 Most of the stories that have gone out about Abdulmutallab's Internet postings focused on what a lonely fellow he was. This little tidbit about the great Islamic empire has not been as widely reported. "My jihad fantasy.. Muslims will win and rule the world - UMAR ABDULMUTALLAB," by Andrew Gregory for the Mirror, December 30 Failed suicide bomber Umar Abdulmutallab spelt out his nightmare vision of a world ruled by fanatical Islamic hardliners in a series of rambling internet rants. In one, he said: "I won't go into too much details about my fantasy, but basically they are jihad fantasies. "I imagine how the great jihad will take place, how the muslims will win (Allah willing) and rule the whole world and establish the greatest empire once again."... With thanks to JihadWatch
 Does Islamist party Hizb-ut-Tahrir pose a threat to Western society? The answer may well be yes -- but that doesn't mean it should be banned. In recent weeks, Britain's Labour government and the Conservative opposition have been embroiled in a feud about, of all things, Islam -- or, more precisely, an Islamist organization called Hizb-ut-Tahrir (Arabic for "The Party of Liberation").
Tory leader David Cameron has been assailing Gordon Brown's government for allegedly funneling taxpayer money to two Hizb-supported schools where students are being exposed to Islamist ideology.
The education minister insists that the schools in question have nothing to do with the group. The issue is particularly tricky because many Britons, within government and out, have repeatedly called for Hizb-ut-Tahrir to be banned altogether. Their ranks included, at one point a few years ago, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. It hasn't happened yet, though, for reasons that will be touched upon below. One thing is for sure: We can all expect to hear more about Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) in the years to come. Founded 56 years ago in Jordanian-controlled Jerusalem, the party is estimated by some experts to have 1 million members around the world. A lot of them are now in jail. HT is banned outright in a number of countries, ranging from harsh dictatorships like Uzbekistan and Syria through countries like Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Bangladesh, to Western European democracies including Germany and Denmark. Yet the group persists, and in some respects -- judging by the vast amount of literature it continues to produce, on paper, and myriad websites -- it seems to be thriving. The party recently made headlines in the United States when it was revealed that one of President Barack Obama's religious advisors, Muslim polling expert Dalia Mogahed, had participated in a Hizb-ut-Tahrir-sponsored TV broadcast. (She subsequently said that she'd been unaware of the show's affiliation.) The party has undoubtedly been helped, over the years, by the clarity of its ultimate aim: the creation of a modern-day caliphate, an Islamic state that would bring together all the countries of the Islamic world.
Unlike al Qaeda, though, which professes comparable goals, Hizb-ut-Tahrir emphasizes political action rather than force, arguing that Muslims have to be "enlightened" through education, propaganda, and political agitation until they fully understand the need to seize the reins of power in their own countries and unite the ummah, the global community of believers.
According to one of the group's myriad pamphlets: "[I]f the Islamic Ummah were to rise as an Islamic Ummah, she would be more than capable of rescuing the world from the evil forces that control it, suppress it, and make it experience all kinds of misery, humiliation, and slavery." It's this openly revolutionary aim that has gotten the party into trouble in many of the more authoritarian countries where it has run afoul of officialdom. Yet even though it claims to profess non violent means, the party has still managed to get into trouble in more liberal societies for the extreme intolerance of some of its views.
The party became verboten in Germany, for example, after it shared a platform with neo-Nazis. HT officials insist that they are anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic -- though several studies of the group's literature have shown that the distinction doesn't always hold up.
The group was proscribed in Denmark after, among other things, distributing pamphlets urging Muslims to "kill [Jews] wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out." When I first came across the group's pamphlets in Central Asia in 2001, for example, I was struck by their references to the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, whom they ritually denounced as "the Jew Karimov." (He has no Jewish background whatsoever, as it happens.) One of the party's pamphlets stresses that Muslims who elect to leave the faith automatically face the death penalty -- a stricture that would be hard to reconcile with democratic freedoms if they dared to put it into practice. Another source of concern is the group's role as a "conveyor belt," radicalizing members who then go on to participate in overtly violent actions. Its prominent members in Britain have included Omar Bakri Muhammad, founder of the group Al Muhajiroun, which gained notoriety for praising the 9/11 hijackers and harbored adherents who would later be implemented in terrorist attacks.
When British intelligence officials searched the home of Omar Sharif, the Briton who attempted to blow himself up in a Tel Aviv bar in 2003, they found a cache of Hizb-ut-Tahrir literature.
