|
WILL THE WEST DEFEND ITSELF?
By Avi Davis
Iran's test of its Shehab 3 ballistic missile last week has been labeled the greatest threat to Israel's existence in its 60 year history. That may well be true. But a more accurate assessment would be that the long range missiles pose a greater threat to Western civilization than any since the defeat of the Third Reich in 1945. The Shehab 3, along with its ballistic cousins the Shehab 3ER and BM-25, with a maximum range of 2,500 kilometers, can strike deep into the heart of Europe, precipitating a nuclear exchange that could drive the entire continent back into the Dark Ages – with the collapse of governmental infrastructure, the outbreak of multiple diseases and the contamination of Europe's food supply.
Naturally, few are taking any threat to Europe seriously since it is only Israel that has been singled out as the focus of the Mullah's genocidal plan. But there should be no mistaking the words of the Iranian test commander as the missiles took flight:
“In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful. O Messenger of Allah! O Messenger of Allah! O Messenger of Allah!"|
These words are identical to the last recorded earthly utterances by the hijackers of United Flight 93, on September 11, 2001. For the Iranians, the conflict with the West, of which Israel is only the most irritating symbol, represents a religious struggle that will only end when one annihilates the other, even if that means mutually assured destruction. A 1400 year old tradition of Muslim conquest and destruction is now been subsumed under the mantle of Iranian leadership. Not since the height of the Ottoman Empire, has the Muslim world been sufficiently emboldened to launch a military threat to the West. But now, with the military hardware and nuclear technology of the West in their own hands, they believe they may have reached parity with their old adversaries. The announced plan to destroy Israel is only a stepping stone on the road to a wider jihadist campaign. Europe lies athwart the road to conquest of the West and the Iranians are well aware that their greatest adversary in America will not be destroyed unless Europe goes first.
But that is not the only threat Europe faces. For the first time since the conclusion of the Cold War, Russia is talking about aiming nuclear warheads at Europe. Discussions are underway for the possible deployment of ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between the European Union countries of Lithuania and Poland. Kaliningrad has been nuclear-free since America and Russia agreed to scale back their nuclear arsenals at the end of the Cold War. A Russian parliamentary committee visited the enclave 10 days ago to examine how a new generation of nuclear missiles could be based there. Although this is largely regarded in the West as a bluff from the hard line government of President Dmitry Medvedev, it should be understood that Russia, unlike Iran, actually possesses nuclear weapons and CAN deploy them at will. The threat, no matter what the perceived gamesmanship of the Russian leadeship, must be taken seriously.
What is Europe doing about this situation and how are they coordinating with Israel and the United States to contain the twin Iranian and Russian threats?
The answer is very little. This became clear at conference on missile defense held in the first week of July in Prague.
The conference, staged by the French Association of Aviation and Astronautics, was organized to explore the option of building a U.S. radar tracking facility on Czech soil after NATO gave the project a cautious endorsement at its recent summit in Bucharest. Located in central Europe, the Czech Republic is ideally placed to ascertain the trajectory of incoming missiles from Iran, Pakistan or North Korea. But the project faces stiff resistance in the Czech parliament, which is required to ratify the NATO decision, from Greens and opposition parties who do not believe in a Iranian threat to their country, or to any other European state for that matter.
Reuter's reporter, Rob Cameron, believes their deep seated suspicion of the American presence in Europe and an unwillingness to accept the American anti-missile defense system, as nothing more than another attempt to dominate Europe, which will imperil the construction of the radar station. In taking a straw poll of shopkeepers around the Foreign Ministry's Cernin Palace he quoted several people as saying:
“I’m against it. I don’t think it’s a good idea. And I’m absolutely against the idea
of American soldiers being here – it’s absolutely out of the question.”
and
“I’m against all forms of warfare, against all weapons. The arms race is just a bad thing. I don’t care what the Americans say about it being a defensive system – they’re just building up more weapons and creating a new Cold War.”
These words could have poured from the lips of a great majority of European inhabitants today. Oblivious to the prospect of war, the Europeans are acting much as their forbears did in the 1930s – assuming that those with warlike, genocidal agendas have no intention of harming them, while those who repeatedly sound the alarm of an impending catastrophe, are relegated to the category of warmongers and misfits.
However, such radical pacifism will not save Europe. As U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering III, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, asked at a conference last February in Washington D.C. on missile defense: “They’re already flying missiles that exceed what they would need in a fight with Israel. Why? Why do they continue this progression in terms of range of missiles?”
The synchronicity of the developing conflicts between Iran, Russia and the West might not be an accident. Is it possible that some kind of strategic alliance will develop between Russia and Iran (and perhaps North Korea as well), much like the the Non-Aggression Pact between Russia and Germany in 1939, wherein modern day Russia uses its nuclear clout to weaken European defenses while allowing Iran to force European countries to cede valuable shipping rights and immunity from censure for attacking Israeli and U.S. interests – all in exchange for protection from an Iranian nuclear attack?
Or, as Obering posits, “perhaps, in as little as seven years from now, a nuclear-armed Iran could shut off oil shipments in the Persian Gulf, while Al-Qaeda militants seize freighters off Europe, arming them with nuclear-tipped Scud missiles to punish the West for invasion of Muslim holy lands.”
Whatever the scenario, it should be clear that we stand at a time in history when the future of our own civilization depends on the firm and assertive resolve of our political leaders. If Iranian and Russian aggression is not met with unified action now by the democracies, we only invite their further determination to exploit our weaknesses. And that, as we learned 70 years ago, is a recipe for catstrophe.
