I read your explanation of the arab-american shit. I liked it, have to read it again and have respect for your beautifull use of the english language. chapeau!
Russia has strecken deals with europe over energy, as such gaining power. Using the moslim gain to its profits.
Where is Alana?
well anyway... I will keep on feeding Wilders, as it seems he finaly read the koran ...
Sunday, 13 January 2008
moslims will not get europe
hi all, I am not a moslim, nor do I respect any religion, exept those that start with earth and sun, but muslims are a danger to europe, weather they are passive or not. A war will stop them.
Saturday, 12 January 2008
Listen to this ex muslimah on al jazeera TV
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
WHO IS WHO
Bush of Arabia, or the solitude of the long-distance runnerBy Fouad Ajami Commentary by Saturday, January 12, 2008
It was fated, or "written," as the Arabs would say, that President George W. Bush, reared in Midland, Texas, so far away from the complications of the foreign world, would be the leader to take America so deep into Arab and Islamic affairs. This is not a victory lap that Bush has been embarking upon this week, a journey that has taken or will take him to Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Bush by now knows the heartbreak and guile of the Middle East. After seven years and two big wars in that "Greater Middle East," after a campaign against the terror and the malignancies of the Arab world, there will be no American swagger or stridency.
But Bush is traveling into the landscape and setting of his own legacy. He is arguably the most consequential leader in the long history of America's encounter with those lands.
Baghdad isn't on Bush's itinerary, but it hangs over, and propels, his passage. A year ago, this kind of journey would have been unthinkable. The American project in Iraq was reeling, and there was talk of America casting the Iraqis adrift. It was then that Bush doubled down - and, by all appearances, his brave wager has been vindicated.
His war has given birth to a new Iraq. The shape of this new Iraq is easy to discern, and it can be said with reasonable confidence that the new order of things in Baghdad is irreversible. There is Shiite primacy, Kurdish autonomy in the north, and a cushion for the Sunni Arabs - in fact a role for that community slightly bigger than its demographic weight. It wasn't "regional diplomacy" that gave life to this new Iraq. The neighboring Arabs had fought it all the way.
But there is a deep streak of Arab pragmatism, a grudging respect for historical verdicts, and for the right of conquest. How else did the ruling class in Arabia, in the Gulf and in Jordan beget their kingdoms?
In their animus toward the new order in Iraq, the purveyors of Arab truth - rulers and pundits alike - said that they opposed this new Iraq because it had been delivered by American power, and is now in the American orbit. But from Egypt to Kuwait and Bahrain, a Pax Americana anchors the order of the region. In Iraq, the Pax Americana, hitherto based in Sunni Arab lands, has acquired a new footing in a Shiite-led country, and this is the true source of Arab agitation.
To hear the broadcasts of Al-Jazeera, the Iraqis have sinned against the order of the universe for the American military presence in their midst. But a vast American air base, Al-Udeid, is a stone's throw away from Al-Jazeera's base in Qatar.
There is a standoff of sorts between the American project in Iraq on the one side, and the order of Arab power on the other. The Arabs could not thwart or overturn this new Iraq, but the autocrats - battered, unnerved by the fall of Saddam Hussein, worried about the whole spectacle of free elections in Iraq - survived Iraq's moment of enthusiasm. They hunkered down, they waited out the early euphoria of the Iraq war, they played up the anarchy and violence of Iraq and fed that violence as well. In every way they could they manipulated the nervousness of their own people in the face of this new, alien wave of liberty. Better 60 years of tyranny than one day of anarchy, goes a (Sunni) Arab maxim.
Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, takes America's coin while second-guessing Washington at every turn. He is the cop on the beat, suspicious of liberty. He faced a fragile, democratic opposition in the Kifaya (Enough!) movement a few years back. But the autocracy held on. Pharaoh made it clear that the distant, foreign power was compelled to play on his terms. There was never a serious proposal to cut off American aid to the Mubarak regime.
In the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf, a new oil windfall has rewritten the terms of engagement between Pax Americana and the ruling regimes. It is a supreme, and cruel, irony that Bush travels into countries now awash with money: From 9/11 onward, America has come to assume the burden of a great military struggle - and the financial costs of it all - while the oil lands were to experience a staggering transfusion of wealth.
Saudi Arabia has taken in nearly $900 billion in oil revenues the last six years; the sparsely populated emirate of Abu Dhabi is said to dispose of a sovereign wealth fund approximating $1 trillion. The oil states have drawn down the public debt that had been a matter of no small consequence to the disaffection of their populations. There had been a time, in the lean 1990s, when debt had reached 120 percent of Saudi GDP; today it is 5 percent. There is swagger in that desert world, a sly sense of deliverance from the furies.
The battle against jihadism has been joined by the official religious establishment, stripping the radicals of their religious cover. Consider the following fatwa issued by Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh, the mufti of the kingdom - the highest religious jurist in Saudi Arabia - last October. There is evasion in the fatwa, but a reckoning as well:
"It has been noted that over the last several years some of our sons have left Saudi lands with the aim of pursuing jihad abroad in the path of God. But these young men do not have enough knowledge to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and this was one reason why they fell into the trap of suspicious elements and organizations abroad that toyed with them in the name of jihad."
Traditional Wahhabism has always stipulated obedience to the ruler, and this Wahhabi jurist was to reassert it in the face of freelance preachers: "The men of religion are in agreement that there can be no jihad, except under the banner of wali al-amr [the monarch] and under his command. The journey abroad without his permission is a violation, and a disobedience, of the faith."
Iraq is not directly mentioned in this fatwa, but it stalks it: This is the new destination of the jihadists, and the jurist wanted to cap the volcano.
The reform of Arabia is not a courtesy owed an American leader on a quick passage, and one worried about the turmoil in the oil markets at that. It is an imperative of the realm, something owed Arabia's young people clamoring for a more "normal" world. The brave bloggers, and the women and young professionals of the realm, have taken up the cause of reform. What American power owes them is the message given them over the last few years - that they don't dwell alone.
True to the promise, and to the integrity, of his campaign against terror, Bush did not lay a wreath at the burial place of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. This is as it should be. A little more than five years ago, Bush held out to the Palestinians the promise of statehood, and of American support for that goal, but he made that support contingent on a Palestinian break with the cult of violence. He would not grant Arafat any of the indulgence that President Bill Clinton had given him for eight long years. It was the morally and strategically correct call.
The cult of the gun had wrecked the political life of the Palestinians. They desperately needed an accommodation with Israel, but voted, in early 2006, for Hamas.
The promise of Palestinian statehood still stood, but the force, and the ambition, of Bush's project in Iraq, and the concern over Iran's bid for power, had shifted the balance of things in the Arab world toward the Persian Gulf, and away from the Palestinians. The Palestinians had been reduced to their proper scale in the Arab constellation. It was then, and when the American position in Iraq had been repaired, that Bush picked up the question of Palestine again, perhaps as a courtesy to his secretary of state.
The Annapolis conference should be seen in that light: There was some authority to spare. It is to Bush's singular credit that he was the first American president to recognize that Palestine was not the central concern of the Arabs, or the principal source of the political maladies.
The political "realists" have always doubted this Bush campaign for freedom in Arab and Muslim lands. It was like ploughing the sea, they insisted. Natan Sharansky may be right that in battling for that freedom, Bush was a man alone, even within the councils of his own administration.
He had taken up the cause of Lebanon. The Cedar Revolution that erupted in 2005 was a child of his campaign for freedom. A Syrian dominion built methodically over three decades was abandoned in a hurry, so worried were the Syrians that American power might target their regime as well. In the intervening three years, Lebanon and its fractious ways were to test America's patience, with the Syrians doing their best to return Lebanon to its old captivity.
But for all the debilitating ways of Lebanon's sectarianism, Bush was right to back democracy. For decades, politically conscious Arabs had lamented America's tolerance for the ways of Arab autocracy, its resigned acceptance that such are the ways of "the East." There would come their way, in the Bush decade, an American leader willing to bet on their freedom.
"Those thankless deserts" was the way Winston Churchill, who knew a thing or two about the Middle East, described those difficult lands. This is a region that aches for the foreigner's protection while feigning horror at the presence of strangers.
As is their habit, the holders of Arab power will speak behind closed doors to their American guest about the menace of the Persian power next door. But the Arabs have the demography, and the wealth, to balance the power of the Persians. If their world is now a battleground between Pax Americana and Iran, that is a stark statement on their weakness, and on the defects of the social contract between the Sunnis and the Shiites of the Arab world. America can provide the order that underpins the security of the Arabs, but there are questions of political and cultural reform which are tasks for the Arabs themselves.
Suffice it for them that George W. Bush was at the helm of the dominant imperial power when the world of Islam and of the Arabs was in the wind, played upon by ruinous temptations, and when the regimes in the saddle were ducking for cover, and the broad middle classes in the Arab world were in the grip of historical denial of what their radical children had wrought. His was the gift of moral and political clarity.
In America and elsewhere, those given reprieve by that clarity, and single-mindedness, have been taking this protection while complaining all the same of his zeal and solitude. In his stoic acceptance of the burdens after 9/11, we were offered a reminder of how nations shelter behind leaders willing to take on great challenges.
We scoffed, in polite, jaded company when George W. Bush spoke of the "axis of evil" several years back. The people he now journeys amidst didn't: It is precisely through those categories of good and evil that they describe their world, and their condition. Bush could not redeem the modern culture of the Arabs, and of Islam, but he held the line when it truly mattered. He gave them a chance to reclaim their world from zealots and enemies of order who would have otherwise run away with it.
Fouad Ajami teaches at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
in Washington. He is author of "The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq," (Free Press, 2006), and is a recipient of the Bradley Prize. This commentary first appeared in The Wall Street Journal, and is published by permission.
It was fated, or "written," as the Arabs would say, that President George W. Bush, reared in Midland, Texas, so far away from the complications of the foreign world, would be the leader to take America so deep into Arab and Islamic affairs. This is not a victory lap that Bush has been embarking upon this week, a journey that has taken or will take him to Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Bush by now knows the heartbreak and guile of the Middle East. After seven years and two big wars in that "Greater Middle East," after a campaign against the terror and the malignancies of the Arab world, there will be no American swagger or stridency.
But Bush is traveling into the landscape and setting of his own legacy. He is arguably the most consequential leader in the long history of America's encounter with those lands.
Baghdad isn't on Bush's itinerary, but it hangs over, and propels, his passage. A year ago, this kind of journey would have been unthinkable. The American project in Iraq was reeling, and there was talk of America casting the Iraqis adrift. It was then that Bush doubled down - and, by all appearances, his brave wager has been vindicated.
His war has given birth to a new Iraq. The shape of this new Iraq is easy to discern, and it can be said with reasonable confidence that the new order of things in Baghdad is irreversible. There is Shiite primacy, Kurdish autonomy in the north, and a cushion for the Sunni Arabs - in fact a role for that community slightly bigger than its demographic weight. It wasn't "regional diplomacy" that gave life to this new Iraq. The neighboring Arabs had fought it all the way.
But there is a deep streak of Arab pragmatism, a grudging respect for historical verdicts, and for the right of conquest. How else did the ruling class in Arabia, in the Gulf and in Jordan beget their kingdoms?
In their animus toward the new order in Iraq, the purveyors of Arab truth - rulers and pundits alike - said that they opposed this new Iraq because it had been delivered by American power, and is now in the American orbit. But from Egypt to Kuwait and Bahrain, a Pax Americana anchors the order of the region. In Iraq, the Pax Americana, hitherto based in Sunni Arab lands, has acquired a new footing in a Shiite-led country, and this is the true source of Arab agitation.
To hear the broadcasts of Al-Jazeera, the Iraqis have sinned against the order of the universe for the American military presence in their midst. But a vast American air base, Al-Udeid, is a stone's throw away from Al-Jazeera's base in Qatar.
There is a standoff of sorts between the American project in Iraq on the one side, and the order of Arab power on the other. The Arabs could not thwart or overturn this new Iraq, but the autocrats - battered, unnerved by the fall of Saddam Hussein, worried about the whole spectacle of free elections in Iraq - survived Iraq's moment of enthusiasm. They hunkered down, they waited out the early euphoria of the Iraq war, they played up the anarchy and violence of Iraq and fed that violence as well. In every way they could they manipulated the nervousness of their own people in the face of this new, alien wave of liberty. Better 60 years of tyranny than one day of anarchy, goes a (Sunni) Arab maxim.
Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, takes America's coin while second-guessing Washington at every turn. He is the cop on the beat, suspicious of liberty. He faced a fragile, democratic opposition in the Kifaya (Enough!) movement a few years back. But the autocracy held on. Pharaoh made it clear that the distant, foreign power was compelled to play on his terms. There was never a serious proposal to cut off American aid to the Mubarak regime.
In the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf, a new oil windfall has rewritten the terms of engagement between Pax Americana and the ruling regimes. It is a supreme, and cruel, irony that Bush travels into countries now awash with money: From 9/11 onward, America has come to assume the burden of a great military struggle - and the financial costs of it all - while the oil lands were to experience a staggering transfusion of wealth.
Saudi Arabia has taken in nearly $900 billion in oil revenues the last six years; the sparsely populated emirate of Abu Dhabi is said to dispose of a sovereign wealth fund approximating $1 trillion. The oil states have drawn down the public debt that had been a matter of no small consequence to the disaffection of their populations. There had been a time, in the lean 1990s, when debt had reached 120 percent of Saudi GDP; today it is 5 percent. There is swagger in that desert world, a sly sense of deliverance from the furies.
The battle against jihadism has been joined by the official religious establishment, stripping the radicals of their religious cover. Consider the following fatwa issued by Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh, the mufti of the kingdom - the highest religious jurist in Saudi Arabia - last October. There is evasion in the fatwa, but a reckoning as well:
"It has been noted that over the last several years some of our sons have left Saudi lands with the aim of pursuing jihad abroad in the path of God. But these young men do not have enough knowledge to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and this was one reason why they fell into the trap of suspicious elements and organizations abroad that toyed with them in the name of jihad."
