TFP: Both as a specialist in Islam and as a Catholic, could you explain what are the principal differences between Islamism and Catholicism?
Robert Spencer: Islam and Catholicism differ in their views of Jesus: Islam denies the divinity of Christ and His redemption. Islam regards Him as a Muslim prophet who taught Islam, but whose message was corrupted by His followers to create Christianity. In doing so, according to the Qur’an, they deified Him and began to teach that He was the Son of God and was crucified, when in reality He was a human prophet and was not crucified. (See Qur’an 9:30; 4:157, 5:112-116).
One of the myriad other ways in which Islam and Catholicism also differ fundamentally is in their views of the dignity of the human person. In Islam, there is a sharp dichotomy between believers, “the best of peoples” (Qur’an 3:110) and unbelievers, “the most vile of created beings” (Qur’an 98:6). Traditional Islam also denies the freedom of conscience, mandating death for apostates.
TFP - Nowadays everyone talks about jihad, but few know its precise meaning. What is the correct understanding of the term?
Robert Spencer: Jihad in Arabic means struggle, and there are as many connotations of the word in Arabic as there are of “struggle” in English. However, the traditional, mainstream and primary Islamic understanding of jihad as a theological concept involves warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. This idea is rooted in a cluster of Qur’anic verses that contain general and open-ended commands to fight non-Muslims, including:
• “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (9:123).
• “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (9:73). The Arabic word translated here as “strive hard” is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad.
The command applies first to fighting those who worship other gods besides Allah: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free.” (9:5). In plain English, this means that “idolaters” are to be killed, unless they convert to Islam and begin following Islamic laws such as paying alms (“the poor-due.”)
However, Muslims must fight Jews and Christians as well, although the Qur’an recognizes that as “People of the Book” they have received genuine revelations from Allah: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [the special tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).
The words mean what they appear to mean. The noted Qur’an commentator Ibn Juzayy says that Qur’an 9:29 is “a command to fight the People of the Book.” Another respected mainstream Qur’an commentary, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, notes that when 9:29 says that Muslims must fight against those who “follow not the Religion of Truth,” it means those who do not follow Islam, “which is firm and abrogates other deens [religions].”[1]
All four principal Sunni schools of jurisprudence, the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools, agree on the importance of jihad warfare against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared that “it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”[2] Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, explained that the aim of jihad was “that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”[3]
The other schools echo these teachings. The Hanafi school stipulates, “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to convert to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them . . . the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”[4] Likewise, the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) taught that once infidels refuse the invitation to convert to Islam, “war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached.”[5]
In other words, “Let me make you an offer you can’t refuse.”
A Hanafi legal manual explains that the fight against unbelievers can sometimes take non-violent forms: “Jihad in the language is exerting effort. In the understanding of the Sharia, it is exerting effort and energy in fighting fi sabeel lillah [in the path of Allah] by nafs [spiritual struggle], finance, tongue or another.”[6] Indeed, in traditional Islam, jihad bil sayf (jihad with the sword) or combat (qitaal) is only one means of jihad. Other forms of jihad include jihad bil mal (waging jihad by means of one’s wealth); jihad bil lisan (waging jihad through persuasion); jihad bil yad (waging jihad by taking action, but not necessarily arms, against injustice).
But all these various forms of jihad – both violent and non-violent – are directed toward the same end: the Islamization of the world and the imposition of Islamic law over unbelieving societies. Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), an internationally renowned Iraqi scholar of Islamic law, explained in his 1955 book War and Peace in the Law of Islam that Islam had embedded within it an expansionist and supremacist imperative:
The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. . . . The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.[7]
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book . . . is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes, “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.[8]
But if this is so, why hasn’t the worldwide Islamic community been waging jihad on a large scale up until relatively recently? Writing in 1994, before the worldwide jihadist effort had reached the strength it enjoys today, Nyazee said it is only because it has not been able to do so: “The Muslim community may be considered to be passing through a period of truce. In its present state of weakness, there is nothing much it can do about it.”[9]
TFP: In your most recent book Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, you cover a little-known aspect of the Islamist offensive: psychological warfare, which is waged by Islamic pressure groups within our borders. Tell us something about this.