Avi Davis is the Executive Director and Senior Fellow of the American Freedom Alliance in Los Angeles.
NEWS: EUROPE AND AMERICA
DHIMMI ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY SAYS CHRISTIan DOCTRINE OFFENSIVE TO MUSLIMS
 Christian doctrine offensive to Muslims, says Archbishop of Canterbury-Ben Farmer
Key elements of Christian doctrine are offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said in a letter to Islamic scholars.
Dr Rowan Williams also spoke critically of the violent past of both religions and Christianity's abandonment of its peaceful origins. His comments came in a published letter to Islamic leaders, intended to promote closer dialogue and understanding between the two faiths. However they come just months after Dr Williams was forced to clarify comments in which he said some parts of Islamic law will "unavoidably" be adopted in Britain. The comments are also made as the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference begins in Canterbury. Up to a quarter of bishops are boycotting the event, as the Anglican Church faces continuing division over the issues of women bishops and homosexual clergy. The wide-ranging letter, which covers difficult issues including religious freedom and religiously-inspired violence is in response to a document written last year by Muslim scholars from 43 countries. Discussing differences between the religions, Dr Williams acknowledges that Christian belief in the Trinity is "difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims". (Telegraph.co.uk)
Click to Read more
FRANCE DENIES CITIZENSHIP TO VEILED MOROCCAN WOMAN’S RADICAL PRACTISE OF ISLAM
Muslim woman deemed too submissive to be French-Estelle Shirbon
PARIS (Reuters) - France has denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her "radical" practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes, a legal ruling showed on Friday. The case will reignite debate about how to reconcile freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the French constitution, and other fundamental rights, which many in France feel are being challenged by the way of life of some Muslims. Le Monde newspaper said it was the first time a Muslim applicant had been rejected for reasons to do with personal religious practice. "She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes," said a ruling by the Council of State handed down last month and sent to Reuters on Friday to confirm a report in Le Monde. The Council of State is a judicial body which has final say on disputes between individuals and the public administration. (Reuters)
Click to Read more
ABU ZAHRA CALLS FOR ISLAMIC STYLE PUNISHMENTS IN THE UK
 Hardline Muslim preacher in the UK calls for 'Islamic-amputation and lashings'-ANI
London, July 14 (ANI): An extremist Muslim preacher in the UK has reportedly called for 'Islamic-like' punishments in the country, suggesting amputation of hands of thieves and lashing those who indulged in unmarried sex. His demand for 'Islamic-style' punishments was revealed as the row continues over t Lord Chief Justice's recent support for Sharia law, reported The Sun. Abu Zahra, the Muslim preacher, belongs to hardline Islamic group Hizb Ut Tahrir which once faced a ban. In his sermon at London's Regent's Park mosque last evening, he slated British democracy as criminal, added the paper. Zagra's remark has evoked a strong reaction from the British leaders, even as Tory MP Philip Davies said: "It's unacceptable." According to the paper, in his speech Zahra declared: "Male and female thief - amputate their hands. Those who kill - their life is not secure." And, he slammed unmarried sex, saying: "Lash them", added the paper. Earlier this month, Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips had declared that Islamic legal principles could be applied by courts to resolve certain family, marital, or contractual cases. In a speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips had said that Sharia law could be applied so long as it did not conflict with English law. But, Philips' assertion has been criticized by many lawyers over concerns with the incorporation of religious values and a concern among women's groups that Sharia law was prejudicial to women and principles of equality. (ANI)
HIZBULLAH TO CELEBRATE RELEASE OF MONSTER MURDERER SAMIR KUNTAR
 Hizbullah builds 'triumphal arch' on eve of prisoner exchange
Pictures of Samir Kuntar, Hassan Nasrallah and Imad Mugniyah adorn roads leading to Sidon; al-Manar television network celebrates 'divine victory'. Return of Israeli family's murderer to launch 'party of the decade' in Lebanon- Roee Nahmias
The government is expected Tuesday to ratify Israel's prisoner exchange deal with Hizbullah, which will commence at 9 am Wednesday.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who returned from Paris on Monday night, announced before taking off that the report delivered by Hizbullah on the fate of missing Israel Defense Forces navigator Ron Arad was "insufficient". In the meantime, the preparations for the victory celebrations on the other side of the border are underway.LHizbullah members set up a "triumphal arch" near the Rosh Hanikra (Naquora) crossing, where the exchange is scheduled to take place – Hizbullah fighters and terrorists' bodies in return for kidnapped IDF soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. The yellow arch, which bears the pictures of assassinated Hizbullah commander Imad Mugniyah, has been erected in several places in southern Lebanon. Israel fears that after the deal is implemented, Hizbullah will attempt to carry out its promise to avenge the death of Mugniyah, who was responsible for a series of terror attacks in the region and worldwide. But the Shiite organization will not settle for the arch. Hizbullah flags and victory photos have been hung along the Lebanese coastal highway connecting between Naquora and Sidon. Lebanese media have reported that the celebrations will be held in three places – in Naquora, upon receiving the bodies of some 200 terrorists to be handed over by Israel; in Beirut's international airport, where five Lebanese prisoners – including terrorist Samir Kuntar – will arrive via helicopter; and in Beirut's Dahiya quarter, which will host a mass rally including a speech by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. (Ynetnews)
Click to Read more
"WE CANNOT BE A PART OF A UNION WHEN WE ARE DIFFERENT. CULTURALLY WE ARE DIFFERENT.”
