singapore, India, and China.

Today, the main theory — and one that Barack Obama wrote in his books — is that “underdevelopment” is merely the result of Western exploitation. Such a view, aside from its political implications, will do nothing to help countries improve themselves.

It makes the West a cheerleader for stagnation and reactionary forces. Endless aid is handed over to go either into subsidies to keep regimes in power or into the elites’ Swiss bank accounts. Such an approach is the welfare state on a global basis, with all the failings of that system.

So while America’s engineering approach — just do what works best — may be part of the problem for the United States in dealing with Third World countries, the far bigger problem is the contemporary refusal to discuss what’s wrong with other societies. That also implies understanding what’s right about America and the nature of America’s own problems.

As with so many issues, neither academia nor the mass media nor the policy elite is even discussing the need for an honest discussion of differences among countries or the road to development for the Third World. Yet without doing so, the world becomes incomprehensible and U.S. foreign policy fails.

Barry Rubin


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

The New Hypocritical Stance of of Mahmoud Abbas

by Khaled Abu Toameh

The Palestinian Authority has expressed outrage over the arrest of Hamas officials in the West Bank by the Israel Defense Forces -- even though the Palestinian Authority itself has also been arresting Hamas supporters in the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority claims that the Israeli arrests are aimed at sabotaging the "reconciliation" process between Fatah and Hamas. But the truth is that the Israeli clampdown on Hamas in the West Bank is first and foremost designed to help Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

The Palestinian Authority is fighting Hamas in the West Bank because it fears that the Islamist movement is working to undermine Abbas and Fayyad. Israel is fighting Hamas to prevent terror attacks and stop the movement from toppling the Palestinian Authority.

Abbas alone cannot fight Hamas; he needs Israel's help -- and gets it. He knows that without the Israeli security crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, his regime would not be able to remain in power for one day.

Still, this has not stopped the Palestinian Authority from endorsing a hypocritical stance by condemning the arrests of Hamas figures and urging the international community to intervene with Israel to secure their release. Instead of condemning Israel, the Palestinian Authority should be thanking the IDF for making an effort to prevent Hamas from seizing control over the West Bank.

In the past two months, Palestinian security forces have arrested more than 70 Palestinians on suspicion of membership in Hamas. Dozens of others have been summoned for interrogation by various branches of the Palestinian security forces.

According to Hamas sources, thousands of Palestinians have been arrested by Palestinian security forces in the West Bank over the past four years. At least two detainees have died as a result of torture in Palestinian prisons.

The Palestinian Authority has also fired thousands of school teachers and government employees suspected of being affiliated with Hamas and other opposition groups.

The Palestinian Authority has, in addition, closed several institutions in the West Bank, such as charities and media offices funded by Hamas, for the same reason. This effort was undertaken as part of Abbas's efforts to undermine the Hamas infrastructure in the West Bank: Palestinian Authority officials believe that these institutions were being used as a cover for terror activities.

All this has been going on despite the talk about "reconciliation" between Hamas and Fatah -- the ruling party in the West Bank.

But when Israel last week arrested Abdel Aziz Dweik, speaker of the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Legislative Council, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was the first to condemn the move and call for his immediate release.

Moreover, Abbas instructed his chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, to present an official request to Israel to release Dweik and 20 other senior Hamas officials held in Israeli prisons.

At the same time that Erekat was submitting the request to Israeli envoy Issac Molcho, Abbas's security forces were rounding up university students in Ramallah, Nablus and Hebron for allegedly being affiliated with Hamas.

While those arrested by israel are permitted to see a lawyer and family members, detainees in Palestinian prisons often complain about torture and most are denied the right to consult with an attorney.

Why does the Western media keep reinforcing these double-standards instead of exposing them? Their collusion in concealing the truth only plays into the hands of the dictators and extremists.

Khaled Abu Toameh


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

Turkish Women Victims of "Permitted" Rape

by Veli Sirin

At the beginning of the New Year, as reported in the daily newspaper Haber Türk (Turkish News) of January 6, 2012, E.D., a 25-year old man in the northwestern Turkish city of Bolu, took his 11-year old "wife," Z.Ç., to the hospital because she suffered pain. The news story identified the couple only by their initials. The doctor diagnosed the girl as eight months pregnant by her "husband." Whether the girl was in a condition to consent to sexual relations is obviously questionable. One would more probably assume she was raped by the 25-year old.

Marriage to an 11-year old girl is illegal in Turkey, but such cases are a constant in the country's life.

The doctor called for the girl to be kept in the hospital for in-patient care, but her "spouse" refused, and the couple returned to their village, Alpagut, near Bolu. The hospital released them after the girl signed a document declaring her wish to leave the facility.