Robert Spencer: One of the most effective tactics employed by Islamic jihadists throughout the world is to intimidate their opponents into silence. Death threats, murders, acts of mass terrorism, beheadings broadcast over the Internet – all these actions are obviously useful to minimize resistance to the jihadists’ agenda. Naturally, the number of people who repudiate them becomes less significant when such dissidents are afraid to express their opposition in any way.
Threats of violence are indeed effective in silencing criticism of jihadists or even simple mockery of any aspect of Islam. Stealth jihadists, however, do not employ this approach. Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim-American Society (MAS) have learned from the past mistakes of many U.S.-based Islamic leaders that aggressive public pronouncements and threats uttered against Islam’s perceived enemies bring unwelcome attention and undermine their pretensions of being mainstream civil rights organizations. So they’ve adopted a different strategy to silence critics of jihadism and Islamic supremacism: they label them as “bigots,” “hatemongers,” and “Islamophobes.”
In the U.S., playing the race card can in some ways be even more effective than death threats. If a U.S.-based Islamic group announced a death fatwa against an American writer, that group would be denounced in the media as “extremist” and possibly trigger a police investigation. But if the group cries “racism” against the same writer, liberal as well as conservative media figures hop to shun and denounce the accused “racist,” for bigotry and racism are the cardinal sins of the U.S. public square.
Islamic groups in the U.S. skillfully play the race card against those who publicize uncomfortable truths about Islam: criticism of Islamic supremacist impulses or of the organizations themselves is frequently met with indignant cries of “racism.” These groups deliberately conflate race with religion, exploiting the fact that most Muslims in the country are either black or Arab and Pakistani immigrants. The fact that Islam is a religion and not a race is apparently irrelevant, and journalists never challenge these groups on their confusion of the two.
CAIR in particular has become expert at bandying about allegations of bigotry and racism to silence its critics or quash even fictional representations that it deems offensive to Muslims. In 2001, when Tom Clancy’s novel The Sum of All Fears was being made into a movie, CAIR launched a successful campaign to pressure the filmmakers into changing the Islamic terrorists of the story into some other kind of villain. (Ultimately they became neo-Nazis – apparently the Aryan Nations doesn’t have CAIR’s clout.) There can be little doubt that the filmmakers were simply bullied into making the change by the prospect of CAIR publicly denouncing them as racists. Film director Phil Alden Robinson wrote abjectly to CAIR, “I hope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs, and I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination.”[10] America got a dramatic reminder of the fact that there really are Islamic terrorists, and they’re not just the figments of bigoted imaginations, on September 11, 2001, but by then filming on The Sum of All Fears had already been completed.
Islamic groups in the U.S. have employed the race card innumerable times in myriad contexts in order to intimidate and silence their opponents. To give credit where credit is due, it has proven to be an excellent strategy for deflecting attention from the reality of jihadist sentiments and jihadist activity among American Muslims. The stealth jihadists employ this kind of obfuscation to great effect. Their immediate goal is not to overpower America directly through combat, but rather to convince Americans that there is nothing at all to fear from Islamic theology, and that anyone who argues otherwise is an Islamophobe motivated solely by hate. With the population lulled into complacency, they can go about their work of forcing western “accommodation” to Islamic practices. This is meant to set the stage for Islam eventually to emerge supreme.
TFP: How should Catholics react against this insidious Islamist offensive in America?
Robert Spencer: The primary challenge that Catholics who are aware of the jihad threat is to convince their coreligionists that such a threat is indeed real. Many have been blinded to the threat by a widespread misunderstanding of the statements of the Second Vatican Council about Islam, and by the impression that Catholics and Muslims must make common cause on moral issues. While some limited cooperation may indeed be possible in the international arena, this fact should not render us unwilling to admit the facts about Islam’s supremacist agenda, which denies the very legitimacy of Christianity as a faith.