Al-Qathafi: Union for the Mediterranean will Fail Squarely
Tripoli-- Speaking at a press conference in Tripoli on Wednesday, the Leader of the Revolution Muammar Al-Qathafi said the "Union for the Mediterranean" will be "a complete Failure." He said this "union" was imposed on us and it would not represent the interests of the Arab or African peoples. "We shall have another Roman empire and imperialist design… There are imperialist maps and designs that we have already rolled up. We should not have them again." This union, Al-Qathafi said, cannot survive because it carries within it contradicting forces which would lead to its downfall.
Al-Qathafi said he told the French President Sarkozy that the union should exclude states that have complicated problems so that the project would not fail. These are the Middle East states, the Asian states. "I told him if this project is to be extended it needs to include - in addition to 5 + 5 - [Five southern Mediterranean states: Mauritania, Morocco, Algerian, Tunisia and Libya, and five southern European states: Malta, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal] 6 + 6 by adding Greece and Egypt. Others have problems and would not benefit this union. They will bring with them their problems and then this region will become a scene of conflict and waste of time," Al-Qathafi added. "The Palestinian problem has not been solved and there is a conflict over land. Some call it Palestine and others call it Israel. They have not even agreed to settle the issue of land. Some say this is our land and others say that is ours. These are people who are now speaking to each other through missiles, bullets and massacres. This is the ongoing dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Therefore, these are not qualified to be associated with us on cooperation, peace and stability and they are not qualified to join this project [Mediterranean union]. They must be excluded until the issue of the Middle East is solved," Al-Qathafi said. (TripoliPost)
Click to Read more
FEMALE ATHLETE SEEKS ASYLUM IN EUROPE DUE TO DEATH THREATS
Afghan Athlete Seeks Asylum in Europe
Mehboba Ahdyar was to be the poster-child for the Olympics but the 19-year-old Afghan runner ran away from an Italian training camp last week. She has since told her parents she is too scared of reprisals and plans to seek asylum in Europe.
Mehboba Ahdyar was shouldering the heavy burden of overwhelming expectations. And in the end, it proved more than she could bear. The 19-year-old from Kabul was to be the only female athlete representing Afghanistan in this summer's Olympic Games in Beijing. Now the young woman has run away, leaving a training camp in Italy and telling her family she is applying for political asylum in Europe. The young runner, who competes in the 800 meters and 1,500 meters, had become the poster girl for the Olympic movement, with her face adorning the International Olympic Committee's Web site. But being in the international spotlight had attracted the wrong kind of attention. Although Ahdyar always ran in a headscarf and wore long tracksuit bottoms she still received death threats from extremists who objected to a Muslim woman taking part in sports at all. (SpiegelOnline)
Click to Read more
MADRID INTERFAITH CONFERENCE ORGANISED BY AL-QAEDA FINAnCIER
Organizer's Past Raises Questions About Madrid Interfaith Conference-Steve Emerson
In an ironic twist, an international interfaith conference set to start Wednesday in Madrid was organized by a man accused of working with a senior Al Qaeda financier and who unabashedly supports Palestinian suicide bombings.
Abdullah al-Turki is organizing the conference on behalf of the Muslim World League (MWL), where he is secretary general. The MWL was created by the Saudi royal family in 1962 to "promote Islamic unity" and spread Wahhabi doctrine. Wahhabism is an austere form of Islam that seeks to realize the faith as it was practiced by Muhammad and his Companions, barren of the innovations and traditions that arose in the centuries since.
The conference is expected to attract more than 100 people from more than 50 countries. But it is a previous Madrid venture by al-Turki that raises questions about the conference. In 1999, al-Turki was a partner in a Madrid construction project with a senior Al Qaeda financier, a pending lawsuit claims. Profits from that deal were routed to Al Qaeda cells, according to allegations in WTC Properties v. Al Baraka et. al.
The lawsuit argues that, without the financial support from the banks, charities and other entities targeted, the 9/11 attacks may not have taken place. Similar allegations were made in at least three other lawsuits. In court papers, Al Turki has disputed the lawsuit's allegations and has argued that none of his actions were intended to support terrorist activities.
Organizers of this week's gathering say it is expected to attract dozens of American-based Muslims, including Sayyed Syeed and Ingrid Mattson from the Islamic Society of North America, Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, as well as six U.S. rabbis, including Marc Schneier of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and Steven Jacobs of Los Angeles. In addition, John Esposito, director of Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is among a few American academics invited to attend.