Two days afterward, the governor of Bolu province stated that he had spoken with health authorities who assured him the girl must have been older than 11, given her bone structure.

E.D. and Z.Ç. told the doctor they had been married by an imam. Their neighbors had warned them that if they went to a city and disclosed this fact, they would face legal trouble.

In 1926, the Turkish Republic, founded three years before, adopted a legal code based on that of Switzerland. Civil marriage was introduced and "Islamic marriages" performed by an imam were reduced in status. Articles 230/5-6 of the Turkish Criminal Code prohibit a religious marriage ceremony unless a civil, state-recognized, official marriage has previously been contracted. The law is clear and precise, as follows:

(Article 230/5) Anyone who holds a religious marriage ceremony without a civil marriage shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of from two to six months. However, if a civil marriage is carried out, any public legal proceedings, sentences and other consequences thereof shall be cancelled.

(Article 230/6) Anyone who performs a religious marriage ceremony without seeking a document verifying that a marriage contract has been concluded in accordance with the law shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two to six months."

Nevertheless, "imam marriages" without civil registration still take place frequently in Turkey.

Turkish laws forbidding such abuses appear to have no force. Further, the minds of ordinary people are trapped in medieval beliefs. The "husband" in the case of 11-year old Z.Ç. believed all was in order because the relationship had been approved by an imam.

These "traditions," including "marriage" to barely-pubescent girls, exist not only in Turkey but among Muslim immigrants in Germany. The girls are typically subjected to brutal rape. In May 2010, judicial authorities in Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, caused a scandal when the court delivered a suspended sentence to a Muslim man who had kidnapped and raped an 11-year old girl. The court justified its opinion on the grounds that such "marriages" are allegedly established in Islamic "tradition." Such an attitude by the German government is insulting to Muslims who refuse to countenance such pathologies.

In 2002, a similar case transpired in Turkey. A 13-year old girl came to school with a baby in her arms. The girl belonged to a formerly-nomadic clan that had settled on the Aegean seacoast, and in which girls were married habitually before their 14th birthday – at the latest. Thirty men were called before the criminal court, but the village was viewed as representing an isolated case. That year, the Islamist "Justice and Development Party" (AKP) of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won its first national election, and Erdoğan commenced his first term as prime minister.

Turkish feminists warn that under the three AKP administrations, long-controversial patriarchal habits have once again become the norm. Men make the rules, and women stay at home, with no opportunities for personal fulfillment in education or employment.

The situation of Turkish women is inconsistent, across the country. In the same article where Haber Türk reported on the case of Z.Ç. and E.D., the news portal stated that in Diyarbakır, a major city in southeastern Turkey, 415 girls aged 11 to 17 gave birth in the first 10 months of 2011. Of the new mothers, one was 11, one was 12, four were 13, 13 were 14, 44 were 15, 115 were 16, and 237 were 17 years old.

Women in the rural eastern region must fight to survive, facing problems absent in big cities like Istanbul. This may not be unexpected in a country like Turkey. But religious and cultural habits make the lives of women worse. Human rights groups like Amnesty International denounce violence against women, social tolerance of such crimes, and the failure of male offenders to be punished effectively. According to the Turkish group Women for Women's Rights, 40 percent of all women in eastern Turkey undergo forced marriage. Publicity campaigns and initiatives to raise public consciousness try to focus attention on these injustices, but have yet to produce significant success in expunging them.

Domestic violence is increasing in Turkey, where a woman is murdered by a family member about once every other day. Women may turn to the police but rarely are protected adequately. At the end of 2010, a woman was killed by her ex-husband in the presence of police officers.

Sahibe Kara, director of a women's shelter in Istanbul, protects 10 women. According to her, domestic violence and sexual abuse are the main motives for women seeking assistance. A study by the state Ministry of Family and Social Policy admitted that 41 percent of all women in Turkey experience domestic violence. The recorded number of family murders has also risen in an alarming manner: from 66 in 2002 to 933 in 2009.

Meanwhile, employment of women is decreasing. Only about 27 percent of Turkish women have jobs. The economist Nur Ger recently declared that a five percent increase in women's employment would lift 15 percent of poor families above the poverty line. But the AKP government shows no interest in improving female participation in the workforce.

Instead, Islamist politicians and other figures have begun a debate favoring polygamy, while downplaying the problem of "marriage" by underage girls with an imam's blessing. Notwithstanding the image of patriarchal tyranny as a rural problem, Turkish society appears ready to once again tolerate polygamous relationships. Only 10 years ago, such a development was impossible to imagine.