TFP: Is there also an Islamist threat in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Holland?
Robert Spencer: Yes, and it is far more advanced there than it is in America. The historian Bernard Lewis has said flatly that Europe will be Islamic by the end of this century. The results for Catholic civilization in Europe and its artifacts will be disastrous.
TFP: You are also the author of a book, which deals with the Crusades: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), which was a New York Times bestseller. Since our magazine is honored to be called Crusade, tell us something about the role of the Crusades in the struggle against Islam, particularly what lessons they may provide for the struggle we must wage today.
Robert Spencer: The Crusades were not acts of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world, but a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression, which grew fiercer than ever in the eleventh century. These were wars for the recapture of Christian lands and the defense of Christians, not religious imperialism. Nor were the Crusades called in order to convert Muslims or anyone else to Christianity by force. The Crusaders did many things that cannot be excused, but in their conception they were defensive actions against an Islamic jihad that had by the time of the First Crusade overwhelmed half of Christendom.
Lessons for today? We need to summon our spiritual and cultural resources as well as our military resources in order to defeat the jihadist challenge.
ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of eight books on Islam and jihad. Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine, and has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.
Mr. Spencer holds an MA in Religious Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980
Monday, June 15, 2009
Robert Spenser Explains the Islamist Threat
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
China: Good Changes Are Coming
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Islam Needs to Prove It's a Religion of Peace
Muslims can start with a new Quranic scholarship that rejects radicalism.
By TAWFIK HAMID | From the Wall Street Journal Europe.
The film "Fitna" by Dutch parliament member Geert Wilders has created an uproar around the world as it linked violence committed by Islamists to Islam.
Many commentators and politicians -- including the British government, which denied him entry to the country last month -- reflexively accused Mr. Wilders of inciting hatred. The question, however, is whether the blame is with Mr. Wilders, who simply exposed Islamic radicalism, or with those who promote and engage in this religious extremism. In other words, shall we fault Mr. Wilders for showing photos of the hanging of homosexuals, or shall we fault those who actually promote and practice this crime?
There is a certain schizophrenia among many Muslims who seem to believe that it is acceptable to teach hatred and violence in the name of their religion, while at the same time expecting the world to respect Islam as "a religion of peace, love and harmony."
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Scholars in the most prestigious Islamic institutes and universities continue to teach things like Jews are "pigs and monkeys," that women and men must be stoned to death for adultery, or that Muslims must fight the world to spread their religion. Isn't, then, Mr. Wilders's criticism appropriate? Instead of blaming him, we must blame the leading Islamic scholars for having failed to produce an authoritative book on Islamic jurisprudence that is accepted in the Islamic world and unambiguously rejects these violent teachings.
While many religious texts preach violence, the interpretation, modern usage and implementation of these teachings make all the difference. For example, the stoning of women exists in both the Old Testament and in the Islamic tradition, or "Sunna" -- the recorded deeds and manners of the prophet Muhammad. The difference, though, is that leading Jewish scholars agreed to discontinue these practices centuries ago while Muslim scholars have yet to do so. Hence we do not see the stoning of women practiced or promoted in Israel, the "Jewish" state, but we see it practiced and promoted in Iran and Saudi Arabia, the "Islamic" states!
When the British government banned Geert Wilders from entering the country to present his film in the House of Lords, it made two egregious errors. The first was to suppress free speech, a canon of the civilized Western world. The second mistake was to blame the messenger -- punishing, so to speak, the witness who exposed the crime instead of punishing the criminal. Mr. Wilders did not produce the content of the violent Islamic message he showed in his film -- the Islamic world did that. Until the Islamic clerical establishment takes concrete steps to reject violence in the name of their religion, Mr. Wilders criticism is not only permissible as "controversial" free speech but justified.
So, Islamic scholars and clerics, it is up to you to produce a Shariah book that will be accepted in the Islamic world and that teaches that Jews are not pigs and monkeys, and that declaring war to spread Islam is unacceptable, and killing apostates is a crime. Such a book would prove that Islam is a religion of peace.