Saudi King Abdullah will open the conference, the Agence France Press news service reported Monday. The audience will include World Jewish Congress Secretary General Michael Schneider and Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's point man on dialogue with Muslims. (InvestigativeProject)
Click to Read more
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
DANIEL PIPES ON MIDDLE EAST STUDIES
The Problem with Middle East Studies A Microscopic Investigation-Daniel Pipes
As one of the few pro-U.S. and pro-Israel voices in the field of Middle East studies, I find my views get frequently mangled by others in the field – thus I have had to post a 5,000-word document titled "Department of Corrections (of Others' Factual Mistakes about Me)" on my website. Usually, the precise evolution of such mistakes escapes me. Recently, however, I discovered just how one developed in three steps and confronted the two academics who made the errors. Their unwillingness to acknowledge their errors illustrates the mixture of incompetence and arrogance of Middle East studies as it is, unfortunately, too often practiced in the academy. (1) In "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!" National Review, November 19, 1990, I wrote about some of the reasons for Western fears of Muslims: Muslims have gone through a trauma during the last two hundred years – the tribulation of God's people who unaccountably found themselves at the bottom of the heap. The strains have been enormous and the results agonizing; Muslim countries have the most terrorists and the fewest democracies in the world. Only Turkey (and sometimes Pakistan) is fully democratic, and even there the system is frail. Everywhere else, the head of government got to power through force[,] his own or someone else's. The result is endemic instability plus a great deal of aggression. Despite such problems, I concluded, "none of this justifies seeing Muslims as the paramount enemy." (2) Yahya Sadowski, then of the Brookings Institution, quoted the bolded line of the above paragraph in an entirely different context in "The New Orientalism and the Democracy Debate," Middle East Report, July-August 1993, p. 14. Discussing Western considerations of democracy's prospects in the Middle East, Sadowski wrote:
The thesis that Middle Eastern societies are resistant to democratization had been a standard tenet of Orientalist thought for decades, but in the 1980s a new generation of Orientalists inverted some of the old assumptions and employed a new vocabulary which allowed them to link their work to a wider, international debate about the relationship between "civil society" and democratization. These updated arguments sought to prove not only – as neo-Orientalist Daniel Pipes put it – that "Muslim countries have the most terrorists and the fewest democracies in the world," but that they always would.
Sadowski quoted my words accurately but turned their meaning upside-down; he transformed my rather prosaic observation of fact into part of a grand theory that I never enunciated – and which, for the record, I repudiate. Throughout my work, I stress mutability and change and argue against historical essentialism concerning Islam. I see the Muslim world as changing and avoid extrapolations from present-day circumstances to the future. I make a point not to say something will "always" be a certain way. Further, contrary to Sadowski, I hold that Islam and democracy are indeed compatible.
(DanielPipes.org)
‘ZIONISM & ISRAEL’ MAKE HARVARD’S ANTI-SEMITIC Professor MATORY feel ‘UNSAFE’ ON HARVARD’S CAMPUS
Answering Israel’s Campus Critics-Richard L. Cravatts
As evidence of what Professor Edward Alexander has called "the explosive power of boredom" in rousing the liberal professoriate to its ideological feet, Harvard's prolific Professor of Anthropology and of African and African American Studies, L. Roland Matory, was yet again fulminating in the June 5th issue of the Harvard Crimson about the “chilling” of free speech on campus and seeking, as he has been for some time now, "a civil dialogue in which people with a broad range of perspectives feel safe and are encouraged to express their reasoned and evidence-based ideas."
And what were those "reasoned" ideas that had caused professor Matory to feel "unsafe" on Harvard's insulated campus? Criticism of Zionism and Israel, of course, an issue about which Professor Matory and others have many notorious opinions, but which are being suppressed, in his ominous view, through "imbalances in access to money, media, and society’s administrative apparatuses [which] constitute the censorship of dissent." Professor Matory's implication is that on this one issue—criticism of Israel—the sacrosanct notion of "academic free speech" is being threatened by Israel’s defenders who wish to stifle all speech critical of the Jewish state.
That reference in Matory’s opening line to “access to money, media, and society’s administrative apparatuses” as a tool to obviate criticism of Israel is itself particularly odious, as it echoes precisely the classic form of anti-Semitism which positions Jews as the holders of great power, wealth, and influence, and those able to sway public opinion to protect Jewish interests—which in current times has meant Israel’s interests. And like others who are confounded by what they see as an unjustified continuing support of Israel by the United States, Matory makes the same mistaken assumption that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer made in their notorious recent book, The Israel Lobby: that there is a sinister, powerful cabal working in the shadows to deflect criticism of Israel and silence its foes, and that the truth about Israel’s moral and political flaws are therefore never widely known. (Frontpagemag.com)
Click to Read more
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
GERMAN CRITIC OF ISLAM RECEIVES DEATH THREATS
Call to the establishment of a European organisation for all those who are threatened by Muslims with death because of Islam criticism
Dear Ewout Jansen,
We do not know each other, but like you my wife and I are threatened here as Islam critics in Germany publicly by Muslims because of criticism of Islam with death. I write you because there are many humans all over Europe, who as we are threatened by Muslims with death everywhere in Europe. In addition for instance Mina Ahadi in Germany, Lars Vilks in Sweden, Robert Redeker in France, and you — as well as many, many further as for instance Ayaan Hirsi Ali etc.
Some of us are Christians, others are Jews, Atheists, Buddhists or come from other religions. Some of us stand politically left, some are conservative. Some of us are very wealthy, others do not do so well financially. Some of us have a white skin color, other one a dark skin color. But we all are humans with the same rights and we all have in a free world the same problem: We do not know whether those who demanded publicly our death will attack sometime — as they have killed Theo van Gogh — although the authorities did not see a danger.
My question: Do we want to help ourselves, support mutually and stand firmly together? I am going to create at present a combination for all those, who are threatened by Islam with death. I do not know yet at all, what the project is to be called, and what we will decide together. I however already asked the Berlin Ministry of Justice whether it will take patronage over the project.
Also I will carry it to the European Union. Because there is an European Union Minister resolution from February 2008 to protect all those who are threatened by Islamists in Europe, and help them. We want to see nevertheless how seriously they mean it. We will clarify all further then with a confidential meeting, where all should learn for themselves who are threatened in Europe by Islamists. And then we can form a syndicate/a common megaphone, which us all certainly much to help — community makes for strength…
To the recipient: Udo Ulfkotte, the author of this letter, was born 1960 and was 17 years long responsible for the Middle East News at the German daily paper Frankfurter Allgemeine and as correspondent. I have written many books on Islam — at the same time Muslims exposed a bounty on the head to my wife and want to kill my family because of our Islam criticism.