Traditional Wahhabism has always stipulated obedience to the ruler, and this Wahhabi jurist was to reassert it in the face of freelance preachers: "The men of religion are in agreement that there can be no jihad, except under the banner of wali al-amr [the monarch] and under his command. The journey abroad without his permission is a violation, and a disobedience, of the faith."
Iraq is not directly mentioned in this fatwa, but it stalks it: This is the new destination of the jihadists, and the jurist wanted to cap the volcano.
The reform of Arabia is not a courtesy owed an American leader on a quick passage, and one worried about the turmoil in the oil markets at that. It is an imperative of the realm, something owed Arabia's young people clamoring for a more "normal" world. The brave bloggers, and the women and young professionals of the realm, have taken up the cause of reform. What American power owes them is the message given them over the last few years - that they don't dwell alone.
True to the promise, and to the integrity, of his campaign against terror, Bush did not lay a wreath at the burial place of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. This is as it should be. A little more than five years ago, Bush held out to the Palestinians the promise of statehood, and of American support for that goal, but he made that support contingent on a Palestinian break with the cult of violence. He would not grant Arafat any of the indulgence that President Bill Clinton had given him for eight long years. It was the morally and strategically correct call.
The cult of the gun had wrecked the political life of the Palestinians. They desperately needed an accommodation with Israel, but voted, in early 2006, for Hamas.
The promise of Palestinian statehood still stood, but the force, and the ambition, of Bush's project in Iraq, and the concern over Iran's bid for power, had shifted the balance of things in the Arab world toward the Persian Gulf, and away from the Palestinians. The Palestinians had been reduced to their proper scale in the Arab constellation. It was then, and when the American position in Iraq had been repaired, that Bush picked up the question of Palestine again, perhaps as a courtesy to his secretary of state.
The Annapolis conference should be seen in that light: There was some authority to spare. It is to Bush's singular credit that he was the first American president to recognize that Palestine was not the central concern of the Arabs, or the principal source of the political maladies.
The political "realists" have always doubted this Bush campaign for freedom in Arab and Muslim lands. It was like ploughing the sea, they insisted. Natan Sharansky may be right that in battling for that freedom, Bush was a man alone, even within the councils of his own administration.
He had taken up the cause of Lebanon. The Cedar Revolution that erupted in 2005 was a child of his campaign for freedom. A Syrian dominion built methodically over three decades was abandoned in a hurry, so worried were the Syrians that American power might target their regime as well. In the intervening three years, Lebanon and its fractious ways were to test America's patience, with the Syrians doing their best to return Lebanon to its old captivity.
But for all the debilitating ways of Lebanon's sectarianism, Bush was right to back democracy. For decades, politically conscious Arabs had lamented America's tolerance for the ways of Arab autocracy, its resigned acceptance that such are the ways of "the East." There would come their way, in the Bush decade, an American leader willing to bet on their freedom.
"Those thankless deserts" was the way Winston Churchill, who knew a thing or two about the Middle East, described those difficult lands. This is a region that aches for the foreigner's protection while feigning horror at the presence of strangers.
As is their habit, the holders of Arab power will speak behind closed doors to their American guest about the menace of the Persian power next door. But the Arabs have the demography, and the wealth, to balance the power of the Persians. If their world is now a battleground between Pax Americana and Iran, that is a stark statement on their weakness, and on the defects of the social contract between the Sunnis and the Shiites of the Arab world. America can provide the order that underpins the security of the Arabs, but there are questions of political and cultural reform which are tasks for the Arabs themselves.
Suffice it for them that George W. Bush was at the helm of the dominant imperial power when the world of Islam and of the Arabs was in the wind, played upon by ruinous temptations, and when the regimes in the saddle were ducking for cover, and the broad middle classes in the Arab world were in the grip of historical denial of what their radical children had wrought. His was the gift of moral and political clarity.
In America and elsewhere, those given reprieve by that clarity, and single-mindedness, have been taking this protection while complaining all the same of his zeal and solitude. In his stoic acceptance of the burdens after 9/11, we were offered a reminder of how nations shelter behind leaders willing to take on great challenges.
We scoffed, in polite, jaded company when George W. Bush spoke of the "axis of evil" several years back. The people he now journeys amidst didn't: It is precisely through those categories of good and evil that they describe their world, and their condition. Bush could not redeem the modern culture of the Arabs, and of Islam, but he held the line when it truly mattered. He gave them a chance to reclaim their world from zealots and enemies of order who would have otherwise run away with it.
Fouad Ajami teaches at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
in Washington. He is author of "The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq," (Free Press, 2006), and is a recipient of the Bradley Prize. This commentary first appeared in The Wall Street Journal, and is published by permission.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Islam's love to women hhhhhhhhhh
watch this video; it is free but very enriching. If i was a mousslimah i would pay all my fortune (if i had one) to buy it. It would save my life. Best of all it is free.
http://www.theirownwords.com/site/showvideo/52
http://www.theirownwords.com/site/showvideo/52
Islam respect's to women hhhhhhhhhhhhh
There must be violence against women
By: Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy majed_thabet@hotmail.com
This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples.Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions.One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also.For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration.Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us.I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.
By: Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy majed_thabet@hotmail.com
This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples.Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions.One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also.For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration.Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us.I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.
Egypt-Israel love fatwa highlights split on peace
Egypt-Israel love fatwa highlights split on peace
By al-Qatb
An Israeli Arab woman sent an e-mail some weeks ago to Sheikh Farahat Al-Mongy, an Islamic scholar from Egypt, complaining that her Egyptian husband, who used to live with her in Israel, had decided to break up their marriage and leave Israel for good.News of the broken marriage thrilled Al-Mongy. To him, this meant that his latest fatwa, or religious edict, about the "sinfulness" of Egyptians getting married to Israelis, which he issued a month and a half ago, was having an effect. "Egyptians who get married to Israelis and live in Israel turn into spies for the Zionist state when they come back," Al-Mongy said in his edict, published in local newspapers in Egypt. "That is why Islam considers this knot unholy." When Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin shook hands with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1979 after signing a peace treaty in the United States, both men might have thought that they were setting their countries on a normal course of relations. But 28 years after reaching peace, the situation on the ground proves their hopes far-fetched. In Egypt, Israel is still viewed as an enemy.And little symbolizes the rockiness of this relationship better than the fatwa against Egyptian-Israeli love. The peace between Egypt and Israel is proving to be a mere government to government affair. Egypt's media has never balked at portraying Israel as a warmongering state since the peace agreement was signed. Demonstrations, either on university campuses or on the streets demanding the dismissal of the Israeli ambassador from Egypt, are a frequent occurrence here, uncovering the total disconnect between official and public attitudes. Al-Mongy's dictum produced a groundswell of acclaim in this country of 80 million people with a Sunni Muslim majority in a way the sheikh himself never expected to happen. It became fodder for talk shows and made headlines in local newspapers. A weekly newspaper, Sawt al-Ummah, called the edict "beautiful" and even pressed al-Azhar, the strongest religious institution in the Islamic world, to adopt it. Recently, a group of three members of the People's Assembly (the lower house of Egypt's Parliament) embraced Al-Mongy's edict by presenting a draft law that would strip Egyptians married to Israelis -- whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian -- of their Egyptian citizenship and deny them entry into Egypt. The draft, if made into a law, would instruct the courts to consider marriage between Egyptians and Israelis illegal. One of the members of Parliament who presented the draft law is Mohssen Radi, who is a member of Egypt's largest Islamic organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. "Israel is a country that should be wiped off the map," Radi said in an interview two weeks ago, repeating pronouncements Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made about Israel two years ago. To Radi, for an Egyptian to get married to an Israeli would usher in a new generation of "traitors" who would be "corrosive" to Egypt's national security. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928 to explain religious texts to Egyptians, emerged as a formidable power on Egypt's political scene in 2005, when its candidates, who ran as independents in the legislative elections, managed to win 88 seats in the 445-seat legislature. Now, having given birth to groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories and boasting branches everywhere in the world, the Muslim Brotherhood is a headache for the regime of President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for the last 26 years. The Brotherhood had already prepared a political platform it would present to Egypt's Political Parties Committee, a government body that licenses political parties, to start a new party. Egypt's constitution does not allow the creation of political parties on religious backgrounds. Many in Egypt and outside it cower at the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt. The group is generally known to be inimical to peace with Israel. "If we come to office, we will hold a referendum on the peace agreement with Israel," said Mohamed Mehdi Akef, the supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, in an interview last month. "Then we will abide by the desire of our people." Arabs branded Sadat a traitor for his 1977 visit to Israel and boycotted Egypt when, in 1979, it signed the first peace treaty between an Arab country and the Jewish state. Peace with Israel was said to be Sadat's biggest political gamble and his death sentence. It was Muslim militant soldiers who assassinated him in 1981, while he was watching a military parade that was held to celebrate the Egyptians' October victory over the Israelis in 1973.One reason why Al-Mongy calls the marriage between a Muslim and an Israeli "graceless" is that this marriage might result in disputes over properties in Egypt when the Egyptian father dies. "Similar disputes happened in Palestine, and that was how the Palestinians lost a big part of their lands to Israel," Al-Mongy, 70, said, repeating a general misperception in Egypt about how Israel came into existence. "At the same time, Israelis, both men and women, are conscripted into the army, and a Muslim should not get married to a member of an enemy army." In 2000, the Egyptian Ministry of Social Affairs put the number of Egyptians married to Arab women with an Israeli passport at 17,000, but other officials claim that number is far too high.But what is unquestioned is the growing presence of Egyptians in Israel proper. According to a recent article in al-Ahram newspaper, 6,000-7,000 Egyptians are legal residents of Israel, while an additional 5,000-6,000 reside there illegally. The Israeli Ministry of Interior's Population Administration told al-Ahram that 5,463 Egyptians living in Israel hold an expired visa, while 643 hold a valid one. The ministry could not say how many Egyptians hold citizenship and permanent or temporary residency cards.Part of the antipathy toward accepting these marriages is the widespread misconception that Israel is a state without a large non-Jewish minority. Many Egyptians assume a marriage to an Israeli is a marriage to a Jew. "The children of an Israeli would have more sympathy to Israel, not the Arab world," said Saad Aboud, another lawmaker who presented the draft law, along with Radi. "The curricula the students in Israel have [contains] enough anti-Arab ideas to turn these children against the Arab nation." Aboud belongs to the yet-unrecognized Karama Party, a left-leaning party that has Nasserite socialist attitudes that usually contradict the stances of the Muslim Brotherhood. Issues of what the two groups call "national security," however, always blur the distinction between them. According to Al-Mongy, the child of a Jewish mother and a Muslim father follows the religion of the mother. "So how can a man who is called Ahmed be the father of a child who is called Cohen?" he asked. He said the 25,000 Egyptians married to Israelis -- his number - each have at least three children. To him, this means that in a matter of a few years time, there would be about 75,000 people demanding their rights in their parents' properties in Egypt."This is catastrophic," Al-Mongy said. The proposed law against Israeli-Egyptian marriages has a slender chance of passing with the ruling National Democratic Party -- a party that inherited Sadat's legacy and presents itself as the guardian of peace with Israel -- having more than an 80 percent majority in the legislature. Yet, it is a grim reminder of the intrinsic differences between official and public attitudes toward peace with Israel."This kind of marriage should never happen." Radi said. "Israel was an illegal entity that was established on Arabs' stolen land. How can we get married to the very people who stole our house and made it their own?" al-Qatb is the pen name of The Journal's commentator writing from Egypt.