Mr. Hamid, a former member of an Islamist terrorist group, is an Islamic reformer and senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
How Europe's Companies Are Feeding Iran's Bomb
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL
Berlin
While the U.S. has ratcheted up its efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear arms, the Islamic Republic is reaping a windfall from European companies. These firms' deals aid a regime that is bent on developing nuclear weapons and which financially supports the terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Austrian oil giant OMV is itching to implement a €22 billion agreement signed in April 2007 to produce liquefied natural gas from Iran's South Pars gas field; at last May's annual shareholder meeting, Chief Executive Officer Wolfgang Ruttenstorfer said OMV was only waiting for "political change in the U.S.A." Raiffeisen Zentralbank, Austria's third-largest bank, is active in Iran and, according to a story by the Journal's Glenn Simpson last February, has absorbed the transactions of key European banks that shut down their operations in Iran. And in late January Paolo Scaroni, CEO of Italian energy corporation Eni SpA, told the Associated Press that his firm will continue to fulfill its contractual obligations in Iran and feels no external pressure to sever ties with Iran's energy sector.
Yet because of the sheer volume of its trade with Iran, Germany, the economic engine of Europe, is uniquely positioned to pressure Tehran. Still, the obvious danger of a nuclear-armed Iran has not stopped Germany from rewarding the country with a roughly €4 billion trade relationship in 2008, thereby remaining Iran's most important European trade partner. In the period of January to November 2008, German exports to Iran grew by 10.5% over the same period in 2007. That booming trade last year included 39 "dual-use" contracts with Iran, according to Germany's export-control office. Dual-use equipment and technology can be used for both military and civilian purposes.
One example of Germany's dysfunctional Iran policy is the energy and engineering giant Siemens. The company acknowledged last week at its annual stockholder meeting in Munich, which I attended, that it conducted €438 million in trade with Iran in 2008, and that its 290 Iran-based employees will remain active in the gas, oil, infrastructure and communications sectors.
Concerned stockholders and representatives from the political organization Stop the Bomb, a broad-based coalition in Germany and Austria seeking to...
Read the whole story...
Monday, March 02, 2009
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
FBI Cuts Off CAIR Over Hamas Questions
FBI Cuts Off CAIR Over Hamas Questions
by Mary Jacoby
IPT News
January 29, 2009
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR was made quietly last summer as federal prosecutors prepared for a second trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an Islamic charity accused of providing money and political support to the terrorist group Hamas, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
CAIR and its chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current national executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed on government wiretaps as having been active participants in early Hamas-related organizational meetings in the United States. During testimony, FBI agent Lara Burns described CAIR as a front organization.
Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and it's been illegal since 1995 to provide support to it within the United States.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR is a significant policy change for the FBI. For years, the FBI worked with the national organization and its state chapters to address Muslim community concerns about the potential for hate crimes and other civil liberty violations in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
But critics said the FBI improperly conferred legitimacy on CAIR by meeting with its officials, even as its own investigative files contained evidence of CAIR leaders' ties to Hamas.
Last autumn, FBI field offices began notifying state CAIR chapters that bureau officials could no longer meet with them until CAIR's national leadership in Washington had addressed issues raised by the HLF trial, according to people with knowledge of the notifications.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment Wednesday when the IPT called for comment. Before hanging up, Hooper said "We're more than happy to cooperate with legitimate media. But we don't cooperate with those who promote anti-Muslim bigotry."
In one letter obtained by IPT News, James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Oklahoma City field office, canceled a meeting of the local Muslim Community Outreach Program, a state-federal program designed to enlist Muslims in terrorism prevention and investigate reports of civil liberties violations.
"Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond my control, the meeting will be postponed until further notice as a result of the planned participation by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations," Finch's Oct. 8, 2008 letter to Muslim groups in the Oklahoma outreach program said.
Finch made clear the Oklahoma office valued its relationship with local Muslims. He said the stumbling block to further outreach was CAIR's national leadership.