As a further example of the degeneration of morals under Islamist influence, a new Turkish television series, "Fatmagülün sucu ne?" ("What Was Fatmagül's Crime?") has become the most successful feature among Turkish viewers. On September 16, 2010, it included depiction of a rape. The broadcast caused a national outcry, but the four-minute rape incident was televised repeatedly.

Sahibe Kara shows the women in her care the television series "Güldünya." Güldünya Tören was slain by her two brothers in 2004 after she bore an illegitimate child – a so-called "honor" murder – in southeastern Turkey. According to BBC News, she was shot once and survived, but was then shot dead by a relative who was granted entry to the hospital where she was being treated. That series brought about the establishment of an emergency police telephone hotline for women. "Güldünya" features a police task force that rescues women who use the hotline. In many scenes, neighbors or relatives call the police to help the threatened women. That series had an important educational impact. Still, Sahibe Kara worries that most women have no idea where they may go after being attacked.

"Güldünya" was cancelled after 10 episodes, in 2009, because its audience ratings were too low. In Turkey, the majority seems to side with male perpetrators rather than with female victims.

Veli Sirin


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

The ‘Protocols’ — Alive and Well World Over

by Giulio Meotti

Salman Rushdie, the author of “The Satanic Verses”, was quietly deleted from India’s Jaipur Literature Festival after the protests of the Darul Uloom Deoband seminary – one of Islam’s most powerful bodies.

Rushdie went into hiding after the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian Shia leader, issued a fatwa calling for his death.

Rushdie’s saga is now, in many parts of the Islamic world, associated with a “Zionist plot” and the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a short book concocted by the czarist police and presented as minutes of a secret meeting where Jews plotted world domination.

According to Iranian officials, Rushdie is a “mercenary author masterminded by Zionism, Britain and the United States of America”. Today Iran is one of the major world printers of the “Protocols”, the only book that has ever had the perverse distinction of being both globally influential and, at the same time, a forgery.

There is no accurate information on the sales of the “Protocols”, but it is undoubtedly one of the best sellers of all time.

Unfortunately, the “Protocols” rarely attracts Western attention, as we like to think that it is just a bad joke. We closed our eyes for too long.

In 1983, Yasser Arafat sent a letter to the UN secretary- general accusing Jews of “poisoning Palestinian schoolgirls”. It was the beginning of the monstrous Palestinian ideology.

Originally, the “Protocols” was meant as a warning to good Russian youths. The message: Beware of the machinations of the Jews, whose hidden aim is the subjugation of the Christian world.

Now the book is one of the most powerful propaganda tools of the Arab and Islamic world.

The only time the Protocols’ popularity dipped was immediately following the Holocaust. One suspects it was a little difficult to reconcile Jewish control of the world with the obliteration of a third of the Jewish people. But soon rationalizations began to appear.

On December 27, 2011, the Palestinian-Lebanese historian Bayan Nuwayhed Al-Hout published an article in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which dealt, among other things, with the “Protocols” and their connection to Judaism, the Zionist movement and the State of Israel. In her article, Al-Hout claims that the “the Protocols completely correspond to the words of the great Rabbis throughout the ages, and to the Talmud itself. The Chosen People is a basic Talmudic concept, meaning the people who were chosen to rule and dictate”.

Arab anti-Semitism has adopted all of Europe’s anti- Semitic myths. The “Protocols” are now prominently displayed not only in the Middle East, but also on the Western and Christian bookshelf. Though they are a proven forgery, they nevertheless receive worldwide recognition by those who seek to rely on them for promoting their own nefarious purposes.

Regrettably, the book has also become the gospel of black antisemitism in the America. And ironically, the “Protocols” was on the banned list in South Africa for 80 years before the universally acclaimed anti-apartheid liberalization removed the ban.

The resurgence of antisemitic literature in Eastern Europe following the removal of total state control of speech and press also presents a dilemma for democrats.

A Chinese bestseller, entitled “The Currency War” and based on the “Protocols”, describes how Jews are planning to control the world by manipulating the financial system.

An Iranian stand at the latest Frankfurt Book Fair presented a copy of the “Protocols” published in English by the Islamic Republic of Iran in plain view. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed to have distributed the “Protocols” to expose “the real visage of this satanic enemy” (Israel).

Ahmadinejad got his language on the Israelis as “cancer” and “vermin” from Professor Johann Von Leers, the specialist in the “Protocols” appointed full professor at the University of Jena by Alfred Rosenberg, official Nazi “philosopher”. Von Leers was used to compare the Jews to “cholera germs”.