This letter is also going to Mina Ahadi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Lars Vilks, Ralph Giordano, Robert Redeker and dozens more…(GatesofVienna)
“OUR CONSTITUTION IS ONE OF OUR GREATEST ASSETS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM. A FREE-FLOWING MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS, PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ENABLES THE IDEALS OF DEMOCRACY TO DEFEAT THE TOTALITARIAN VISION OF AL QAEDA AND OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.”
Foreign Courts Take Aim at Our Free Speech- ARLEN SPECTER and JOE LIEBERMAN
Our Constitution is one of our greatest assets in the fight against terrorism. A free-flowing marketplace of ideas, protected by the First Amendment, enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
That free marketplace faces a threat. Individuals with alleged connections to terrorist activity are filing libel suits and winning judgments in foreign courts against American researchers who publish on these matters. These suits intimidate and even silence writers and publishers. Under American law, a libel plaintiff must prove that defamatory material is false. In England, the burden is reversed. Disputed statements are presumed to be false unless proven otherwise. And the loser in the case must pay the winner's legal fees. Consequently, English courts have become a popular destination for libel suits against American authors. In 2003, U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld asserted in her book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It," that Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. The book was published in the U.S. by a U.S. company. But 23 copies were bought online by English residents, so English courts permitted the Saudi to file a libel suit there. Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in court, so Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 default judgment against her. He has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England. Fear of a similar lawsuit forced Random House U.K. in 2004 to cancel publication of "House of Bush, House of Saud," a best seller in the U.S. that was written by an American author. In 2007, the threat of a lawsuit compelled Cambridge University Press to apologize and destroy all available copies of "Alms for Jihad," a book on terrorism funding by American authors. The publisher even sent letters to libraries demanding that they destroy their copies, though some refused to do so. To counter this lawsuit trend, we have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, a Senate companion to a House bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.). This legislation builds on New York State's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," signed into law by Gov. David Paterson on May 1. (WSJ)
Click to Read more
ISNA’S PRESIDENT’S DOUBLE SPEAK ON FREE SPEECH
Ingrid Mattson vs. Freedom of Speech-Robert Spencer
In her statement on Geert Wilders' film Fitna, "Respecting the Qur'an," Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, seems to strike a responsible note of Islamic moderation.[1] While in Karachi, jihadists chanted "Death to the filmmaker" and a Jordanian group called for an international arrest warrant against Wilders, Mattson – writing before the film was released -- appeared to be much more reasonable.[2] Yet the full import of what she says about Wilders and the film is ominous in its implications for the survival of free speech and free societies.
"Wilders," says Mattson, "should be afforded the full protection of the law and those threatening violence against his person should be prosecuted." She proclaims: "We do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other." One might get the idea that Mattson, a major Muslim leader in the United States and Canada, was endorsing Western notions of pluralism and free speech, in which individuals and groups accept the possibility that they might be offended by the speech of another, but do not seek to establish the hegemony of their own perspective over society by trying to silence that offensive speech. Free speech is the foundation of a free society, and this necessarily includes speech that others find offensive; if any group is placed off limits to criticism or offense, it has become a protected class, with rights that other groups do not enjoy, and there is no more equality of rights of all people before the law.
However, there are numerous indications in Mattson's article that free speech is precisely what she does not accept. When she says that "we do not have to agree with each other or love each other, but we have to afford respect to each other," she is not speaking of Muslims and their reactions to Wilders' film. Rather, she is referring to Wilders himself, as is clear from the sentence that follows: "This means that we do not deliberately try to humiliate each other." She clearly believes Wilders in creating the film Fitna, which offers violent quotations from the Qur'an and then shows Muslims acting upon them, was trying to humiliate Muslims: she claims that "Wilders has directed most of his hatred in recent years at Muslims," and says that "Wilders' actions are designed to hurt, offend, and even intimidate." She decries "the voices of self-proclaimed nationalists – really, racists – like Wilders, [who] often seem louder and more powerful because they are threatening." (Investigativeproject)
Click to Read more
ANTISEMITISM
AL-DURA REDUX
The Dreyfus Affair 2.0
A remarkable reversed libel verdict reveals the deep-seated dysfunctions of the French and Palestinian media. Richard Landes
On May 21, 2008, a French court of appeals in Paris came to a remarkable verdict. Reversing an earlier decision by the (in)famous "Chambre 17," which specializes in defamation, the judges exonerated Philippe Karsenty, an online media critic, of libeling the public television France2 and its star Middle East correspondent, Charles Enderlin. There was no question that Karsenty's accusations did indeed strike at the "honor and reputation" of France2 (the charge). After all, he bluntly accused them of running staged footage as real news in their explosive broadcast eight years ago about the killing of a 12-year-old Palestinian refugee, Mohammad Al Durah. When France2 first broadcast the footage of Mohammad's death in September 2000, the worldwide reaction was immediate, and seismic. Among Palestinians he became the icon of the Intifada, justifying apocalyptic hate-speech and suicide terror. Osama bin Laden's used him to call for global Jihad. Daniel Pearl's Pakistani executioners had Mohammad's image behind him in their execution video. The story was headline material in the West: Mohammad was one of Time magazine's "People of the Year" in 2000. In Europe "le petit Mohammad" provided a "get-out-of-Holocaust-guilt-free" card. "The death of Mohammad cancels out, erases that of the Jewish child, his hands in the air from the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto," intoned a respected French anchorwoman. His image justified silence on the explosion of the "new anti-Semitism" among Europe's Muslim minority: "One shouldn't necessarily be surprised," commented Hubert Védrine, the Foreign Minister, "that young French people from immigrant families feel compassion for the Palestinians and get agitated when they see what is happening." (TNR)
Click to Read more
DURBAN ii ANTI-SEMITISM 2.0
Durban II: Trashing human rights Islamists target free speech at U.N. parley Ed Royce
Seven years ago, the United Nations held a conference on racism in Durban, South Africa to address what some saw as growing trends in hate speech and discrimination. Lofty ideals aside, the conference quickly collapsed into an anti-American, anti-Israeli spectacle. As then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat delivered rants on the conspiratorial and racist goals of Israel, others handed out flyers celebrating Adolf Hitler. Having had enough, the United States rightly walked out in protest.