"[I]f CAIR wishes to pursue an outreach relationship with the FBI, certain issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the FBI. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed at the local level and must be addressed by the CAIR National Office in Washington, D.C.," the letter said.
A spokesman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office referred questions about the letter to the FBI's national press office. In Washington, FBI spokesman John Miller said, "We've certainly been in contact with CAIR chapters" about the un-indicted co-conspirator designation. "The letter speaks for itself."
Letters with similar wording were sent in other states, people with knowledge of the matter said. It is not known how many letters were issued, but the FBI has had strong working relationships with CAIR chapters in states including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and Florida.
Hamas was formed in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic political movement that aims to spread the rule of Shariah, or Islamic law, throughout the world.
A North American branch of the Brotherhood supervised HLF, CAIR and other organizations to build political, financial and public relations support for Hamas, evidence at the HLF trial showed.
The U.S.-based Brotherhood formed a Palestine Committee, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, in 1988 during the first intifada uprising in Palestinian territories against Israel. Hamas's stated policy is for the destruction of Israel.
CAIR co-founders Ahmad and Awad were early active members of the Palestine Committee, evidence showed. Wiretaps recorded the two CAIR leaders participating in strategy meetings of the committee in the 1990s, and both were also on a phone list of its members, the evidence showed.
The first HLF trial in Texas ended in a mistrial in October 2007. In November 2008, the second trial resulted in convictions of five former HLF officials on all counts of providing material support to Hamas.
It is unclear what changed between the first and second HLF trials to make the FBI rescind its policy of outreach to CAIR. The un-indicted co-conspirator designations were made on May 27, 2007 in connection with the first HLF trial. Moreover, much of the evidence linking the CAIR officials to Hamas was aired in an earlier public trial in 2006.
CAIR, however, vigorously challenged the un-indicted co-conspirator designation as a violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights, accusing the government of "demonization of all things Muslim" in a brief filed in the summer of 2007 with the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The co-conspirator designation is "particularly insidious and ironic as CAIR is an organization dedicated to fostering acceptance of Muslims in American society and protecting the civil liberties of all Muslim Americans," CAIR's brief read.
The government filed a brief on Sept. 4, 2007 opposing CAIR's filing, arguing the group lacked standing to challenge the co-conspirator designation and that the matter was moot, as the evidence was already entered into the public record. The judge never ruled on CAIR's request.
The HLF trial showed that CAIR was formed to covertly influence US opinions of the Palestinian conflict and Islam, but without revealing its connections to Hamas.
For example, prosecutors introduced transcripts of wiretaps from a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia of the Palestine Committee, called to order by Ahmad (see page 10 of the hyperlink) and attended by Awad. In that meeting, Ahmad and others discussed the need to create a new political organization seemingly unconnected to Hamas or the Brotherhood.
In one excerpt, (see page 4 of the link) an unidentified male said: "We must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral, because we are placed in a corner, we are place in a corner. It is known who we are, we are marked and I believe there should be a new neutral organization which works on both sides."
CAIR was founded a year later, in 1994, by Ahmad and Awad. In March 1994, Awad was taped at Miami's Barry University publicly declaring his support for Hamas: "I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO," Awad said.
A July 30, 1994 agenda for the Palestine Committee, seized by federal agents and introduced at trial, showed that "suggestions to develop the work" of HLF, CAIR and other organizations was on the agenda.
Under the heading "The need for trained resources in the media and political fields," the agenda said: "No doubt America is the ideal location to train the necessary resources to support the Movement worldwide."
By 1995, CAIR was conducting public relations work to counter the US detention of Mousa Abu Marzook, the Hamas official and Palestine Committee member who was also head of the Muslim Brotherhood in the US.
A transcript of an August 1995 phone call intercepted by government investigators showed HLF officials Shukri Abu Baker and Ghassan Elashi talking about CAIR's efforts (see page 12 of the link).