By al-Qatb
An Israeli Arab woman sent an e-mail some weeks ago to Sheikh Farahat Al-Mongy, an Islamic scholar from Egypt, complaining that her Egyptian husband, who used to live with her in Israel, had decided to break up their marriage and leave Israel for good.News of the broken marriage thrilled Al-Mongy. To him, this meant that his latest fatwa, or religious edict, about the "sinfulness" of Egyptians getting married to Israelis, which he issued a month and a half ago, was having an effect. "Egyptians who get married to Israelis and live in Israel turn into spies for the Zionist state when they come back," Al-Mongy said in his edict, published in local newspapers in Egypt. "That is why Islam considers this knot unholy." When Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin shook hands with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1979 after signing a peace treaty in the United States, both men might have thought that they were setting their countries on a normal course of relations. But 28 years after reaching peace, the situation on the ground proves their hopes far-fetched. In Egypt, Israel is still viewed as an enemy.And little symbolizes the rockiness of this relationship better than the fatwa against Egyptian-Israeli love. The peace between Egypt and Israel is proving to be a mere government to government affair. Egypt's media has never balked at portraying Israel as a warmongering state since the peace agreement was signed. Demonstrations, either on university campuses or on the streets demanding the dismissal of the Israeli ambassador from Egypt, are a frequent occurrence here, uncovering the total disconnect between official and public attitudes. Al-Mongy's dictum produced a groundswell of acclaim in this country of 80 million people with a Sunni Muslim majority in a way the sheikh himself never expected to happen. It became fodder for talk shows and made headlines in local newspapers. A weekly newspaper, Sawt al-Ummah, called the edict "beautiful" and even pressed al-Azhar, the strongest religious institution in the Islamic world, to adopt it. Recently, a group of three members of the People's Assembly (the lower house of Egypt's Parliament) embraced Al-Mongy's edict by presenting a draft law that would strip Egyptians married to Israelis -- whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian -- of their Egyptian citizenship and deny them entry into Egypt. The draft, if made into a law, would instruct the courts to consider marriage between Egyptians and Israelis illegal. One of the members of Parliament who presented the draft law is Mohssen Radi, who is a member of Egypt's largest Islamic organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. "Israel is a country that should be wiped off the map," Radi said in an interview two weeks ago, repeating pronouncements Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made about Israel two years ago. To Radi, for an Egyptian to get married to an Israeli would usher in a new generation of "traitors" who would be "corrosive" to Egypt's national security. The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928 to explain religious texts to Egyptians, emerged as a formidable power on Egypt's political scene in 2005, when its candidates, who ran as independents in the legislative elections, managed to win 88 seats in the 445-seat legislature. Now, having given birth to groups like Hamas in the Palestinian territories and boasting branches everywhere in the world, the Muslim Brotherhood is a headache for the regime of President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for the last 26 years. The Brotherhood had already prepared a political platform it would present to Egypt's Political Parties Committee, a government body that licenses political parties, to start a new party. Egypt's constitution does not allow the creation of political parties on religious backgrounds. Many in Egypt and outside it cower at the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt. The group is generally known to be inimical to peace with Israel. "If we come to office, we will hold a referendum on the peace agreement with Israel," said Mohamed Mehdi Akef, the supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, in an interview last month. "Then we will abide by the desire of our people." Arabs branded Sadat a traitor for his 1977 visit to Israel and boycotted Egypt when, in 1979, it signed the first peace treaty between an Arab country and the Jewish state. Peace with Israel was said to be Sadat's biggest political gamble and his death sentence. It was Muslim militant soldiers who assassinated him in 1981, while he was watching a military parade that was held to celebrate the Egyptians' October victory over the Israelis in 1973.One reason why Al-Mongy calls the marriage between a Muslim and an Israeli "graceless" is that this marriage might result in disputes over properties in Egypt when the Egyptian father dies. "Similar disputes happened in Palestine, and that was how the Palestinians lost a big part of their lands to Israel," Al-Mongy, 70, said, repeating a general misperception in Egypt about how Israel came into existence. "At the same time, Israelis, both men and women, are conscripted into the army, and a Muslim should not get married to a member of an enemy army." In 2000, the Egyptian Ministry of Social Affairs put the number of Egyptians married to Arab women with an Israeli passport at 17,000, but other officials claim that number is far too high.But what is unquestioned is the growing presence of Egyptians in Israel proper. According to a recent article in al-Ahram newspaper, 6,000-7,000 Egyptians are legal residents of Israel, while an additional 5,000-6,000 reside there illegally. The Israeli Ministry of Interior's Population Administration told al-Ahram that 5,463 Egyptians living in Israel hold an expired visa, while 643 hold a valid one. The ministry could not say how many Egyptians hold citizenship and permanent or temporary residency cards.Part of the antipathy toward accepting these marriages is the widespread misconception that Israel is a state without a large non-Jewish minority. Many Egyptians assume a marriage to an Israeli is a marriage to a Jew. "The children of an Israeli would have more sympathy to Israel, not the Arab world," said Saad Aboud, another lawmaker who presented the draft law, along with Radi. "The curricula the students in Israel have [contains] enough anti-Arab ideas to turn these children against the Arab nation." Aboud belongs to the yet-unrecognized Karama Party, a left-leaning party that has Nasserite socialist attitudes that usually contradict the stances of the Muslim Brotherhood. Issues of what the two groups call "national security," however, always blur the distinction between them. According to Al-Mongy, the child of a Jewish mother and a Muslim father follows the religion of the mother. "So how can a man who is called Ahmed be the father of a child who is called Cohen?" he asked. He said the 25,000 Egyptians married to Israelis -- his number - each have at least three children. To him, this means that in a matter of a few years time, there would be about 75,000 people demanding their rights in their parents' properties in Egypt."This is catastrophic," Al-Mongy said. The proposed law against Israeli-Egyptian marriages has a slender chance of passing with the ruling National Democratic Party -- a party that inherited Sadat's legacy and presents itself as the guardian of peace with Israel -- having more than an 80 percent majority in the legislature. Yet, it is a grim reminder of the intrinsic differences between official and public attitudes toward peace with Israel."This kind of marriage should never happen." Radi said. "Israel was an illegal entity that was established on Arabs' stolen land. How can we get married to the very people who stole our house and made it their own?" al-Qatb is the pen name of The Journal's commentator writing from Egypt.
The Lebanon red line.
The Lebanon Red LineDavid MakovskyHaaretz
When President George W. Bush arrives in Israel in the next few days, it is possible that Syria will be a major topic and not just the Palestinians and Iran . Damascus is one issue which Washington and Jerusalem view very differently. Those in Israel pressing for a revived Syria peace track have failed to identify the problem with the U.S. ; nor do they realize that the solution to this policy difference between the two friends may be found in Beirut . The common view is that the Bush administration does not want Israel to hold talks with Syria because Damascus is on the "waiting list of the 'axis of evil.'" To be sure, the U.S. has no love lost for Syria due to terrorism, but as Annapolis indicated, the U.S. knew when it was advantageous to invite Syria to a peace conference. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes Syrian participation in Annapolis could reduce terrorism.Rather, the Bush administration's anger with Syria is most pronounced over Lebanon , an issue which has become more acute as Syria continues to block the naming of a new Lebanese president. Of all the reasons Bush cited at his last press conference in late December when he stated, "my patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago," the longest explanation focused on Syria 's efforts to destabilize Lebanon .What is not appreciated in Israel is that the Bush administration deems the very fragile Lebanese sovereignty as one of the great successes of its Middle East policy. There may be military successes now in Iraq under General David Petraeus, but the war is certainly not over. In contrast, Lebanon is viewed by the administration as a success story, as Syria ended a 29-year occupation and a pro-Western, democratic government emerged in its wake.Some in Israel may claim that Syria 's exit was not a function of successful diplomacy between Washington , Paris , and Riyadh , but rather a function of the tragedy Syria allegedly committed - in other words, Syria created a Lebanese backlash by its alleged murder of a beloved former prime minister, which united the non-Shi'ite elements in Lebanon . However, the Bush administration does not see the Lebanese public protests as foreordaining Syria 's exit, but as a function of U.S.-led concerted action.Moreover, while the Bush democracy doctrine in the Mideast has become largely a dead letter after the Hamas victory in January 2006, Lebanon is viewed by the Bush administration as a place where it has a chance to succeed. Bush does not speak about Mideast democracy as he did with the fervor at the start of his second term in 2005, but at the same recent press conference he said, "it's very important that Lebanon 's democracy succeed."The problem is not just that Israel does not understand how President Bush views success. It also seems unaware that some in the Bush administration believe Israel would undo that success in exchange for a Golan peace deal. In other words, members of the Bush administration think that Israel would not hesitate to "sell" Lebanon to Damascus in order to make peace with Syria , and therefore an Israel-Syria peace negotiation is too risky a proposition. Some in Washington see that Israel has not publicly disavowed this idea that it will sell out Lebanon as evidence that Israel would make a deal with Syria at Lebanon 's expense, while it is also possible that Israel - beset with a myriad of other challenges - never thought this was an issue. Silence from Jerusalem on this question is often interpreted negatively in the U.S. , and not as negligence.While Washington and Jerusalem have worked closely together on a range of issues, few issues have been more problematic. Lebanon is one such issue and it has affected the way the U.S. views talks with Syria . It is sometimes carefully couched, so the U.S. can deny it is vetoing peace talks. When an Israeli reporter asked Bush about such a veto several months ago, Bush was careful to say that no such veto existed. However, as one senior Israeli cabinet official put it, "given Bush's tone, it was like a parent telling a child that if you want you can play in traffic. We didn't see it as a green light."It is clear, based on my recent trip to the Mideast with a delegation of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Israel's security establishment believe it is worth exploring whether a breakthrough with Syria could both weaken Iran's power in the region and weaken Palestinian rejectionists as well remove an arms conduit for Hezbollah. On the eve of Annapolis , Jordan 's King Abdullah made his first trip to Damascus in four years believing Syria must return to the Arab fold and away from Tehran . Our visit to Amman indicates that Jordan believes Syria chafes at the devolving junior partner role it plays today, unlike the role it had for years in the past as Iran 's equal.There are many questions on whether Syria is willing and capable of reorienting its regional foreign policy away from its participation in the Iranian "quartet" ( Tehran , Damascus , Hamas and Hezbollah) as part of peace with Israel . Further legitimate questions will arise as to how this proposition can be tested in order to minimize risk. If Syria is willing and capable of realigning its policies, such a track could facilitate rather than undermine peace prospects with the Palestinian Authority. Syria probably sees peace talks with Israel as a means of improving ties with the U.S. , but talks will inevitably fail anyway if the U.S. and Israel are at odds.The first step is to align Washington and Jerusalem . Given U.S. anger with Syria over Lebanon , it is unclear whether this will succeed. Yet, the only way it has a chance, it would seem, is if Israel makes clear to the U.S. that it has a "red line" in peace talks with Syria. Israel should say it will not sacrifice Lebanese sovereignty on the platter of peace with Syria .Either in public statements or in private talks between President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert in the coming days, it is important to restore the trust between the U.S. and Israel over how Israel would conduct peace negotiations with Syria . Coordination between Washington and Jerusalem does not guarantee Israeli success with Syria , but it is its prerequisite.The writer is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and director of its Project on the Middle East Peace Process.
When President George W. Bush arrives in Israel in the next few days, it is possible that Syria will be a major topic and not just the Palestinians and Iran . Damascus is one issue which Washington and Jerusalem view very differently. Those in Israel pressing for a revived Syria peace track have failed to identify the problem with the U.S. ; nor do they realize that the solution to this policy difference between the two friends may be found in Beirut . The common view is that the Bush administration does not want Israel to hold talks with Syria because Damascus is on the "waiting list of the 'axis of evil.'" To be sure, the U.S. has no love lost for Syria due to terrorism, but as Annapolis indicated, the U.S. knew when it was advantageous to invite Syria to a peace conference. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes Syrian participation in Annapolis could reduce terrorism.Rather, the Bush administration's anger with Syria is most pronounced over Lebanon , an issue which has become more acute as Syria continues to block the naming of a new Lebanese president. Of all the reasons Bush cited at his last press conference in late December when he stated, "my patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago," the longest explanation focused on Syria 's efforts to destabilize Lebanon .What is not appreciated in Israel is that the Bush administration deems the very fragile Lebanese sovereignty as one of the great successes of its Middle East policy. There may be military successes now in Iraq under General David Petraeus, but the war is certainly not over. In contrast, Lebanon is viewed by the administration as a success story, as Syria ended a 29-year occupation and a pro-Western, democratic government emerged in its wake.Some in Israel may claim that Syria 's exit was not a function of successful diplomacy between Washington , Paris , and Riyadh , but rather a function of the tragedy Syria allegedly committed - in other words, Syria created a Lebanese backlash by its alleged murder of a beloved former prime minister, which united the non-Shi'ite elements in Lebanon . However, the Bush administration does not see the Lebanese public protests as foreordaining Syria 's exit, but as a function of U.S.-led concerted action.Moreover, while the Bush democracy doctrine in the Mideast has become largely a dead letter after the Hamas victory in January 2006, Lebanon is viewed by the Bush administration as a place where it has a chance to succeed. Bush does not speak about Mideast democracy as he did with the fervor at the start of his second term in 2005, but at the same recent press conference he said, "it's very important that Lebanon 's democracy succeed."The problem is not just that Israel does not understand how President Bush views success. It also seems unaware that some in the Bush administration believe Israel would undo that success in exchange for a Golan peace deal. In other words, members of the Bush administration think that Israel would not hesitate to "sell" Lebanon to Damascus in order to make peace with Syria , and therefore an Israel-Syria peace negotiation is too risky a proposition. Some in Washington see that Israel has not publicly disavowed this idea that it will sell out Lebanon as evidence that Israel would make a deal with Syria at Lebanon 's expense, while it is also possible that Israel - beset with a myriad of other challenges - never thought this was an issue. Silence from Jerusalem on this question is often interpreted negatively in the U.S. , and not as negligence.While Washington and Jerusalem have worked closely together on a range of issues, few issues have been more problematic. Lebanon is one such issue and it has affected the way the U.S. views talks with Syria . It is sometimes carefully couched, so the U.S. can deny it is vetoing peace talks. When an Israeli reporter asked Bush about such a veto several months ago, Bush was careful to say that no such veto existed. However, as one senior Israeli cabinet official put it, "given Bush's tone, it was like a parent telling a child that if you want you can play in traffic. We didn't see it as a green light."It is clear, based on my recent trip to the Mideast with a delegation of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Israel's security establishment believe it is worth exploring whether a breakthrough with Syria could both weaken Iran's power in the region and weaken Palestinian rejectionists as well remove an arms conduit for Hezbollah. On the eve of Annapolis , Jordan 's King Abdullah made his first trip to Damascus in four years believing Syria must return to the Arab fold and away from Tehran . Our visit to Amman indicates that Jordan believes Syria chafes at the devolving junior partner role it plays today, unlike the role it had for years in the past as Iran 's equal.There are many questions on whether Syria is willing and capable of reorienting its regional foreign policy away from its participation in the Iranian "quartet" ( Tehran , Damascus , Hamas and Hezbollah) as part of peace with Israel . Further legitimate questions will arise as to how this proposition can be tested in order to minimize risk. If Syria is willing and capable of realigning its policies, such a track could facilitate rather than undermine peace prospects with the Palestinian Authority. Syria probably sees peace talks with Israel as a means of improving ties with the U.S. , but talks will inevitably fail anyway if the U.S. and Israel are at odds.The first step is to align Washington and Jerusalem . Given U.S. anger with Syria over Lebanon , it is unclear whether this will succeed. Yet, the only way it has a chance, it would seem, is if Israel makes clear to the U.S. that it has a "red line" in peace talks with Syria. Israel should say it will not sacrifice Lebanese sovereignty on the platter of peace with Syria .Either in public statements or in private talks between President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert in the coming days, it is important to restore the trust between the U.S. and Israel over how Israel would conduct peace negotiations with Syria . Coordination between Washington and Jerusalem does not guarantee Israeli success with Syria , but it is its prerequisite.The writer is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and director of its Project on the Middle East Peace Process.
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
islamic pornography on the path of the prophet
January 08, 2008
Hackers PWN British Islamist Website: Jihadis Heart Tranny Porn
A group of Russian hackers recently infiltrated a website run by radical Islamists in Britain and uploaded a keystroke recording program which allowed them to follow the internet browsing habits of members. The website, called Islambase, is run by the followers of exiled British cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed. His followers are best known for a number of protests, including one in which followers urged the beheading of those who insulted Islam.
The Islambase website should be very familiar to Jawa Report readers. In March of last year we reported that the website carried al Qaeda literature, including Osama bin Laden's "Clarification of 9/11" and a "Declaration of War". They also secretly distributed an online book titled, "The Virtues of Killing the Non-Believer."