Today, the United Nations is gearing up for a Durban follow-up set for 2009. Like the first conference, "Durban II" would be funded through the regular U.N. budget, 22 percent of which comes from the American taxpayer. In a symbolic gesture, the United States withheld equivalent funds from the U.N. budget, and voted against its final passage.
Regardless, Durban II will proceed, and the prospects for it taking a 180-degree turn are not good. Like the first Durban conference, some of the worst human-rights violators will serve on Durban II's panel. Participating members were selected by the gravely disappointing U.N. Commission on Human Rights - the same commission that has passed light condemnations of the regimes in Burma and Sudan. Its passion is democratic Israel, which has been condemned 15 times over the past two years. (Washingtontimes)
Click to Read more
"Our aim is to provide clear thinking on anti-Semitism - and this means regarding it as central to understanding contemporary prejudice and racial hatred today."
Anti-Semitism think-tank launched in London-Jonny Paul
"The academic boycott of Israel is ignorant on so many different levels; it's ignorant, as it will achieve nothing, it's ignorantly ineffective, it's ignorantly motivated and it's driven by politics," UK Minister for Europe Jim Murphy said this week at the launch of a new think-tank dedicated to examining the growth and development of anti-Semitism in the world today.
Speaking at the launch of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism (EISCA) in Parliament, Murphy highlighted the extremes of both Left and Right, and spoke about the legitimization of contemporary anti-Semitism by other faiths.
EISCA director Dr. Winston Pickett said the institute's goal was "to become a leading think-tank on anti-Semitism, generating new strategies to counter and overcome it. Its research trajectory seeks to analyze anti-Semitism as a global phenomenon with deep historical roots and a resilient ability to adapt to present circumstances.
"Our aim is to provide clear thinking on anti-Semitism - and this means regarding it as central to understanding contemporary prejudice and racial hatred today."
In keeping with this goal, Pickett said, the think-tank plans to offer a Web-based network for the most comprehensive scholarship in the field and toward solutions-oriented research that explores ways to address anti-Semitism in all its forms.
At the launch, Murphy enumerated two motives behind right-wing anti-Semitism: the tangible hatred of "the other" and the conspiracy theories of influence, which he said the far Left had also utilized. (Jpost)
Click to Read more
TERRORISM
FEDS IGNORE ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY IN THEIR OUTREACH EFFORTS
Jihad and Outreach to Islamic Supremacist Groups-Jeffrey Imm
One of the most critical aspects of a strategic battle against the ideology behind Jihad, Islamic supremacism, is an honest definition of the term "civil rights and civil liberties." "Civil rights" are based on the American value of equality - that all men and women are created equal - a value that Islamic supremacism as an ideology does not embrace. So when federal government agencies claim to be making outreach efforts to organizations that espouse and/or support Islamic supremacist viewpoints, such outreach efforts are actually contrary to America values of "civil rights," not promoting "civil rights."...Ignoring the ideological basis of Islamic supremacism in Jihad prevents an honest debate on such issues, as well as an honest discussion of civil rights and liberties. Outreach efforts to pro-supremacist organizations have nothing to do with "civil rights and liberties," but are part of a more important choice between employing short-term tactical counterterrorism measures and defending our national values. (Familysecuritymatters)
Click to Read more
BRITISH MUSLIMS ADMIT TO PLOT TO BOMB HEATHROW AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
 Three British Muslims admit bid to bomb Heathrow and Commons with liquid explosives-Daily Mail Reporter
Three British Muslims yesterday admitted plotting to explode a homemade bomb at the Houses of Parliament in protest at the UK's role in Iraq and Afghanistan. The men and two others also admitted conspiring to cause public nuisance by distributing Al Qaeda- style videos threatening suicide bomb attacks in Britain. But prosecutors claimed they made 'inherently improbable' and 'bogus' confessions to these charges to distract attention from the main allegations - a plot to blow up airliners flying from Heathrow to major U.S. cities. They accused the men of being in a gang wanting to kill thousands of passengers by detonating liquid bombs in a wave of mid-air explosions. A jury at Woolwich Crown Court, South-East London, must still decide if the five men, plus three others, are guilty of an unprecedented suicide bomb conspiracy. Prosecutor Peter Wright QC said the conspirators were fanatics who believed they would achieve immortality through mass murder. He said: 'What they intended was to shock the world, not merely by the nature of the acts but also by the fact that such actions could be committed by apparently ordinary law-abiding citizens. 'This was part of the message. A statement of the strength of resistance to perceived Muslim oppression.' The guilty pleas came before prosecution barristers summed up their case as the three-month trial drew to a close. (Dailymail.co.uk)
Click to Read more
PROMINENT MUSLIM TERRORISTS DEFECTING FROM JIHAD
Turning their Backs on Jihad-Britta Sandberg
More and more prominent terrorists are defecting from the cause. The Egyptian theologian Dr. Fadl is the best known, but many others are likewise reconsidering. Experts see it as a delayed reaction to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Noman Benotman walks into a restaurant on Park Lane, the exclusive, minimalist sort of place that is currently all the rage in London. People in business suits converse in hushed tones at nearby tables. Benotman, wearing an orange polo shirt and a gray checked blazer, fits in perfectly. Benotman, a 41-year-old man from Libya, was once a jihadist. He fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and it was in those days, which some would later romanticize as heroic, that he met Osama bin Laden. Benotman says that he was once adept at using an AK-47, and that he remembers making out the faces of Soviet helicopter pilots before shooting them down.After the Soviet army withdrew in disgrace from Kabul and Kandahar, Benotman returned to his native Libya, where he became one of the leaders of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The group, several hundred strong, sought to overthrow the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, which they believed was corrupt and un-Islamic. Before Sept. 11, 2001, Benotman was an important figure in the expanding global network of terrorism. Today he sits in a London restaurant and orders an espresso with a glass of water from a waiter dressed in a white uniform. He speaks with a flawless British accent.