Days before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI raided the offices of Infocom, a Texas internet company connected to HLF. CAIR's Nihad Awad appeared at a press conference outside Infocom headquarters to denounce what he called an "anti-Muslim witch hunt."
CAIR remained a vocal player in the public debate after 9/11. It developed relationships with members of Congress. FBI officials frequently attended CAIR fundraising banquets, and CAIR cited such contacts in its own literature and Web site as evidence of its good standing with the government.
Mary Jacoby is an award winning reporter who has worked for the Wall Street Journal, Salon.com, the St. Petersburg Times, Chicago Tribune and Roll Call. She may be reached at writetomaryjacoby@gmail.com
For more on CAIR's roots and its history of attacking law enforcement investigations and supporting Islamic terrorists, see the IPT's dossier on the group. Check back at the IPT website tomorrow for a report on CAIR's consistent refusal to condemn terrorist organizations and its rationalization of suicide bombings.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A false icon
by Tomas Sandell
The iconic picture from the current conflict in Gaza has been that of a courageous Norwegian doctor saving Palestinian lives. Here he is, the only westerner in Gaza, who is able to not only save lives but also run his own news agency out of a hospital, informing Western media about what is "really" happening and - here is the catch - who is to be blamed, namely Israel.
Like millions of other people I have seen these images on the evening news, and I have read about his eyewitness reports day after day. After all, there were no other "reliable sources" available in Gaza, it was said. At first I watched this new Bernard Kouchner personality with great admiration. But then it occurred to me. Something was not right. Why did the doctor seem more interested in explaining who was right and who was wrong than in saving lives? Most humanitarian relief workers are there to save lives. Most leave it at this. Explaining who is right and who is wrong is not their call, but to save lives and ease the suffering.
So I googled 'Mads Gilbert.' The profile I discovered on Wikipedia was not one of a humanitarian icon but that of a political activist with a clear Marxist agenda. His convictions were those of the extreme left; he had accused both the US and Israel of war crimes long before the current military operation in Gaza.
IN FACT, the doctor who was trying to alert the world about the human suffering in Gaza had in 2001 the following to say about the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Question: So do you support this terrorist attack on the US? Answer: "Terror is a bad weapon but my answer is yes" (Wikipedia).
This had to be a scam. I did what every concerned citizen would have done. I called the responsible editor of the evening news and of the main daily where I live. Did they know? No they did not. Were they going to do anything to correct the news reports? Answer: What is there to correct?
We live in a cynical world which is shaped by iconic images. People remember pictures. The first man on the moon, JFK being shot in Dallas and now the courageous Norwegian doctor in Gaza explaining to the world the atrocities of Israel. These are the images that will remain in the collective memory of people for years to come and will shape their perception of the conflict in Gaza. Even a small correction will not do much to change the public opinion which has already been shaped, influenced by the images in the news reports. The false icon will remain.
MADS GILBERT may be a good surgeon, but his values are not those of a humanitarian. When he appears in the news as the "accidental hero," we need to learn about his other credentials as well. How trustworthy are his claims? Was he involved in other missions to help the Palestinian people than simply medical work and public relations? We do not know. What we do know by now is that Mads Gilbert and his friend Erik Fosse did not end up in Gaza by accident. They did not come only to help out in a hospital but with a clear political agenda to sell. And they did it very successfully because in Marxist theory the means justify the end. The truth is secondary.
But this text is not about Mads Gilbert. It is about how helpless most of us are when we are exposed to world events where it is impossible for us to know who is telling the truth and who is not. Gilbert may be multitalented (running a hospital and a press agency at the same time is no small venture), but he does not have multiple personalities. He can not be a humanitarian one minute and a cynical political activist the next. When he puts all the blame on Israel, he probably does so out of the convictions that the US and Israel are legitimate targets for terrorist attacks as he has stated in his native Norway. But Norway is far away from the news desks in Washington, Paris and London.
Nevertheless, I hope they will report the following news item. The Norwegian doctor in Gaza is a false icon.