Thousands of Jews have been killed in Europe because of this infamous document. Hitler used it as a manual in his war to burn all the Jews and Palestinian suicide bombers have been found with the “Protocols” in their pockets.

Now even some Christian bishops are quoting from the “Protocols.” In an interview with George Saliba, Bishop of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Lebanon, aired on Al-Dunya TV on July 24, 2011, declared: “Any intelligent person who reads the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion will see the extent of its influence on the politics of our region and the world”.

The Protocols is now a central issue in Muslim propaganda, even in what we call moderate countries, including countries that made “peace” with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan. The “Protocols” is everywhere, at every Arabic book fair, it is in public discourse, in newspapers, in TV soap operas. The “Protocols” are now on prominent display also at the Malaysian capital’s International Airport and an Arabic translation of the “Protocols” can be found on the website of the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Information.

While there is in fact no Jewish conspiracy to submit the world, there is an anti-Jewish conspiracy that like a virus infected the minds and the hearts of millions of people.

Giulio Meotti


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

Will No-Interest Banking Undo Turkey's Economy?

by Daniel Pipes

That's the thesis implicit to David Goldman's analysis at "Recall notice for the Turkish model." After dubbing the Turkish economy a bubble that "is bursting, starting with the stock market and national currency," he makes this observation about the prime minister:

Erdoğan has the weirdest economic views of any serving head of government. He justified the credit bubble on religious grounds, pledging repeatedly to cut the "real" interest rate (the cost of interest minus the inflation rate) to zero. "We aim to cut the real interest rate in the long run, so people will increase their incomes through working, not through interest," he said last April. "Eventually we aim to equalize the interest rate and inflation rate." Erdoğan believes that this would fulfill the Islamic injunction against lending for interest; if the real interest rate is zero, he seems to think, the sharia ban on interest is fulfilled de facto.

In other words, Erdoğan's wacky financial ideas, which are likely to doom his country's economy, follow directly from his Islamist dream of eliminating riba (usury). More generally put, the Islamist economic program undermines itself. (January 10, 2012)

Turkish stock market vs. S&P 500 (November 2010 = 100). Source: Bloomberg

Daniel Pipes

Source: National Review Online;

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

Egyptian Nuclear Power Plant Ransacked

by Daniel Pipes

Egypt Independent reports on vandalizing, looting, and fighting at the nuclear power plant being built at El-Dabaa, a town in the desert to the west of Alexandria. The account draws on an unnamed source at the Ministry of Electricity and Energy who

El-Dabaa nuclear power station in its full glory.

accused security authorities and the governor of North Sinai of "causing the disaster." The official said the initial losses were around LE0.5 billion [= US$83 million]. He also accused a businessman and former member in the defunct National Democratic Party of being "behind the chaos," but did not name the businessman allegedly involved.

The source said the meteorological station, ground water station and many of the offices had been attacked by "organized looters," who took objects including computers, monitoring devices for earthquakes, furniture, cables and transformers.

On Friday, about 500 residents had rallied demanding the dismantling of the nuclear power plant, saying their land had been confiscated for the project. They say the government did not compensate them for the land it took.

However, other reports suggest that the construction site was attacked by residents of the area angry at the way in which the land for the power plant had been acquired by the government. Residents of Dabaa staged a sit-in on Saturday after clashes with Egyptian military police on Friday. The clashes left 41 people injured, including 29 soldiers, according to state-run newspaper Al-Ahram.

Comments: (1) L'Institut d'Égypte, a nuclear power plant site … the situation has degenerated in Egypt to the point that nothing is safe.

(2) The Islamists lack real power but they appear to be in charge; so as Egypt heads into economic decay and social anarchy, they will receive the blame. Could this be what the crafty military tyrants want, so they can swoop in and "save" the country? (January 16, 2012)

Jan. 20, 2012 update: The news gets worse, with the possibility that radioactive material was stolen:

The UN atomic energy agency issued a statement Thursday saying "the items that have gone missing are low-level radioactive sources. The sources were stolen not from an operating NPP (nuclear power plant), but from a laboratory at a construction site for an NPP that is not yet operational," the International Atomic Energy Agency said. The Vienna-based agency said it is "in touch with the Egyptian authorities."

Al-Ahram newspaper reported Thursday that a safe containing radioactive material was stolen from a site in Al-Dabaa, on the Mediterranean coast. Another safe was broken and some of its contents were taken, Al-Ahram said. … It said the team of experts entered the site but "did not find the missing safe. It did, however, find two sources of radioactivity in another safe that had been broken into."

Daniel Pipes


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

Share It