Arabic speakers would immediately recognize the significance of the website's name, since "qaeda" means "base".
So, what did the Russian hackers find about Bakri Mohammed's followers?
Abu Jihad - recently responsible for a gloating post on Islambase about the five British hostages in Iraq, which he summed up with the beautifully scribed "When Jihad beckons no Fatwa is soughts Fatwa on the Day of Jihad is blood"- likewise spent an age online a couple of nights before Christmas....
It's at one thirty in the morning when the real Abu Jihad appears and turns to the website Pandora'ssecrets.com where he logs in (clearly a regular site user) and spends forty five minutes flitting between sex stories; not male stories but female ones....
In one keyboard impression trail, Hamza shows himself up as a genuine sicko; visiting the site Strangeland.com, he goes to a section entitled Death Flix and watches a video called "Leftovers from suicide bomb", then a video called "Iraqi execution: WARNING GRAPHIC" before tucking into some "Franz Reichelt Jumps Off the Eiffel Tower with his Coat Parachute and Dies". He then switches to Strangeland's porn section where he watches several short clips including: "Wifey in the shower", "Trapeze titties on Titty Tuesday", "Pedifile's Punishment" and "Santa's Jugs".
After seventeen minutes on Strangeland, he goes for something even more hardcore on a site called Puretna. Clicking on "TNAFlix full length streaming porn movies for free!!!" he then clicks on "Long Videos" and starts browsing by category. I won't print here the results of the category search he undertakes but - according to the Russians - the categories he searches through include "Gay/Bi-Male", "SheMale/Trans" and "Home Made". One stream is particularly indicative of Hamza's online desires:
itsashemaleorgyscene2>Esc<>Shemaleclubkellyohanapi@@ing>Esc<<<>>
<>Transexualgangbanger10scene2>Esc>>Esc Seriously, you can't make this stuff up! An interesting sidenote is that our very own Inshallahshaheed is also connected to the website. I'm guessing Samir Khan is probably into the Tranny porn, too!
Read the rest of Baldwin's piece here. Thanks to RW.
Hackers PWN British Islamist Website: Jihadis Heart Tranny Porn
A group of Russian hackers recently infiltrated a website run by radical Islamists in Britain and uploaded a keystroke recording program which allowed them to follow the internet browsing habits of members. The website, called Islambase, is run by the followers of exiled British cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed. His followers are best known for a number of protests, including one in which followers urged the beheading of those who insulted Islam.
The Islambase website should be very familiar to Jawa Report readers. In March of last year we reported that the website carried al Qaeda literature, including Osama bin Laden's "Clarification of 9/11" and a "Declaration of War". They also secretly distributed an online book titled, "The Virtues of Killing the Non-Believer."
Arabic speakers would immediately recognize the significance of the website's name, since "qaeda" means "base".
So, what did the Russian hackers find about Bakri Mohammed's followers?
Abu Jihad - recently responsible for a gloating post on Islambase about the five British hostages in Iraq, which he summed up with the beautifully scribed "When Jihad beckons no Fatwa is soughts Fatwa on the Day of Jihad is blood"- likewise spent an age online a couple of nights before Christmas....
It's at one thirty in the morning when the real Abu Jihad appears and turns to the website Pandora'ssecrets.com where he logs in (clearly a regular site user) and spends forty five minutes flitting between sex stories; not male stories but female ones....
In one keyboard impression trail, Hamza shows himself up as a genuine sicko; visiting the site Strangeland.com, he goes to a section entitled Death Flix and watches a video called "Leftovers from suicide bomb", then a video called "Iraqi execution: WARNING GRAPHIC" before tucking into some "Franz Reichelt Jumps Off the Eiffel Tower with his Coat Parachute and Dies". He then switches to Strangeland's porn section where he watches several short clips including: "Wifey in the shower", "Trapeze titties on Titty Tuesday", "Pedifile's Punishment" and "Santa's Jugs".
After seventeen minutes on Strangeland, he goes for something even more hardcore on a site called Puretna. Clicking on "TNAFlix full length streaming porn movies for free!!!" he then clicks on "Long Videos" and starts browsing by category. I won't print here the results of the category search he undertakes but - according to the Russians - the categories he searches through include "Gay/Bi-Male", "SheMale/Trans" and "Home Made". One stream is particularly indicative of Hamza's online desires:
itsashemaleorgyscene2>Esc<>Shemaleclubkellyohanapi@@ing>Esc<<<>>
<>Transexualgangbanger10scene2>Esc>>Esc Seriously, you can't make this stuff up! An interesting sidenote is that our very own Inshallahshaheed is also connected to the website. I'm guessing Samir Khan is probably into the Tranny porn, too!
Read the rest of Baldwin's piece here. Thanks to RW.
The idiots of islam
Hollywood's 'Useful Idiots' Still Thrive
by James Zumwalt (more by this author)
Posted 12/19/2007 ET
The war on terrorism is being fought on an uneven playing field. Ironically, a group of Americans who could help counter this imbalance is denied access to most Muslim states while a group contributing to the imbalance experiences ready access.For decades Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia have fostered the Islamic extremism plaguing the world today, coupled with complete intolerance for other world religions. Thus, Muslim mosques and madrassas vehicles of worship for believers and the potential conversion of non-believers -- are allowed in tolerant Western societies but non-Islamic places of worship and schools are not allowed in the vast majority of Muslim ones. It is a one-way street. The problem manifests itself in the quality of education in the Arab world.. Colleges are teaching religion and rote memorization with little focus on subjects stimulating creative thought such as science, math, history, and literature. A post-9/11 study conducted by China listing the top 500 universities in the world, failed to include a single Arab university.
This lack of education, endemic throughout the Muslim world for centuries, has hindered independent thought and creativity, breeding intolerance towards non-Islamic religions. Thus, we now are left to foster, from outside the Arab bloc, tolerance and creative thought within it -- to a population lacking the education essential to comprehend there is more to the 21st century world order than the “Muslims-as-victims” role being fostered by a myopic Arab media. Yet a most effective tool we possess to impart such tolerance -- non-Islamic religion -- is unavailable in Muslim nations.
There is another group of Americans who could help level the playing field but choose not to do so. Ironically, while influential and fully able to exercise the creative thinking unavailable to Muslims, they direct their thinking in a way only ensuring its continuing unevenness.
They tend to view America through a distorted lens, seeing the bad and not much of the good. These are Hollywood’s “elite” -- producers and actors -- portraying America in a negative light in their films as we struggle to fight an enemy and ideology threatening our very existence.
It was not always this way.
In 1961, one of the greatest movie producers in American cinema shared his thoughts about Hollywood’s responsibility in making films. He said, “We should never lose sight of the fact that, no matter how entertaining a picture may be or how much money it may make, it can do our country a great deal of harm if it plays into the hands of our enemies…We have a great responsibility in this regard -- far greater than almost any other segment of our country -- and we must guide ourselves accordingly.”This observation was made by Samuel Goldwyn -- responsible for hundreds of film classics, whose name represents the “G” in “MGM,” -- Metro-Goldwyn Mayer -- the movie production/distribution company.
As we struggle to gently nudge a Muslim population exceeding one billion towards tolerance of other religions, our ability to do so is being undermined by a Hollywood creative mindset focused today on releases portraying America in a bad light or extremists in a good one in movies such as “Rendition,” “Lions for Lambs” and “A Mighty Heart.”
As we struggle against an extremist mindset effectively using our Western freedoms against us to win an ideological war, Hollywood assists the enemy. These films play before intolerant Muslim audiences, stimulating anger and resentment, while American military personnel are venturing into harm’s way to save Muslims today in places like Bangladesh.
For decades the US military has answered the call for humanitarian assistance around the world, quickly rushing to save lives. It is the only organization capable of so doing. And it remains blind -- as it should -- to the religious orientation of those it saves. It was the first to respond to the 1991 cyclone in Bangladesh, claiming 143,000 Muslim lives; and to the 2004 tsunami, hitting heavily-populated Muslim states along the Pacific Rim, claiming 250,000 lives; and to the 2005 earthquake devastating Pakistan. Those Muslims rescued saw the caring side of America’s military; yet Hollywood chooses to portray a fictionalized sinister side of our military to the Muslim world. Who knows how many easily influenced, young Muslim movie-goers, motivated by Hollywood’s portrayal, seek revenge for this depiction.
The world has witnessed the violent reaction of Muslims to any criticism of Islam -- a sensitivity observed by Hollywood in limiting its defamatory attacks to non-Islamic religions only. This double standard was most recently evidenced by the children’s film “The Golden Compass.” While debate ensues over its message, we need only consider the stated focus of atheist author Phillip Pullman, upon whose book the movie is based. Pullman said his focus is “to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” One can only imagine the impact this movie will have upon Muslim audiences. They see it as a telltale sign of Western decline and its inability to protect the sanctity of the primary religion within its borders.
It is sad our Hollywood elites fail to see the harm their movies do to our country in the Muslim world today. It is sad they abuse the “great responsibility” with which they are charged. The ultimate role they play is of Vladimir Lenin’s “useful idiots” -- Westerners naively aiding an ideology opposed to the very freedoms they so freely exercise -- a role he came to greatly appreciate during his ideological struggle with the West.While Communism ultimately lost that ideological war against Western freedom, it remains unclear whether its successor ideology, radical Islam, will incur a similar fate.
James Zumwalt is a retired Marine who served in the Vietnam and Gulf wars. He has written opinion pieces on foreign policy, defense and security issues for dozens of newspapers. He is president of his own security consulting company.
by James Zumwalt (more by this author)
Posted 12/19/2007 ET
The war on terrorism is being fought on an uneven playing field. Ironically, a group of Americans who could help counter this imbalance is denied access to most Muslim states while a group contributing to the imbalance experiences ready access.For decades Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia have fostered the Islamic extremism plaguing the world today, coupled with complete intolerance for other world religions. Thus, Muslim mosques and madrassas vehicles of worship for believers and the potential conversion of non-believers -- are allowed in tolerant Western societies but non-Islamic places of worship and schools are not allowed in the vast majority of Muslim ones. It is a one-way street. The problem manifests itself in the quality of education in the Arab world.. Colleges are teaching religion and rote memorization with little focus on subjects stimulating creative thought such as science, math, history, and literature. A post-9/11 study conducted by China listing the top 500 universities in the world, failed to include a single Arab university.
This lack of education, endemic throughout the Muslim world for centuries, has hindered independent thought and creativity, breeding intolerance towards non-Islamic religions. Thus, we now are left to foster, from outside the Arab bloc, tolerance and creative thought within it -- to a population lacking the education essential to comprehend there is more to the 21st century world order than the “Muslims-as-victims” role being fostered by a myopic Arab media. Yet a most effective tool we possess to impart such tolerance -- non-Islamic religion -- is unavailable in Muslim nations.
There is another group of Americans who could help level the playing field but choose not to do so. Ironically, while influential and fully able to exercise the creative thinking unavailable to Muslims, they direct their thinking in a way only ensuring its continuing unevenness.
They tend to view America through a distorted lens, seeing the bad and not much of the good. These are Hollywood’s “elite” -- producers and actors -- portraying America in a negative light in their films as we struggle to fight an enemy and ideology threatening our very existence.
It was not always this way.
In 1961, one of the greatest movie producers in American cinema shared his thoughts about Hollywood’s responsibility in making films. He said, “We should never lose sight of the fact that, no matter how entertaining a picture may be or how much money it may make, it can do our country a great deal of harm if it plays into the hands of our enemies…We have a great responsibility in this regard -- far greater than almost any other segment of our country -- and we must guide ourselves accordingly.”This observation was made by Samuel Goldwyn -- responsible for hundreds of film classics, whose name represents the “G” in “MGM,” -- Metro-Goldwyn Mayer -- the movie production/distribution company.
As we struggle to gently nudge a Muslim population exceeding one billion towards tolerance of other religions, our ability to do so is being undermined by a Hollywood creative mindset focused today on releases portraying America in a bad light or extremists in a good one in movies such as “Rendition,” “Lions for Lambs” and “A Mighty Heart.”
As we struggle against an extremist mindset effectively using our Western freedoms against us to win an ideological war, Hollywood assists the enemy. These films play before intolerant Muslim audiences, stimulating anger and resentment, while American military personnel are venturing into harm’s way to save Muslims today in places like Bangladesh.
For decades the US military has answered the call for humanitarian assistance around the world, quickly rushing to save lives. It is the only organization capable of so doing. And it remains blind -- as it should -- to the religious orientation of those it saves. It was the first to respond to the 1991 cyclone in Bangladesh, claiming 143,000 Muslim lives; and to the 2004 tsunami, hitting heavily-populated Muslim states along the Pacific Rim, claiming 250,000 lives; and to the 2005 earthquake devastating Pakistan. Those Muslims rescued saw the caring side of America’s military; yet Hollywood chooses to portray a fictionalized sinister side of our military to the Muslim world. Who knows how many easily influenced, young Muslim movie-goers, motivated by Hollywood’s portrayal, seek revenge for this depiction.
The world has witnessed the violent reaction of Muslims to any criticism of Islam -- a sensitivity observed by Hollywood in limiting its defamatory attacks to non-Islamic religions only. This double standard was most recently evidenced by the children’s film “The Golden Compass.” While debate ensues over its message, we need only consider the stated focus of atheist author Phillip Pullman, upon whose book the movie is based. Pullman said his focus is “to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” One can only imagine the impact this movie will have upon Muslim audiences. They see it as a telltale sign of Western decline and its inability to protect the sanctity of the primary religion within its borders.
It is sad our Hollywood elites fail to see the harm their movies do to our country in the Muslim world today. It is sad they abuse the “great responsibility” with which they are charged. The ultimate role they play is of Vladimir Lenin’s “useful idiots” -- Westerners naively aiding an ideology opposed to the very freedoms they so freely exercise -- a role he came to greatly appreciate during his ideological struggle with the West.While Communism ultimately lost that ideological war against Western freedom, it remains unclear whether its successor ideology, radical Islam, will incur a similar fate.