The writer is the founding director of European Coalition for Israel. He has been an accredited journalist to the European Commission in Brussels and is a former director of the European Network of Humanitarian Relief Agencies.
The writer is the founding director of European Coalition for Israel. He has been an
accredited journalist to the European Commission in Brussels and is a former director of the
European Network of Humanitarian Relief Agencies.
Source: The Jerusalem Post
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bulgaria expels high ranking cleric on national security concerns
The Bulgarian government has extradited Adem Yerinde from the country. The Bulgarian State Security Agency held and interrogated the Turkish Muslim cleric for three hours last week. The government has said that the reason for the harsh measures was because Yerinde is a “threat to national security”.
The cleric, who was a deputy-dean of the Islamic institute for higher education in the capital Sofia, was also responsible for staff recruitment and financing of three regional Islamic schools in Bulgaria.
The Bulgarian and the Turkish authorities have not given further explanation into the matter, but the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the Embassy of Turkey in Sofia have reportedly attempted to block the extradition.
Information leaked last week that the associate principle in one of the regional Islamic schools in Bulgaria demanded from girls to cover their heads with Islamic headscarfs, which might be connected with the extradition of Adem Yerinde.
Source: http://yesterday.actualno.com/news_214372.html
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Hamas terrorists kill innocent Palestinian in Gaza (Rare Video) (Must See)
1) Hamas is a totalitarian, terrorist, Islamofascist organization
2) Hamas is exploiting the Palestinian Arabs
3) Hamas are murderers and criminals
4) Hamas hate not only Israel, but also the West, yes the same West who is protesting on their behalf
5) Islamism is the SUPREME FORM OF HYPOCRISY
Monday, January 12, 2009
Militant islamists in Copenhagen chant "Heil Hitler" and "Death to Israel"
00:10:00
Alla-hu Akbar, Alla-hu Akbar
00:32:00
Hitler! Heil Hitler! Hitler! Hitler! Hitler! …
00:40:00
We must just kill all those Jews, man! Then we'd be rid of them, man!
00:45:00
All Jews, man, they will never be loved, never loved.
01:15:00
We are prepared for everything! Prepared for everything! It is you [shouting].
01:28:00
[Interrupting] Give us some Jews!
01:29:00
Now listen up. Now you go home, treading [??] where you want. If you meet some Jews.
01:35:00
[Interrupting] We fuck them, man!
01:38:00
Tell them how many they've killed.
01:40:00
Tell them how all Arabs from Copenhagen, how all Arabs from [??], how all Arabs from Hitler, how their punishment will be, for the blood of the Palestinians.
02:00:00
[Assorted shouting, including:] Fucking Jews, man!
02:08:00
Death to Israel.
02:42:00
Kill the Jews.
02:44:00
Allah-hu Akbar
03:08:00
Israel under my foot, Palestine in my blood!
03:18:00
Muhammad Rasul Allah! [Muhammad prophet of Allah!]
05:20:00
Down, down Israel! Down, down Israel!
05:22:00
Down, down USA! Down, down USA!
05:24:00
Viva, viva Palestine! Viva, viva Palestine!
05:25:00
[The banner reads:] Is this defense?
05:30:00
Viva, viva Palestine! Viva, viva Palestine!
05:50:00
Give us some Jews! Give us some Jews! [Explosion heard]
06:10:00
Israel under my foot, Palestine in my blood! Israel under my foot, Palestine in my blood!
06:25:00
[Arabic – probably a Khaybar reference]
Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Gaza war - January 11 Update
Israel has damaged the Hamas infrastructure, but not enough to bring the terrorists to their knees. U.S. did not veto the UN Security Council resolution demanding Israel to stop its assault on Gaza, but did not even mention Hamas by name! The U.S. abstained, allowing the resolution to pass, a very worrying signal for Israel, who wonders if the U.S. is about to give in to world pressure. Fortunately for Israel, Hamas has refused to observe the UN resolution, which gives Israel the opportunity to continue fighting Hamas. Meanwhile, Egypt is at this moment trying to create a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
If Israel does not have the chance to bring Hamas down, the rockets will continue and Israel will have to fight Hamas again another day. Because they are fanatical Islamists, they will not change their ideology to destroy Israel.