(SpiegelOnline)
Click to Read more
HIZBULLAH SUED BY NORTH AMERICAN VICTIMS OF TERROR
North American Victims of Hizbullah File Mammoth Lawsuit-Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
(IsraelNN.com) Eighty-five American and Canadian victims of Hizbullah terrorist attacks have filed an unprecedented lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court against an American and Lebanese-Canadian bank for $650 million in damages. The financial institutions being sued are the American Express Bank Ltd. (AMEX Bank) and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank SAL (LCB). LCB's main offices are in Beirut, and it has branches throughout Lebanon and Canada. AMEX is one of its correspondent banks in the United States. The plaintiffs include those who were injured or who are relatives of victims of rocket attacks on Israel during the Second Lebanon War.The suit claims that AMEX failed to establish adequate procedures to prevent terrorism financing. The lawsuit is the first to be brought by terror victims against an American financial institution that serves as a correspondent for a bank in Lebanon. The Israeli attorney for the plaintiffs, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner stated, "Hizbullah is a financial giant which is deeply entrenched in the Lebanese banking system. Any U.S. bank that serves as correspondent for a Lebanese bank may well be aiding and abetting Hizbullah terrorism and runs the risk of serious civil liability. (INN)
Click to Read more
TERRORISM-INTERNET
HAMAS AND HIZBULLAH REMOVED FROM CANADIAN INTERNET PROVIDER
Web vigilante takes down terror sites-AMY SOBERANO
The Canadian Internet service provider iWeb recently removed three Web sites powered by Hamas and Hizbullah from their network of subscribers after complaints were filed against the company. Canadian law designates both Hamas and Hizbullah as terrorist organizations whose operations are barred by law, yet the militant groups were hosted online by a Montreal-based corporation. The first of the illicit URLs was discovered by Toronto native Jonathan HaLevi while monitoring the Internet under the auspices of the Orient Research Group Ltd. which he co-founded. HaLevi is a senior researcher of the Middle East and Radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. "The Internet is an important tool for terrorist organizations to recruit, instruct, operate cells and build what they call 'The Islamic Nation' to launch the 'jihad against the infidels,'" HaLevi told The Jerusalem Post. "The Canadian company in this case was not allowed to support them or to give them any services because in Canada, Hizbullah and Hamas are designated as terrorist organizations." Upon discovering that an official Hamas Web site was being hosted by a Canadian server, HaLevi immediately sent iWeb an e-mail requesting its removal. The company replied that the Hamas site was purely informational. "They replied that the Web site is just like CBC [the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation], and didn't at that time acknowledge that the particular Web site was part of Hamas and linked to terrorist attacks," said HaLevi. After further investigation however, iWeb did concede to remove the Hamas page from their server. (Jpost)
Click to Read more
JIHAD-INTERNET
USING INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AGAINST MUSLIMS OR WORKING FOR OR CO-OPERATING WITH ANY ORGANIZATION IS PROHIBITED (HARAAM) ACCORDING TO THE SHARI’AH.
 FROM THE ISLAMIC THINKERS SOCIETY
NOTE: It has come to our attention once again that the kufr governments and regimes are trying hard to recruit Muslims to spy on their fellow brethren. Obviously, they will give it other names so as to justify the spying and offer bountiful of rewards for such actions. If one were to look at the action itself and see where it falls under in Islam, surely they would know that any from of spying on another Muslim is HARAAM. We would like to remind the Muslim communities and especially the masajjid with the article below which reminds Muslims not to fall victim to such trickery as taking upon this severe action makes a person sinful.
Using intelligence services against Muslims or working for or co-operating with any organization is Prohibited (Haraam) according to the Shari’ah.