James Zumwalt is a retired Marine who served in the Vietnam and Gulf wars. He has written opinion pieces on foreign policy, defense and security issues for dozens of newspapers. He is president of his own security consulting company.
islam, islam and again islam
The media prate on about "change" vs. "experience," and we are all diverted by the play of personality and the sweep of celebrity on the presidential hustings. Which isn't to say that selecting the next President of the United States isn't important. It is hugely important.
But the most significant issue is utterly ignored by candidates and voters alike.
That issue is the fact that we live in an era which, barring reversal, will probably be remembered as the era of the Islamization of the Western world.
This process is well underway, and worse, is going forward not just unimpeded, but almost completely misunderstood. Worst of all, it is being helped forward by those whom we implicitly trust to defend us.
I have been sparingly posting recent news reports from the Washington Times' Bill Gertz concerning the sacking of Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon's sole Islamic law expert charged with educating our military leaders about jihad doctrine and sharia (Islamic law). The fact is, Coughlin was too politically incorrect for the Pentagon leadership: that is, he presented the facts about jihad doctrine and its animating role in the tactics and strategy of the umma (Islamic community) in this period of expansionst Islam. In so doing, he underscored an unprecedented lack of professionalism in our armed services that has allowed military planners to draw not on Islamic doctrinal fact and precedent, but on multiculti policy delusions in formulating military strategy in the planning and execution of the so-called War on Terror.
I hope to discover more about the internal machinations that led to his dismissal; so far, according to Gertz, we know that Stephen Coughlin had run afoul of the agenda of Hesham Islam, a key advisor to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who clearly sanctions multiculti policy delusions over rational assessments of the threat posed by expansionist Islam.
Today, in the Sunday Telegraph, a Pakistani-born bishop of the Church of England, the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, offers further confirmation of the progressing Islamization of Europe with a column discussing Muslim-only districts that exist throughout Great Britain--so-called no-go zones, where non-Muslims may expect to be harassed and/or attacked for "trespassing." We in the United States tend to regard this reverse colonization of Europe from a metpahoric and literal distance, cordoned off by ocean and, more important, smaller Islamic demographics.
But there is no security against creeping sharia in such distance--not when we so willingly, so pliantly, so cravely, abide by No-Go Zones of the Mind.
Does the doctrine of Islamic jihad, which for centuries has animated aggression against the non-Islamic world--including the United States of America from its early nationhood (see this important backgrounder by Andrew Bostom)--pose a threat to Western-style liberty?Horrrors! We don't go there. In fact, that's No-Go Zone of the Mind #1. It's also the one Stephen Coughlin was fired by the Pentagon for daring to cross into and take back.
Does the spread of sharia through both Islamic terrorism and Islamic immigration threaten Western-style liberty? That's No-Go Zone #2. And there are many more.
Taking back such mental no-go zones is crucial to any reversal of the spread of Islamic law in the West. In other words, taking back such mental no-go zones is crucial to our liberty.
But the most significant issue is utterly ignored by candidates and voters alike.
That issue is the fact that we live in an era which, barring reversal, will probably be remembered as the era of the Islamization of the Western world.
This process is well underway, and worse, is going forward not just unimpeded, but almost completely misunderstood. Worst of all, it is being helped forward by those whom we implicitly trust to defend us.
I have been sparingly posting recent news reports from the Washington Times' Bill Gertz concerning the sacking of Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon's sole Islamic law expert charged with educating our military leaders about jihad doctrine and sharia (Islamic law). The fact is, Coughlin was too politically incorrect for the Pentagon leadership: that is, he presented the facts about jihad doctrine and its animating role in the tactics and strategy of the umma (Islamic community) in this period of expansionst Islam. In so doing, he underscored an unprecedented lack of professionalism in our armed services that has allowed military planners to draw not on Islamic doctrinal fact and precedent, but on multiculti policy delusions in formulating military strategy in the planning and execution of the so-called War on Terror.
I hope to discover more about the internal machinations that led to his dismissal; so far, according to Gertz, we know that Stephen Coughlin had run afoul of the agenda of Hesham Islam, a key advisor to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who clearly sanctions multiculti policy delusions over rational assessments of the threat posed by expansionist Islam.
Today, in the Sunday Telegraph, a Pakistani-born bishop of the Church of England, the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, offers further confirmation of the progressing Islamization of Europe with a column discussing Muslim-only districts that exist throughout Great Britain--so-called no-go zones, where non-Muslims may expect to be harassed and/or attacked for "trespassing." We in the United States tend to regard this reverse colonization of Europe from a metpahoric and literal distance, cordoned off by ocean and, more important, smaller Islamic demographics.
But there is no security against creeping sharia in such distance--not when we so willingly, so pliantly, so cravely, abide by No-Go Zones of the Mind.
Does the doctrine of Islamic jihad, which for centuries has animated aggression against the non-Islamic world--including the United States of America from its early nationhood (see this important backgrounder by Andrew Bostom)--pose a threat to Western-style liberty?Horrrors! We don't go there. In fact, that's No-Go Zone of the Mind #1. It's also the one Stephen Coughlin was fired by the Pentagon for daring to cross into and take back.
Does the spread of sharia through both Islamic terrorism and Islamic immigration threaten Western-style liberty? That's No-Go Zone #2. And there are many more.
Taking back such mental no-go zones is crucial to any reversal of the spread of Islamic law in the West. In other words, taking back such mental no-go zones is crucial to our liberty.
Freeedom in islam
Norway resident convicted of blasphemyA Kurdish author with asylum in Norway was sentenced in absentia in Iraq last month to six months imprisonment for blasphemy.
Two years ago author Mariwan Halabjaee wrote "Sex, sharia and women in the history of Islam". Here he wrote that the prophet Mohammed had 19 wives, married a nine-year-old when he was aged 54 and that he took part in murder and rape. Last month a court in Halabja convicted him of blasphemy in absentia.
Halabjaee has lived in hiding in Norway for one and a half years. The sentence states that he should be arrested upon his return to north Iraq but he has now been granted asylum in Norway, newspaper Bergens Tidende reports on its web site.
The writer has had 14 books published. Halabjaee says that he has received a series of death threats and that there is a fatwa saying he should be punished by death unless he asks forgiveness.
Halabjaee also believes Norway is naive about radical Islamist groups that he says authorities allow to develop without control on Norwegian soil.
"Norway has protected me against the terrorists and I hope to be able to play a role in this democratic system. But I am alone and feel imprisoned. I have little contact with people and have to move carefully. Even if I have lived here a year and a half no cultural or other organizations have contacted me," Halabjaee says.
Two years ago author Mariwan Halabjaee wrote "Sex, sharia and women in the history of Islam". Here he wrote that the prophet Mohammed had 19 wives, married a nine-year-old when he was aged 54 and that he took part in murder and rape. Last month a court in Halabja convicted him of blasphemy in absentia.
Halabjaee has lived in hiding in Norway for one and a half years. The sentence states that he should be arrested upon his return to north Iraq but he has now been granted asylum in Norway, newspaper Bergens Tidende reports on its web site.
The writer has had 14 books published. Halabjaee says that he has received a series of death threats and that there is a fatwa saying he should be punished by death unless he asks forgiveness.
Halabjaee also believes Norway is naive about radical Islamist groups that he says authorities allow to develop without control on Norwegian soil.
"Norway has protected me against the terrorists and I hope to be able to play a role in this democratic system. But I am alone and feel imprisoned. I have little contact with people and have to move carefully. Even if I have lived here a year and a half no cultural or other organizations have contacted me," Halabjaee says.
Paljoke (or paltalk) like allat and allah is a tool in hands of extremists
Caving-in, to a cultural jihad. That’s how Jerry Gordon described it in his opening commentary for an article written by Joseph Shahda. Shahda’s article, “A Million Muslim Petition to Intimidate PalTalk anti-Islam chat room” unveils how extremists are being granted the opportunity to silence those who don’t agree with them. The article is hosted on ACTforAmerica’s website.
A couple weeks ago, I posted an article also written by Shahda, in which he originally exposed those same extremist forums on one of the largest voice-chat hosts, PalTalk.com. Forums that support Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups such as Hizballah and Hamas. Forums that, according to Shahda, “spread terrorist propaganda, violent terrorist materials, recruit people for Jihad, teach them how to conduct terrorist acts, teach them to hate anyone who disagree with their 7th century sharia, and conduct live interviews with Al Qaeda terrorists.”
Apparently, PalTalk.com is also hosting (for now,) a forum that is against the rhetoric found in those rooms. And extremists are not happy with that. So much so, that an adjacent extremist website, Ekhlaas, has demanded that PalTalk remove it. Ekhlaas, has been granted the opportunity to make this happen. PalTalk has informed Ekhlaas that if they gather a million signatures, they will shut down the ANTI-extremist forum. HERE is the link to the petition itself.
So much for free speech, eh?
I guess it’s OK to spread the hate that comes naturally with forums like Al Ansarr Ansar Al Mougahedeen, which is one of the most anti-American chat’s out there. But speak against it, and it’s some sort of great sin. Well, I guess to an extremist it would be.
A couple weeks ago, I posted an article also written by Shahda, in which he originally exposed those same extremist forums on one of the largest voice-chat hosts, PalTalk.com. Forums that support Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups such as Hizballah and Hamas. Forums that, according to Shahda, “spread terrorist propaganda, violent terrorist materials, recruit people for Jihad, teach them how to conduct terrorist acts, teach them to hate anyone who disagree with their 7th century sharia, and conduct live interviews with Al Qaeda terrorists.”
Apparently, PalTalk.com is also hosting (for now,) a forum that is against the rhetoric found in those rooms. And extremists are not happy with that. So much so, that an adjacent extremist website, Ekhlaas, has demanded that PalTalk remove it. Ekhlaas, has been granted the opportunity to make this happen. PalTalk has informed Ekhlaas that if they gather a million signatures, they will shut down the ANTI-extremist forum. HERE is the link to the petition itself.
So much for free speech, eh?
I guess it’s OK to spread the hate that comes naturally with forums like Al Ansarr Ansar Al Mougahedeen, which is one of the most anti-American chat’s out there. But speak against it, and it’s some sort of great sin. Well, I guess to an extremist it would be.
Monday, 7 January 2008
Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam
Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam
by Daniel PipesFrontPageMagazine.comJanuary 7, 2008http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5354
In a recent analysis, "Was Barack Obama a Muslim?" I surveyed available evidence and found it suggests "Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father." In response, David Brock's organization, Media Matters for America (MMfA), which calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," has criticized one of my sources of information.
MMfA contends in "Daniel Pipes relied on disputed LA Times article to revive Obama-Muslim falsehood," that "key aspects" of a March 16, 2007, Los Angeles Times article I quoted were later challenged by another newspaper account, "History of schooling distorted," by Kim Barker in the Chicago Tribune on March 25.
Falsehood? That's a strong word.
To assess MMfA's claim, let's review its preferred article and examine what Barker has to say on four topics related to Obama's Indonesian years, 1967-71:
His attendance at a Catholic school;
His attendance at a public school;
His step-father, Lolo Soetoro; and
His friend, Zulfan Adi.
To start with, about the Catholic school, Fransiskus Strada Asisia, which Obama attended 1967-70 (words in square brackets are added by me):
Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia, despite being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades. At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said [Israella Pareira] Darmawan, Obama's former [1st-grade] teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.
The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia [including by the Los Angeles Times], also was rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all.
Barack Obama with his public school classmates in Indonesia.About Obama's time at a public elementary school, 1970-71, variously known as the Sekolah Dasar Nasional Menteng No. 1 or the Basuki school, Barker writes:
When Obama attended 4th grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion.
During a recent visit to this public school, Barker found that
Weekly religious classes are required for all students, whether Muslims, Christians or Hindus, under the government curriculum. A new shiny mosque is in the corner of the courtyard. "The Muslims learn about Islam, prayer and religious activity," said Hardi Priyono, the vice principal for curriculum. "And for the Christians, during the religious class, they also have a special room teaching Christianity. It's always been like that."
About Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetoro and his religiosity, Barker writes:
In their first neighborhood, Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said. But Soetoro usually was too busy working, first for the Indonesian army and later for a Western oil company. "Sometimes Lolo went to the mosque to pray, but he rarely socialized with people," said Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family. "Rarely, Barry [a nickname for Barack] went to the mosque with Lolo."
Barker learned from his friends and family that Lolo Soetoro, who died in 1987, was "much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim" and "hardly the image of a pious Muslim."
His nephew, Sonny Trisulo, 49, said Soetoro always liked women and alcohol. One of his health problems was a failing liver. "He loved drinking, was a smart and warm person, the naughtiest one in the family," Trisulo recalled.
As for Zulfan Adi, cited in the Los Angeles Times piece:
Zulfan Adi, a former neighborhood playmate of Obama's who has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro, told the Tribune he was not certain about that when pressed about his recollections. He only knew Obama for a few months, during 1970, when his family moved to the neighborhood.
Does any of the above information from the Chicago Tribune article refute my analysis, as MMfA contends? It raises questions about two details in the Los Angeles Times account (the accuracy of the Catholic school's registration form and the reliability of Zulfan Adi as a source on Obama). But on the larger issue of Obama's religious practices during his Jakarta years, it confirms the Times account. Note in particular three excerpts from Barker's article:
"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia" – implying he was an irregularly practicing Muslim.
"Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said" – confirming that he did pray in the mosque.
"Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family [said that] ‘Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo'" – confirming that Obama attended mosque services.
All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.
In sum: Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he "for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father."
Therefore, what MMfA calls the "Obama-Muslim falsehood" is in fact confirmed by both articles as truthful and accurate.
Calling this a falsehood is in itself a falsehood.
by Daniel PipesFrontPageMagazine.comJanuary 7, 2008http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5354
In a recent analysis, "Was Barack Obama a Muslim?" I surveyed available evidence and found it suggests "Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father." In response, David Brock's organization, Media Matters for America (MMfA), which calls itself a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," has criticized one of my sources of information.
MMfA contends in "Daniel Pipes relied on disputed LA Times article to revive Obama-Muslim falsehood," that "key aspects" of a March 16, 2007, Los Angeles Times article I quoted were later challenged by another newspaper account, "History of schooling distorted," by Kim Barker in the Chicago Tribune on March 25.
Falsehood? That's a strong word.