Even though Israel still has a short-term window at this time to bring down Hamas, Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, is hesitating to go into his “Phase Three,” sending reserve troops into areas more built up, where Hamas’s central headquarters and operations are. Indeed, Israel’s military is saying that it will be a disaster (like what happened when Israel hesitated in the Lebanese war against Hizbullah) if the IDF does not finish its job.
The goal presented to the Israeli public at the beginning of the war was that Israel had to deal a strong enough blow to Hamas that the terrorist group would no longer launch rockets to Israel (which it has been doing for 8 years) and that all of the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza would be destroyed and not rebuilt, so that Hamas could not rearm itself.
Israel has definitely not achieved these results, while the UN and Europe are breathing down Israel’s back, demanding a cease-fire, and the U.S. is weakening its resolve. In a few days, Barack Obama will be sworn in, and it appears he is bent (from his speech today) on forging a cease-fire as quickly as he can as he assumes presidency.
The good news today is that no Israeli soldiers were killed or hospitalized, and few Palestinians were killed.
Another great miracle that happened today was at a kindergarten in Ashkelon. It was the first day that children had been allowed to come back to school since the war began two weeks ago. The kindergarten received a direct hit, but all the children had gone down to the bomb shelter and were saved.
The world press does not have a lot of pictures of wounded and killed Israeli citizens because the population in the southern part of Israel is very strong and very disciplined. When the sirens go off (which they do many times a day) everyone runs to their shelter, or if they do not have one, to a stairwell.
Please pray that God will be a Help and a Shield to Israel and save her soldiers and her citizens from her enemies that have sworn to destroy her.
Pray that all diplomatic efforts that would cause Israel to lose this war would come to nothing.
Pray that God will guide Israel’s leadership in conducting this war successfully.
Pray for God’s protection on innocent Palestinians, but that the Hamas terrorists would be taken out.
Pray for many opportunities for believers throughout the country to witness to our fellow citizens.
Source: www.maozisrael.com
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
French network apologizes for Gaza report
PARIS (JTA) -- A French television network has apologized for erroneously broadcasting a false report on Israel's Gaza operation.
Assisted by an anonymous posting, the French news blogger site Le Post proved a report Monday by France 2 television used an outdated amateur video of Palestinian casualties from an accidental truck explosion as current footage demonstrating the violence in Gaza.
France 2 also was responsible for a September 2000 report, accused of being a fake, of the supposed shooting death of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Dura, by the Israeli army.
In the new video, the truck in question contained bombs belonging to Hamas and exploded on Sept. 23, 2005. Intended to illustrate the extent of Web reports on the Israeli offensive in Gaza, the video shows dead bodies of toddlers being laid out on a white sheet.
By Monday, Etienne Leenhardt, the joint director responsible for investigative reports, apologized to Le Post journalists for "an error on our part."
"The person who prepared the topic went too fast," he said. "It reminds us that we must be very attentive on verifying sources."
Leenhardt told Le Post that the network would apologize on its Tuesday afternoon daily report.
Meanwhile, a committee of independent experts is being formed to decide whether the video of the al-Dura shooting is indeed a fake. That video roused anti-Israel and anti-Semitic feelings across the globe, even fueling the subsequent mob lynching of two Israeli soldiers.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Hamas terrorists hiding behind kids
Terroristas palestinos de Hamas
Originally uploaded by ajopringue
Every normal person would want kids FAR AWAY from weapons, explosive, danger. Period. Not HAMAS! The cowards would rather abuse kids, hide behind them and endanger their lives.
Palestinian Child Abuse Hamas
Palestinian Child Abuse Hamas / Abuso infantil niño palestino Hamas
Originally uploaded by ajopringue
How many Jewish children have you EVER seen carrying a rifle? HAMAS is guilty of not only taking lives, but also ruining the lives of kids like this one.