One of the calamities being faced by Muslims world-wide in their own countries nowadays is having kufr dictatorships ruling over them which control Muslim resources without their consent. These regimes rule by oppression and aggression as opposed to by Islam and good governance. Their governance is more aggressive control than managing the affairs of the people, governing Muslims with animosity rather than looking after their affairs. These countries have become police States. They set up the intelligence services specifically against Muslims to monitor their affairs and livelihood. These bodies have been given absolute power to deal with the citizens as they wish as long as they maintain the interests of their leaders. The intelligence services use many weapons against Muslims including spying on them, tracking them down, punishing and torturing them. They even ensure that positions in State departments are only given to those who support the tyrant regimes. Consequently the government departments are solely made up of corrupted people, to the extent that Muslims detest and curse them the way the Messenger Muhammad (saw) prophesised: “The worst leaders are the ones who you detest and who detest you and who you curse and who curse you in return” [Narrated by Abu Zinad Al-A’araj ( Muslim)]
The duty of the intelligence services is monitoring, following, and tracing people all of which involves spying which is Haram. Islam forbids a Muslim to spy on another Muslim or on the people of Dhimmah whether to benefit himself or others because the text in the Quran is general, Allah (SWT) says: “O you who Believe avoid much suspicion, indeed some suspicion is a sin. And spy not on one an other neither backbite one another.” [EMQ 49:12] In this Ayah Allah (SWT) forbids Muslims from spying on or even doubting other Muslims. And this prohibition is general and includes all kinds of spying on Muslims whether to benefit the one spying or any other person. It is collected in Bukhari and Muslim and narrated upon the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: “Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the worst of false tales. Do not look for others faults, do not spy on one another, do not practice najash (biding over one another), do not be jealous of one another, do not hate one another and do not desert or stop talking to one another. O Allah’s worshippers, be brothers”. This verse and hadith is clear evidence that all types of spying on Muslims is prohibited. In addition, it is reported by Muslim upon the authority of Abu Hurairah and in Ahmad upon the authority of Abu Barza Al-Aslami (ra) that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: “O you who believe from your tongues but whose Imaan has never settled in their hearts. Do not backbite Muslims, do not follow up their aworaat (e.g. spying on them or tracing their errors and personal affairs); whoever does so Allah will punish him for all his errors and will expose his affairs even if he is settled in his own home”
Islam has therefore specified that spying on people and working for people who spy on others are both haram. It is reported by Abu Daoud and Imam Ahmad upon the authority of Al-Misswar Bin Makhrama that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: “Whoever earns and eats from exposing any secret of a Muslim, Allah will put fire in his mouth in Jahannam and whoever earns and clothes himself from exposing any secret of a Muslim Allah will cloth him with clothes of fire in Jahannam”. Moreover Islam has forbidden spying or looking into peoples homes and has violated the sanctity of the spy while he/she is looking into peoples homes without their permission. It is reported by Muslim upon the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: “If someone looks into your home without your permission and you throw a stone and blind him there is no sin on your neck or blood-money towards him” and it is further reported in Bukhari and Muslim upon the authority of Sahl Bin Sa’id that a man was looking from a hole into the Prophet’s room and the Prophet had a short sharp arrow with which he (saw) was scratching his head. He (saw) said to him that: “If I had known that you were spying on me I would take stabbed you in your eye through the hole, verily requesting permission to enter peoples houses has been legislated for the sake of looking into peoples houses”
In the same way that Islam forbids Muslims from spying on Muslims it also forbids Muslims from spying on non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State (a State which we do not have today) because they are citizens having the same rights and duties as Muslims as far as religion, welfare and security are concerned. It is reported that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: “Whosoever harms a Dhimmi he harms me (i.e. the Prophet)”. And it is reported in Abu Daoud that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) also said: “Whoever oppresses a person who has a covenant with the State or designates responsibility for him beyond his limit, I will stand against him on the day of Judgement.” Consequently, Islam has made working with such spying services one of the biggest sins. When these services become the iron fist with which the tyrant rulers hit the people, the Islamic principle of “whatever leads to a sin is itself a sin” applies…
In conclusion, it is prohibited and a SIN for a Muslim to spy on a Muslim or a non-Muslim citizen. However, despite the fact that the verses and the ahadith which forbid spying upon people (Muslims or non-Muslims) are general and unrestricted, there is an exception for Muslims to spy on non-Muslims who are Kafir Harbi (i.e. Kuffar at war with Muslims or who reject/have no treaties with the Islamic State). The evidence for this is that it is reported in Bukhari upon the authority of Ali Ibn Abi Taalib that the Messenger Muhammad (saw) sent Abdullah Ibn Jahsh with eight from the Muhajireen to an area called Nakhla allocated between Makkah and Al-Taa’if to spy for him upon Quraish, the enemy at that time. Finally, a Muslim is forbidden to spy whether as individual curiosity or as a job for Muslims or non-Muslims and it is prohibited for Muslims to work in intelligence services such as the CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security,ISI, MI5, MI6 etc. or in the intelligence services of any countries of the world. This type of Muslim (who works as a spy on Muslims) is untrustworthy and Muslims should avoid him, expose him and not co-operate with him otherwise they will be sinful like him, Allah (SWT) says: “Co-operate in the good deeds and do not co-operate in bad deeds…” [ 5:2] We must invite people to Islam, command good, forbid evil and working to establish Islam in its Totality not only to fulfill our obligation but also that’s the only way out to be liberated from the present colonization and imperialism, through an intellectual and a political struggle.
* It is haraam to work with kufr governments and authorities to spy and/or intelligence gathering on fellow Muslims.
* It is haraam to work as a translator for kufr governments.
|