To assess MMfA's claim, let's review its preferred article and examine what Barker has to say on four topics related to Obama's Indonesian years, 1967-71:
His attendance at a Catholic school;
His attendance at a public school;
His step-father, Lolo Soetoro; and
His friend, Zulfan Adi.
To start with, about the Catholic school, Fransiskus Strada Asisia, which Obama attended 1967-70 (words in square brackets are added by me):
Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia, despite being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades. At the time, the school most likely registered children based on the religion of their fathers, said [Israella Pareira] Darmawan, Obama's former [1st-grade] teacher. Because Soetoro was a Muslim, Obama was listed as a Muslim, she said.
The enrollment form from the Catholic school, which has been cited as evidence that Obama was a Muslim in Indonesia [including by the Los Angeles Times], also was rife with errors. It listed Obama as an Indonesian, listed his previous school incorrectly and failed to list his mother, Ann, at all.
Barack Obama with his public school classmates in Indonesia.About Obama's time at a public elementary school, 1970-71, variously known as the Sekolah Dasar Nasional Menteng No. 1 or the Basuki school, Barker writes:
When Obama attended 4th grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion.
During a recent visit to this public school, Barker found that
Weekly religious classes are required for all students, whether Muslims, Christians or Hindus, under the government curriculum. A new shiny mosque is in the corner of the courtyard. "The Muslims learn about Islam, prayer and religious activity," said Hardi Priyono, the vice principal for curriculum. "And for the Christians, during the religious class, they also have a special room teaching Christianity. It's always been like that."
About Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetoro and his religiosity, Barker writes:
In their first neighborhood, Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said. But Soetoro usually was too busy working, first for the Indonesian army and later for a Western oil company. "Sometimes Lolo went to the mosque to pray, but he rarely socialized with people," said Fermina Katarina Sinaga, Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family. "Rarely, Barry [a nickname for Barack] went to the mosque with Lolo."
Barker learned from his friends and family that Lolo Soetoro, who died in 1987, was "much more of a free spirit than a devout Muslim" and "hardly the image of a pious Muslim."
His nephew, Sonny Trisulo, 49, said Soetoro always liked women and alcohol. One of his health problems was a failing liver. "He loved drinking, was a smart and warm person, the naughtiest one in the family," Trisulo recalled.
As for Zulfan Adi, cited in the Los Angeles Times piece:
Zulfan Adi, a former neighborhood playmate of Obama's who has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro, told the Tribune he was not certain about that when pressed about his recollections. He only knew Obama for a few months, during 1970, when his family moved to the neighborhood.
Does any of the above information from the Chicago Tribune article refute my analysis, as MMfA contends? It raises questions about two details in the Los Angeles Times account (the accuracy of the Catholic school's registration form and the reliability of Zulfan Adi as a source on Obama). But on the larger issue of Obama's religious practices during his Jakarta years, it confirms the Times account. Note in particular three excerpts from Barker's article:
"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia" – implying he was an irregularly practicing Muslim.
"Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said" – confirming that he did pray in the mosque.
"Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family [said that] ‘Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo'" – confirming that Obama attended mosque services.
All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.
In sum: Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he "for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father."
Therefore, what MMfA calls the "Obama-Muslim falsehood" is in fact confirmed by both articles as truthful and accurate.
Calling this a falsehood is in itself a falsehood.
Saturday, 5 January 2008
Iran's dangerous nuke's game
Iran’s Dangerous Nuke Game: Why Israel Might Rush To StrikePeter Brookes
January 3, 2008 — IRAN turned up the heat this week on still-simmering concerns about its atomic aspirations. It crowed that its 1,000-megawatt Bushehr nuclear-power plant would be “online” as early as this spring, putting in place another important building block of its nuclear program.That sort of news can’t help but rattle the steadiest of nerves, no matter what the (narrowly focused) US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran ’s nuclear-weapons program said about the current state of affairs.Seemingly not swayed one iota by the NIE’s conclusions, you have to wonder if Israel - the country most threatened by an Iranian nuclear (weapons) breakout - might take matters into its own hands.It has done so twice before - and the time may be here again.In a 1981 dawn raid lasting less than 90 seconds, Israeli Defense Force fighters attacked the nearly completed 40-megawatt Iraqi Osirak nuclear-reactor complex, setting back Saddam’s ability to produce fissile material for nukes.And again last September, the IDF allegedly struck a nascent Syrian nuclear program, which possibly was benefiting from outside help, in a preventive airstrike that may have also been meant as a warning to Iran of unpleasant things to come.But why strike now?Well, within about a year of Bushehr becoming operational, some of its spent nuclear fuel could be stripped of enough plutonium to produce a handful of nuclear weapons if the rods aren’t returned to their owner/provider, Russia .Because the production of fissile material is the long pole in the nuclear-weapons tent, the diversion of material at Bushehr is potentially as big a problem as the 3,000 centrifuges that Iran has whirring at supersonic speeds, enriching uranium.Attacking Bushehr - like Osirak - before it comes online would not only stop it from being used to produce bomb material, but would also prevent radiation from the reactor being spewed into the atmosphere after a strike.Also possibly spurring Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to put the IDF into action is other recent news: Iran is reportedly buying the highly capable Russian S-300 air-defense system to bolster the Tor-M1 surface-air missile systems Moscow supplied last year.The Iranians purchased the Tor-M1 to prevent a modern-day Iranian version of Israel ’s successful Osirak strike. The lethal S-300s - likely a response to the Syrian strike - will enhance Iran ’s ability to protect its nuclear sites scattered around the country.(Curious the extent to which Iran is willing to go to protect its so-called “peaceful” nuclear program, isn’t it?)But despite these reasons for giving a go-ahead for an attack on Bushehr before it’s up and running, dealing militarily with Iran ’s nuclear program is a lot more complex than just that.While Bushehr is a key element of the program because of its ability to produce large amounts of bomb-worthy fissile material (i.e., plutonium) for weapons use, it isn’t the be-all and end-all of that program.To cripple Iran ’s nuclear program, the IDF would have to hit other major nuclear sites: The Natanz uranium-enrichment plant, the Arak heavy-water facility and the Isfahan uranium-conversion complex - plus possibly tens of other nuclear-related sites.But while some facilities like Natanz are “hardened,” well-protected by air defenses and often buried as deep as 70 feet down, IDF fighters could hammer them using GPS/laser-guided and penetration weapons such as the American JDAM.There’s also the tyranny of distance. Iran is a lot farther from Israel than Iraq - and the targets aren’t clustered like they were at Osirak. They’re spread across Iran - a country nearly four times California ’s size.Even a surprise IDF air raid would likely be known to others such as the United States , which “owns” the airspace in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf with its vast array of land, sea and air sensors.(Of course, it is always possible Israel ’s small fleet of cruise-missile-capable, Dolphin-class diesel submarines, deployed to the Persian Gulf, could play a role in a strike, especially against Bushehr in southern Iran .)A strike would bring Iranian retaliation, including terrorist attacks by Tehran ’s allies, such as Hezbollah, as well as missile strikes against large Israeli cities. By association, US interests could come into Iran ’s crosshairs.The new year will likely bring more unwelcome news about Iran ’s nuclear program as it cascades toward a weapons option. It will also be a fateful year for Israel , one that may require action - no matter what the latest NIE says.Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
January 3, 2008 — IRAN turned up the heat this week on still-simmering concerns about its atomic aspirations. It crowed that its 1,000-megawatt Bushehr nuclear-power plant would be “online” as early as this spring, putting in place another important building block of its nuclear program.That sort of news can’t help but rattle the steadiest of nerves, no matter what the (narrowly focused) US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran ’s nuclear-weapons program said about the current state of affairs.Seemingly not swayed one iota by the NIE’s conclusions, you have to wonder if Israel - the country most threatened by an Iranian nuclear (weapons) breakout - might take matters into its own hands.It has done so twice before - and the time may be here again.In a 1981 dawn raid lasting less than 90 seconds, Israeli Defense Force fighters attacked the nearly completed 40-megawatt Iraqi Osirak nuclear-reactor complex, setting back Saddam’s ability to produce fissile material for nukes.And again last September, the IDF allegedly struck a nascent Syrian nuclear program, which possibly was benefiting from outside help, in a preventive airstrike that may have also been meant as a warning to Iran of unpleasant things to come.But why strike now?Well, within about a year of Bushehr becoming operational, some of its spent nuclear fuel could be stripped of enough plutonium to produce a handful of nuclear weapons if the rods aren’t returned to their owner/provider, Russia .Because the production of fissile material is the long pole in the nuclear-weapons tent, the diversion of material at Bushehr is potentially as big a problem as the 3,000 centrifuges that Iran has whirring at supersonic speeds, enriching uranium.Attacking Bushehr - like Osirak - before it comes online would not only stop it from being used to produce bomb material, but would also prevent radiation from the reactor being spewed into the atmosphere after a strike.Also possibly spurring Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to put the IDF into action is other recent news: Iran is reportedly buying the highly capable Russian S-300 air-defense system to bolster the Tor-M1 surface-air missile systems Moscow supplied last year.The Iranians purchased the Tor-M1 to prevent a modern-day Iranian version of Israel ’s successful Osirak strike. The lethal S-300s - likely a response to the Syrian strike - will enhance Iran ’s ability to protect its nuclear sites scattered around the country.(Curious the extent to which Iran is willing to go to protect its so-called “peaceful” nuclear program, isn’t it?)But despite these reasons for giving a go-ahead for an attack on Bushehr before it’s up and running, dealing militarily with Iran ’s nuclear program is a lot more complex than just that.While Bushehr is a key element of the program because of its ability to produce large amounts of bomb-worthy fissile material (i.e., plutonium) for weapons use, it isn’t the be-all and end-all of that program.To cripple Iran ’s nuclear program, the IDF would have to hit other major nuclear sites: The Natanz uranium-enrichment plant, the Arak heavy-water facility and the Isfahan uranium-conversion complex - plus possibly tens of other nuclear-related sites.But while some facilities like Natanz are “hardened,” well-protected by air defenses and often buried as deep as 70 feet down, IDF fighters could hammer them using GPS/laser-guided and penetration weapons such as the American JDAM.There’s also the tyranny of distance. Iran is a lot farther from Israel than Iraq - and the targets aren’t clustered like they were at Osirak. They’re spread across Iran - a country nearly four times California ’s size.Even a surprise IDF air raid would likely be known to others such as the United States , which “owns” the airspace in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf with its vast array of land, sea and air sensors.(Of course, it is always possible Israel ’s small fleet of cruise-missile-capable, Dolphin-class diesel submarines, deployed to the Persian Gulf, could play a role in a strike, especially against Bushehr in southern Iran .)A strike would bring Iranian retaliation, including terrorist attacks by Tehran ’s allies, such as Hezbollah, as well as missile strikes against large Israeli cities. By association, US interests could come into Iran ’s crosshairs.The new year will likely bring more unwelcome news about Iran ’s nuclear program as it cascades toward a weapons option. It will also be a fateful year for Israel , one that may require action - no matter what the latest NIE says.Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
Narrowing the Gulf
Narrowing the GulfBy Itamar Rabinovich
For many years the most influential Western cultural institution in the Arab world was the American University of Beirut (AUB). Founded in 1866 as the Syrian Protestant College, during much of the 20th century it was both an important university and a hub of intellectual and political ferment. But, the collapse of Lebanon's traditional political system, the civil war of the 1970s and the lingering crisis, the roles played by Iran, Syria and the radical wing of the Shi'ite community have all served to diminish the AUB's standing and role.This was not the only consequence of Beirut's tragic loss of its erstwhile position as the Arab world's principal window to the West: It also relinquished its role as a financial center, home to the region's most important newspapers and a diplomatic outpost.Beirut was in many aspects irreplaceable, and it did not have a single successor. Some of its traditional roles shifted to London, some to Amman and some to the oil- producing sheikdoms of the Gulf. It is difficult to think of a more striking contrast - the cosmopolitan, open, liberal atmosphere of pre-civil war Lebanon, on the Mediterranean, geographically and culturally close to southern Europe, versus the traditional, conservative, semi-tribal societies on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula. But other forces at work in the Gulf states have served to blunt the contrast: unprecedented wealth, stability, willingness to open up, innovative attitudes (as long as the political order is not challenged) and a quest for assets other than wealth that would make up for small size and population, and military weakness.Three states in particular - Dubai, Qatar and Abu Dhabi - have taken the lead in translating oil wealth into novel assets. Their drive during the past 10 years has been fueled by the dramatic rise in oil prices and inspired by the lessons of a squandered opportunity - the failure of an earlier leaders to exploit the oil revolution of the 1970s to create permanent assets and genuine economic diversification.Dubai's initial new effort was invested in building a major aviation hub and a financial center. Qatar took the lead in developing satellite television. Its Al Jazeera is not the only such station, but certainly the most effective one. Al Jazeera has given Qatar a new political muscle, and together with its sister channels, has transformed the nature of mass communication and access to information in the Arab world.Next came a major effort to bring Western cultural and academic institutions - museums and universities - to the Gulf. The scope and pace of this drive are staggering. In two main clusters, Qatar's Saadiyyat Island and Dubai's Knowledge Village, and in several other locations, Western schools were invited to open branches. These have been supplemented by branches of the Louvre and the Guggenheim museums.The first wave of academic import to the Gulf was of a strictly professional and technical nature - some first-class and some second-tier institutions were invited to open branches and teach medicine, engineering, telecommunications and accounting, etc. This was a familiar approach, employed by the Ottomans even in the 18th century, when they tried to borrow military technology from Europe, if possible without the concomitant importing of the intellectual and ideological components of modernity.But this has now changed, with the decision to move to a new stage and invite Western universities to open up programs of general studies in the Gulf. The most notable step in this direction was made last October when New York University and the government of Abu Dhabi announced that a full-fledged branch of NYU, a liberal arts college, would be inaugurated in Abu Dhabi in 2010.This means that students in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, and the authorities of this principality, would be exposed to the full benefits and demands of a major American university and liberal arts education - admission standards, academic freedom and a curriculum that includes the Christian and Jewish dimensions of Western civilization.This is an important experiment for both parties. Its failure would be embarrassing; its success could signify the emergence of a novel approach to modernization in the Arab world.How should Israelis view this new trend? Some are fearful that the new relationships of Arab states with American and European universities and the financial stakes involved would be used to enhance Arab influence and anti-Israel sentiment in academe. There are precedents to substantiate such fears. But this does not seem to be the case now. Aside from the institutional values of a school like the highly respected NYU, it is important to note that the Gulf elites are less preoccupied with Israel and more concerned with imminent threats to their security, primarily the Iranian challenge. It's true that a failure to modernize has weakened the Arab world, and has in part enabled the small Israeli state to stand up against the much larger Arab collective. But the flip side of the failure to modernize has been the persistence of values and attitudes that have contributed to the inability of successive efforts to terminate the conflict.Israelis, then, have a stake in the long-term effects that liberal arts education would have on the region. The transition from conflict to peace requires, among other things, the need to abandon the mentality of a zero-sum game. From that vantage point, the arrival of genuine liberal arts education in the Arab world's eastern part is good news for Israel as well.Itamar Rabinovich, Israel's former ambassador to Washington and chief negotiator with Syria, is the Ettinger Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University. On sabbatical from TAU, he is also a Distinguished Global Prof at NYU.
For many years the most influential Western cultural institution in the Arab world was the American University of Beirut (AUB). Founded in 1866 as the Syrian Protestant College, during much of the 20th century it was both an important university and a hub of intellectual and political ferment. But, the collapse of Lebanon's traditional political system, the civil war of the 1970s and the lingering crisis, the roles played by Iran, Syria and the radical wing of the Shi'ite community have all served to diminish the AUB's standing and role.This was not the only consequence of Beirut's tragic loss of its erstwhile position as the Arab world's principal window to the West: It also relinquished its role as a financial center, home to the region's most important newspapers and a diplomatic outpost.Beirut was in many aspects irreplaceable, and it did not have a single successor. Some of its traditional roles shifted to London, some to Amman and some to the oil- producing sheikdoms of the Gulf. It is difficult to think of a more striking contrast - the cosmopolitan, open, liberal atmosphere of pre-civil war Lebanon, on the Mediterranean, geographically and culturally close to southern Europe, versus the traditional, conservative, semi-tribal societies on the edge of the Arabian Peninsula. But other forces at work in the Gulf states have served to blunt the contrast: unprecedented wealth, stability, willingness to open up, innovative attitudes (as long as the political order is not challenged) and a quest for assets other than wealth that would make up for small size and population, and military weakness.Three states in particular - Dubai, Qatar and Abu Dhabi - have taken the lead in translating oil wealth into novel assets. Their drive during the past 10 years has been fueled by the dramatic rise in oil prices and inspired by the lessons of a squandered opportunity - the failure of an earlier leaders to exploit the oil revolution of the 1970s to create permanent assets and genuine economic diversification.Dubai's initial new effort was invested in building a major aviation hub and a financial center. Qatar took the lead in developing satellite television. Its Al Jazeera is not the only such station, but certainly the most effective one. Al Jazeera has given Qatar a new political muscle, and together with its sister channels, has transformed the nature of mass communication and access to information in the Arab world.Next came a major effort to bring Western cultural and academic institutions - museums and universities - to the Gulf. The scope and pace of this drive are staggering. In two main clusters, Qatar's Saadiyyat Island and Dubai's Knowledge Village, and in several other locations, Western schools were invited to open branches. These have been supplemented by branches of the Louvre and the Guggenheim museums.The first wave of academic import to the Gulf was of a strictly professional and technical nature - some first-class and some second-tier institutions were invited to open branches and teach medicine, engineering, telecommunications and accounting, etc. This was a familiar approach, employed by the Ottomans even in the 18th century, when they tried to borrow military technology from Europe, if possible without the concomitant importing of the intellectual and ideological components of modernity.But this has now changed, with the decision to move to a new stage and invite Western universities to open up programs of general studies in the Gulf. The most notable step in this direction was made last October when New York University and the government of Abu Dhabi announced that a full-fledged branch of NYU, a liberal arts college, would be inaugurated in Abu Dhabi in 2010.This means that students in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, and the authorities of this principality, would be exposed to the full benefits and demands of a major American university and liberal arts education - admission standards, academic freedom and a curriculum that includes the Christian and Jewish dimensions of Western civilization.This is an important experiment for both parties. Its failure would be embarrassing; its success could signify the emergence of a novel approach to modernization in the Arab world.How should Israelis view this new trend? Some are fearful that the new relationships of Arab states with American and European universities and the financial stakes involved would be used to enhance Arab influence and anti-Israel sentiment in academe. There are precedents to substantiate such fears. But this does not seem to be the case now. Aside from the institutional values of a school like the highly respected NYU, it is important to note that the Gulf elites are less preoccupied with Israel and more concerned with imminent threats to their security, primarily the Iranian challenge. It's true that a failure to modernize has weakened the Arab world, and has in part enabled the small Israeli state to stand up against the much larger Arab collective. But the flip side of the failure to modernize has been the persistence of values and attitudes that have contributed to the inability of successive efforts to terminate the conflict.Israelis, then, have a stake in the long-term effects that liberal arts education would have on the region. The transition from conflict to peace requires, among other things, the need to abandon the mentality of a zero-sum game. From that vantage point, the arrival of genuine liberal arts education in the Arab world's eastern part is good news for Israel as well.Itamar Rabinovich, Israel's former ambassador to Washington and chief negotiator with Syria, is the Ettinger Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University. On sabbatical from TAU, he is also a Distinguished Global Prof at NYU.
islamic banking
GLOBAL BANKS ADOPTING ISLAM Patrick Wood December 14, 2007NewsWithViews.com The Bible warns that “… the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil” (1 Ti. 6:10) So, just when you think you have just about seen it all, something even more shocking turns up. Like this… Either global bankers are seducing Islamic dictators, or vice versa. Even if they are seducing each other at the same time, the result will be the same: Islamic/Shari’a banking is coming to the United States and other western nations, thanks to global banks such as Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. With Great Britain now pledging to become the Islamic banking center of the world, the stampede by all global banks to enter the world of Islamic banking is well underway. Western banking met Islam many decades ago, but only began to sleep with her a few years ago. Since then, it is has become a wanton and open affair. The implications for the west, and especially for the United States, are staggering. Because all Islamic banking products must be created and offered according to strict Shari’a law, global banks are doing for Islam what it could never do on its own: give legitimacy to Shari’a and infiltrate it into the fabric of western society. What is Islamic banking? Simply put, “Islamic banking and finance” creates, sells and services products that are in strict accordance with Shari’a. In the Islamic culture, it is referred to as “Shari’a finance” and covers the practices of banking, investment, bonds, loans, brokerage, etc. To insure Shari’a compliance, banks must hire Shari’a scholars to review and approve each product and practice as “halal”, the Muslim equivalent of kosher in Judaism. Because there is a shortage of such scholars, there is competition between banks to find the best expert to sit on their boards of directors. This provides the highest legitimacy to each ruling because it is made at the director rather management level. It should be noted that most of these scholars are from the school of radical Wahhabi/Salafi Shari’a in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, holding views diametrically opposed to the basic values of Western civilization. Shari’a finance has many differences from orthodox banking: Notably, it cannot charge interest (usury) and it calls for alms giving (zakat). It also calls for avoidance of excessive risk and may not be associated in any way with gambling, drinking alcohol, eating pork, etc. Zakat demands a tithe of 2.5 percent of revenue be donated to Islamic charity. If western banks follow this rule, their contributions will be staggering. It is certain that a portion of this money will end up in the hands of radical Muslims who are sworn to destroy the U.S. and replace its government with Shari’a law. Shari’a finance is a recent phenomenon. There were very few Islamic banks prior to 1980. However, with the Khomeini revolution in Iran in 1979, Shari’a was summarily imposed throughout Iran and Shari’a finance took off. The dark side of Shari’a Shari’a is the legal and judicial system of Islam that is brutally imposed on many Islamic countries in the middle east. It is the specific embodiment of the totalitarian ideology practiced by the Taliban, Iranian Mullahs and Saudi Wahhabis. Shari’a is perpetuated by claiming to have its roots in the Koran, but in fact it is mostly the product of rulings and dictates made by Islamic scholars and caliphs over several centuries. For non-Muslims, Shari’a is best known for its medieval, harsh brutality. Many rulings handed down by Shari’a courts have shocked the western world, for instance: The December, 2007 “teddy bear” case in Sudan, where a British teacher was sentenced to 40 lashes and a year in jail for allowing her students to name their teddy bear “Mohammad.” Islamic mobs demonstrated in the streets and called for her execution. The November, 2007 case where a 19 year old gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia received a sentence of 200 lashes for riding in the car with her rapists. In 2006, a 34 year-old mother was forcibly raped and ultimately tried and convicted of adultery, and was ordered to be stoned to death. Shari’a demands total and unquestioned submission. Its subjects are told that Shari’a is given by Allah and that whatever befalls them (good or bad) is Allah’s will. To question a judgment under Shari’a (right or wrong) is to question Shari’a itself and will only bring harsher punishment. If a person receives harsh punishment for something they didn’t do, the rationale is that Allah could and would have prevented it if that had been his will. This fatalistic and deterministic approach allows Shari’a rulers to get away with virtually any thing that enters their head. To the average western mind, Shari’a is no more than a medieval, barbaric code that somehow survived to the 21st century. It flies in the face of western law, philosophy, liberty and freedom. Furthermore, it is the vehicle used to call for the complete destruction of the west and in particular the United States of America, which then will be replaced by Shari’a dictatorships. How the banking rocket took off At the behest of global trade moguls, numerous Free Trade Zones (FTZ’s) were created throughout the Islamic world that were full of windfall conditions. For instance, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), is a 110 acre free trade zone that was founded in 2004 in Dubai, UAE. According to the DIFC website, participants will enjoy "zero tax rate on income and profits, 100 per cent foreign ownership, no restrictions on foreign exchange or capital/profit repatriation, operational support and business continuity facilities.” Not surprisingly, Morgan Stanley’s application was one of the first approved by the Dubai Financial Services Authority to operate within the DIFC. The director-general of the DIFC Authority, Dr. Omar Bin Sulaiman, welcomed Morgan Stanley by stating, “This is a testimony to our status as an international financial centre of repute. Morgan Stanley is a highly reputed organisation and to have them here at the DIFC is a vindication of our strategy to create a world-class financial hub for the region. The opportunity available within the region, along with the state-of-the-art infrastructure and the international regulatory framework of the DIFC, provides the ideal platform for institutions such as Morgan Stanley to grow their business." [Emphasis added] DIFC and similar Free Trade Zones are a banker’s nirvana into which global bankers have rushed headlong to establish regional financial centers. And the payoff? A chance to enter and then dominate the Islamic banking industry. Such banking has over $1.5 trillion on the table today, and is growing at a steady and explosive rate of over 15% per year. Good old western know-how Understanding that Islamic banking is a very recent phenomenon is underscored by the fact that its largest and most prestigious international conference, World Islamic Banking Conference (WIBC) has met for a mere 14 years. The most recent meeting just concluded in Bahrain and attracted over 1,000 banking delegates from 35 countries. Advertisement Two years ago, the 12th annual WIBC (2005) conference kicked off with the “Governor’s Table” session titled “Regulation & Business: Creating a Framework for Islamic Banking & Finance to Thrive.” Panel member and speaker number two was Dr. David Mullins, CEO of Vega Asset Management in New York. Who is Mullins? He is in the white-hot core of international banking. Mullins was Vice Chairman and Governor of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under Greenspan during George H.W. Bush’s presidency. As governor, he represented the Fed at meetings of the G-10 Governors, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Bank for International Settlements. Prior to that, he was the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Finance at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The next topic at the Governor’s Table was “Industry in Transition: Trends & Innovations for Islamic Financial Institutions in an Increasingly Competitive Global Market,” where several speakers included Dr. Samuel L. Hayes III, Jacob Schiff Professor of Investment Banking Emeritus at Harvard Business School. According to Hayes, “The growing acceptance among Muslims of Halal savings and investment products over the past decade has been impressive. Consequently, a number of conventional Western financial institutions have eagerly moved into this market as the array of investment vehicles has broadened.” The closed-door CEO Strategy Session was centered around the McKinsey Competitiveness Report, developed in conjunction with the WIBC by the very elite McKinsey & Company based in New York. In fact, McKinsey & Company was listed as a “Strategic Partner” of the WIBC, alongside of global accounting firm Ernst & Young and the consummate global investment banker, Goldman Sachs. (Remember that in 2005, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson was CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs.) Another key speaker was Dr. Robert Kaplan, Baker Foundation Professor at the Harvard Business School and acclaimed author of many management books like Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps. In a pre-conference press release, Kaplan stated “I look forward to presenting to Islamic banking leaders the latest ideas on strategy execution that delivers performance breakthroughs. I will present how successful organizations have built strategy maps around a common value proposition, communicated to and motivated the workforce, and installed a new Office of Strategy Management to sustain strategy execution.” More recently, on December 6, 2007, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, Malcolm Knight, addressed the Islamic Financial Services Board Forum in Frankfurt, Germany: “Clearly, there is expanding demand for these products, and a closely associated desire on the part of banks, including non-Islamic banks, to provide Islamic financial services… The broadening appeal of Islamic finance is also evident in the move by large international banks and other private sector financial institutions to provide Islamic financial services.” Mullins, Hayes, Kaplan, McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, Ernst & Young, Bank for International Settlements? Do you see the pattern? The west is giving away the know-how, with gusto, to enable Shari’a banking and guarantee its success throughout the world. And to what ends? For one, Britain’s PM Gordon Brown has pointedly stated that he intends to make London the Islamic finance capital of the world. Further, he pledged that in 2008 the British government will issue its own “sukuk”, or Shari’a compliant bonds. Yes, government debt issued as Shari’a compliant. At the June 13, 2006 Islamic Finance Trade Conference in London, Brown revealed, "Today British banks are pioneering Islamic banking - London now has more banks supplying services under Islamic principles than any other Western financial centre." Brown’s statements can only be taken as a challenge by the New York banking establishment to beat him to the finish line. It doesn’t matter who wins this race because the result will be the same: Shari’a banking is quickly encircling the globe and forcing a de facto acceptance of Shari’a law. Conclusion International bankers have long ago proven themselves to be completely amoral when it comes to money. They bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918 just as blithely as they bankrolled Hitler in the 1930’s. Fortunately for us, neither succeeded in conquering the world. With Islam, odds of its succeeding are radically different. To start with, there are already 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and it is the fastest growing religion in history. Secondly, the spread of Islam is richly financed by the oil that is extracted from mid-eastern countries. Thirdly, Islam has already infiltrated most of the west, especially in Europe. And now, Islam has behind it the combined support and encouragement of the entire global banking community. The unholy alliance between Islam and global banking may be the final leg on the age-old quest for global domination. Don’t be surprised at the silence of the global elite the next time you hear Islamist mobs chant “Death to America” – their goals are now intertwined.
Honour killing in dar al harb too.
Honor Killings in Dallas: Made in the USA
They have dishonored our shores for quite some time and more keep coming our way.
I am talking about honor killings in North America. In The Death of Feminism, I write about honor murders in Missouri, Ohio, and in parts of New Jersey, New York, and Canada which took place during the last quarter-century.
Just yesterday, an Egyptian Arab Muslim father in Dallas, Texas allegedly shot his two beautiful teenage daughters to death because he disapproved of their American-style ways. Their names were Amina and Sarah Said and their father’s name was Abdul Said. The girls looked sassy and full of life; they looked like Dallas teenagers. They were 17 and 18 years old and their friends considered them “geniuses.” Abdul was a taxi driver. (In parts of Europe, taxi drivers are known to aid and abet honor murders).Perhaps how Amina and Sarah dressed, and how they thought, shamed their father Abdul. He was no longer in control of his women—a mark of shame which provoked his need to kill them. Perhaps their flowering sexuality enraged him because it made him desire them—and from this he concluded that other men might desire them too and if he could not have them, no man could.
The blogs and the local Texas media (the Dallas Morning News) were all over this. Hot Air, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, were too. The only national coverage of this story was contained in the Washington Times. SEE HERE Why did the national and international media so far shy clear of this story? Perhaps they chose to dig deeper first or maybe they were waiting for an arrest to be made. But one also wonders: Were they afraid of being accused of “Islamophobia” if they reported the truth? Did they not want to use the word “Arab” or “Muslim” lest they be attacked as “racists”?
As of 4pm est on January 3rd, the mainstream media had still not covered this honor murder or the ongoing manhunt for the alleged killer—their father. Robert Stacey McCain of the Washington Times, just published a piece with some more details. Apparently, Amina and Sarah not only had “boyfriends,” their boyfriends were non-Muslims! They told their friends that their father was angry with them for “not acting like proper Muslim girls.”
Thus, these beautiful and now murdered sisters feared for their lives. They told people that their father was threatening them. Their own mother has now led police to the father as the probable murderer.
They could have been saved if a school or police official had been trained to pre-emptively recognize and rescue all such girls and women in danger of being killed by their families in honor killings.
NEWSFLASHES:
Earlier today, on January 3, 2008, the hardcopy edition of the New York Times carried a story about a presumably non-Muslim honor killing in Chicago, in which a father, Subhash Chander, killed his pregnant daughter, son-in-law and 3 year-old grandson “because he disapproved of his daughter’s marriage” to a lower-caste man. All the protagonists are from India or are of Indian origin. So far, I can find no coverage of the Texas honor killing by a Muslim father in the pages of the Paper of Record.
Abdul Said has now made the Most Wanted List. However, I am told that the police have described the murder as senseless, baffling, puzzling, etc.—as opposed to as an obvious, old-fashioned honor killing. Perhaps I’m wrong, but has anyone thought to look for him in a mosque?
They have dishonored our shores for quite some time and more keep coming our way.
I am talking about honor killings in North America. In The Death of Feminism, I write about honor murders in Missouri, Ohio, and in parts of New Jersey, New York, and Canada which took place during the last quarter-century.
Just yesterday, an Egyptian Arab Muslim father in Dallas, Texas allegedly shot his two beautiful teenage daughters to death because he disapproved of their American-style ways. Their names were Amina and Sarah Said and their father’s name was Abdul Said. The girls looked sassy and full of life; they looked like Dallas teenagers. They were 17 and 18 years old and their friends considered them “geniuses.” Abdul was a taxi driver. (In parts of Europe, taxi drivers are known to aid and abet honor murders).Perhaps how Amina and Sarah dressed, and how they thought, shamed their father Abdul. He was no longer in control of his women—a mark of shame which provoked his need to kill them. Perhaps their flowering sexuality enraged him because it made him desire them—and from this he concluded that other men might desire them too and if he could not have them, no man could.
The blogs and the local Texas media (the Dallas Morning News) were all over this. Hot Air, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, were too. The only national coverage of this story was contained in the Washington Times. SEE HERE Why did the national and international media so far shy clear of this story? Perhaps they chose to dig deeper first or maybe they were waiting for an arrest to be made. But one also wonders: Were they afraid of being accused of “Islamophobia” if they reported the truth? Did they not want to use the word “Arab” or “Muslim” lest they be attacked as “racists”?
As of 4pm est on January 3rd, the mainstream media had still not covered this honor murder or the ongoing manhunt for the alleged killer—their father. Robert Stacey McCain of the Washington Times, just published a piece with some more details. Apparently, Amina and Sarah not only had “boyfriends,” their boyfriends were non-Muslims! They told their friends that their father was angry with them for “not acting like proper Muslim girls.”
Thus, these beautiful and now murdered sisters feared for their lives. They told people that their father was threatening them. Their own mother has now led police to the father as the probable murderer.
They could have been saved if a school or police official had been trained to pre-emptively recognize and rescue all such girls and women in danger of being killed by their families in honor killings.
NEWSFLASHES:
Earlier today, on January 3, 2008, the hardcopy edition of the New York Times carried a story about a presumably non-Muslim honor killing in Chicago, in which a father, Subhash Chander, killed his pregnant daughter, son-in-law and 3 year-old grandson “because he disapproved of his daughter’s marriage” to a lower-caste man. All the protagonists are from India or are of Indian origin. So far, I can find no coverage of the Texas honor killing by a Muslim father in the pages of the Paper of Record.
Abdul Said has now made the Most Wanted List. However, I am told that the police have described the murder as senseless, baffling, puzzling, etc.—as opposed to as an obvious, old-fashioned honor killing. Perhaps I’m wrong, but has anyone thought to look for him in a mosque?
Friday, 4 January 2008
is allah another plagiarism by islam?
Malaysia backpedals on Allah ban for Christian paper, renews its permit
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) _ A Roman Catholic newspaper said Monday the government has reversed its decision to ban the publication over its use of the word Allah, easing tensions that had strained racial harmony in the multiethnic country.
In a surprising turnabout, the government renewed The Herald weekly's 2008 permit without any conditions, said its editor Rev. Lawrence Andrew. "There are no conditions, there was no mention of the Allah ban," he told The Associated Press.
Internal security officials declined to comment. All publications in Malaysia require a government permit, which is renewed annually.
The government had said that Allah, an Arabic word for God, can only be used by Muslims. Officials feared that using Allah in Christian literature would confuse the Malays and draw them to Christianity.
Malaysian Christians said that Allah that was used by Christians before Islam was established. Even in Malaysia, Malay-speaking Christians have used the word Allah for generations. Allah also means God in Bahasa Melayu, the language of Malays.
About 60 percent of Malaysia's 27 million citizens are Muslim, 19 percent are Buddhist, 9 percent are Christian and 6 percent are Hindu, with the reminder divided among traditional Chinese faiths and other religions
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) _ A Roman Catholic newspaper said Monday the government has reversed its decision to ban the publication over its use of the word Allah, easing tensions that had strained racial harmony in the multiethnic country.
In a surprising turnabout, the government renewed The Herald weekly's 2008 permit without any conditions, said its editor Rev. Lawrence Andrew. "There are no conditions, there was no mention of the Allah ban," he told The Associated Press.
Internal security officials declined to comment. All publications in Malaysia require a government permit, which is renewed annually.
The government had said that Allah, an Arabic word for God, can only be used by Muslims. Officials feared that using Allah in Christian literature would confuse the Malays and draw them to Christianity.
Malaysian Christians said that Allah that was used by Christians before Islam was established. Even in Malaysia, Malay-speaking Christians have used the word Allah for generations. Allah also means God in Bahasa Melayu, the language of Malays.
About 60 percent of Malaysia's 27 million citizens are Muslim, 19 percent are Buddhist, 9 percent are Christian and 6 percent are Hindu, with the reminder divided among traditional Chinese faiths and other religions
Thursday, 3 January 2008
Pictures of President Bush, leader of hamas and hassan nasrallah leader of hizbollah
AP
4 كانون الثاني 2008
A poster showing U.S. President George W. Bush, left, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, right, is seen on the side of a bus in central Jerusalem, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008. The banner, placed by a group calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard who was convicted in the U.S. on charges of spying for Israel in the the 1980's, refers also to Israeli soldiers being held by militants in Gaza and Lebanon. Bush will make his first visit to Israel and the West Bank as President next week.
4 كانون الثاني 2008
A poster showing U.S. President George W. Bush, left, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, right, is seen on the side of a bus in central Jerusalem, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008. The banner, placed by a group calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard who was convicted in the U.S. on charges of spying for Israel in the the 1980's, refers also to Israeli soldiers being held by militants in Gaza and Lebanon. Bush will make his first visit to Israel and the West Bank as President next week.
Pictures of president Bush & leader of Hizbollah hassan nasrallah on buses in Israel.
AP
4 January 2008
A poster showing U.S. President George W. Bush, left, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, right, is seen on the side of a bus in central Jerusalem, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008. The banner, placed by a group calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard who was convicted in the U.S. on charges of spying for Israel in the the 1980's, refers also to Israeli soldiers being held by militants in Gaza and Lebanon. Bush will make his first visit to Israel and the West Bank as President next week.
4 January 2008
A poster showing U.S. President George W. Bush, left, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, right, is seen on the side of a bus in central Jerusalem, Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008. The banner, placed by a group calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard who was convicted in the U.S. on charges of spying for Israel in the the 1980's, refers also to Israeli soldiers being held by militants in Gaza and Lebanon. Bush will make his first visit to Israel and the West Bank as President next week.
On the path of the blessed prophet mohamed PiBUH: pedophelia and prostitution
Lithuanian prostitution ring 'served Arab sheikhs'By Agence France Presse (AFP) Friday, January 04, 2008
VILNIUS: Four Lithuanian women have been charged with forcing women and girls into prostitution in countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Britain, where alleged clients included sheikhs, prosecutors said Thursday. "The accused women promised girls modeling work, but involved them in prostitution and profited from their prostitution," the Lithuanian prosecutor general's office said in a statement. "The Lithuanian girls were sent to many countries, and were also specifically transported to Arab sheikhs to provide sexual services," the office said. Prosecutors identified 19 separate occasions in 2001-2005 when groups of six or seven women, sometimes including minors, were sent to foreign countries. Besides the United Arab Emirates, other destinations included the Seychelles, Monaco, France and Britain. Under Lithuanian law, convicted sex traffickers can face up to eight years in prison. - AFP
VILNIUS: Four Lithuanian women have been charged with forcing women and girls into prostitution in countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Britain, where alleged clients included sheikhs, prosecutors said Thursday. "The accused women promised girls modeling work, but involved them in prostitution and profited from their prostitution," the Lithuanian prosecutor general's office said in a statement. "The Lithuanian girls were sent to many countries, and were also specifically transported to Arab sheikhs to provide sexual services," the office said. Prosecutors identified 19 separate occasions in 2001-2005 when groups of six or seven women, sometimes including minors, were sent to foreign countries. Besides the United Arab Emirates, other destinations included the Seychelles, Monaco, France and Britain. Under Lithuanian law, convicted sex traffickers can face up to eight years in prison. - AFP
MOUSSLIMES CLAIM THEY RESPECT THEIR WOMEN HHHHHHHH
Saudi women petition for right to driveBy Agence France Presse (AFP) Thursday, January 03, 2008
RIYADH: Saudi women activists Wednesday began a fresh effort to get a ban on women drivers lifted in 2008, handing in a new petition to King Abdullah urging him to end the restriction. Signatories of the petition "hope that 2008 will be the year in which Saudi women obtain their natural right to drive a car," the document stated.
Campaigner Fawzia al-Oyouni said the petition is part of a continuing effort to stop the ban in the conservative kingdom.
The petition follows a similar attempt last September signed by more than 1,100 Saudis.
"We hope to send a new petition each time we manage to get 1,000 new signatures," Oyouni said.
In Saudi Arabia, women cannot travel without the written permission of a male guardian.
The petition campaign is the brainchild of Oyouni and three other activists - Wajiha Huwaidar, Ibtihal Mubarak and Haifa Usra - who have formed an association for the protection and defense of women's rights.
A group of 47 women defied the ban on driving in November 1990 by driving through Riyadh in a 15 car convoy. They were swiftly rounded up by police and reprimanded - as were their male guardians. - AFP
RIYADH: Saudi women activists Wednesday began a fresh effort to get a ban on women drivers lifted in 2008, handing in a new petition to King Abdullah urging him to end the restriction. Signatories of the petition "hope that 2008 will be the year in which Saudi women obtain their natural right to drive a car," the document stated.
Campaigner Fawzia al-Oyouni said the petition is part of a continuing effort to stop the ban in the conservative kingdom.
The petition follows a similar attempt last September signed by more than 1,100 Saudis.
"We hope to send a new petition each time we manage to get 1,000 new signatures," Oyouni said.
In Saudi Arabia, women cannot travel without the written permission of a male guardian.
The petition campaign is the brainchild of Oyouni and three other activists - Wajiha Huwaidar, Ibtihal Mubarak and Haifa Usra - who have formed an association for the protection and defense of women's rights.
A group of 47 women defied the ban on driving in November 1990 by driving through Riyadh in a 15 car convoy. They were swiftly rounded up by police and reprimanded - as were their male guardians. - AFP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