British journalist Shiv Malik claims that at least two major al Qaeda figures, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, originally had ties with the group. More at Foreign Policy 
 Members of a group regarded as an 'organisation of concern’ by the Home Office has secured large government grants for schools, reports Andrew Gilligan. Leading members of a group that wants to bring down the British state and replace it with a dictatorship under Islamic law have secured more than £100,000 of taxpayers’ money for a chain of schools. Accounts filed at the Charity Commission show that the Government paid a total of £113,411 last year to a foundation run by senior members and activists of Hizb ut-Tahrir - a notorious Islamic extremist group that ministers promised to ban. The public money helped run a nursery school and two Islamic primary schools where children are taught key elements of Hizb’s ideology from the age of five. Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, last night described the disclosure as “astonishing and outrageous” and accused the Government of “sleeping on the job”.Hizb regards integration as “dangerous” and says that British Muslims should “fight assimilation” into British society. It wants to create a global Islamic superstate, or “caliphate”, initially in Muslim-majority countries and then across the rest of the world. It says that “those [Muslims] who believe in democracy are Kafir”, or apostates. It orders all Muslims to keep apart from non-believers and boycott “corrupt” British elections and political processes. It has a tiny following and its views are rejected by most British Muslims. Hizb, which operates worldwide, insists it is non-violent and condemned the London bombings. However its website previously displayed a leaflet urging Muslims to “kill [Jews] wherever you find them” and at a rally in London earlier this year, Imran Waheed, its chief media adviser in Britain, said that there could be “no peace” with Israel, calling on Muslims to “fight” a “jihad… in the way of Allah” against it. Its anti-Semitism has resulted in the group being banned in Germany and on some British university campuses.After the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, Tony Blair, who was then prime minister, also promised to ban Hizb, describing it as “fanatical”. A ban has not been introduced but the Tories have pledged to outlaw the group and the Home Office continues to regard it as an “organisation of concern”. The three schools - in Tottenham, north London, and Slough, Berks - are run by the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, a registered charity. The foundation’s lead trustee is Yusra Hamilton, a leading Hizb activist who is married to Taji Mustafa, the group’s chief spokesman in Britain. Read more here ... Source: Telegraph
H/T: David F. British Government
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Leo Rennert August 16 According to President Obama's vision of a two-state solution, Israel must conclude a peace agreement with Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.
But Fatah, at this week's party convention, took a leaf from Arafat's playbook and decided that it wouldn't even start negotiations until Israel completely withdraws to the pre-1967 lines, releases all Palestinian terrorist prisoners, and imposes an absolute construction freeze not only in West Bank settlements, but in Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. And Fatah went on to give its full support to its terrorist wing, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, launched close relations with Iran, and demanded an absolute "right of return" to Israel for millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants.
As if this weren't enough of an obstacle in the peace process, Hamas -- dedicated to Israel's total elimination -- has been ruling Gaza for the last two years and is not about to change its spots or its grip on half of what is supposed to become the state of Palestine.
And to complicate things even further, a Qaeda-offshoot group, known as the "Warriors of God," has emerged in recent weeks in Gaza, intent on folding all Palestinian areas into an Islamist Caliphate across the entire Middle East. At week's end, this group fought a pitched battle with Hamas from a mosque in Rafah, Gaza, which according to latest dispatches left two dozen people dead and 100 injured.
So, President Obama, with whom exactly is Israel supposed to reach a two-state agreement?
Or, as current developments suggest, a four-state solution to accommodate all these disparate claimants to Palestinian rule?
 The radical Islamists in Nigeria obviously have local issues, but as with all Jihadists, the local is subservient to the higher "cause:” to resurrect the caliphate from China to the Atlantic Ocean.By Dr. Walid Phares The renewal of violence in the northern provinces of Nigeria brings this oil producing country to the brink of "Talibanization," threatening not only the precarious ethnic and religious makeup of the most populous African state but also the entire region, from Chad to Senegal. The fight between the now-called "Nigerian Taliban" and the governmental forces took place this week within a country whose borders are 300 miles from where President Barack Obama stood inside the Ghana Parliament to address Africa's "problems." Unfortunately last month, the president didn't use mention words such as “Taliban,” “Jihadists,” “Shariah,” “salafists,” or any term indicating that Nigeria and 10 other African countries are suffering from a real invasion, fueled by a totalitarian ideology. That was a miss that came back to haunt the international public opinion as dramatic pictures of the bloodshed were disseminated by the news agencies. Read more ... Source: FSM
 Plus tard ce mois-ci, les membres du Hizb ut-Tahrir au Canada accueilleront une conférence à Mississauga où ils débattront de l’instauration d'un califat. L'annonce de la conférence est la première reconnaissance publique de la présence du Hizb ut-Tahrir au Canada. C’est un signe que ce groupe pourrait être récemment passé à la deuxième phase de sa stratégie en trois étapes, comme pour le Hizb ut-Tahrir Amérique (HTA). (Pour en savoir davantage sur les méthodes du Hizb ut-Tahrir, lire mon article précédent). Les filiales du Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) dans le monde entier accueillent des conférences sur le califat ce mois-ci dans le cadre de leur «Campagne du Rajab ». Dans le calendrier islamique, Rajab est le mois de la chute de l'Empire ottoman, ou, dans l’esprit du HT, celui de l’anniversaire de la destruction du califat. L'annonce de la conférence de Mississauga se réfère à ses hôtes comme « les membres du Hizb ut-Tahrir au Canada» plutôt que «Hizb ut-Tahrir Canada », une appellation conforme à celle des autres filiales du HT dans le monde. En outre, la conférence aura lieu dans un endroit moins spacieux que celui où s'est tenue la conférence du HTA à Chicago. Les participants à la conférence du HTA ont rempli la grande salle de bal de l'hôtel Hilton Oak Lawn pendant toute une journée. La conférence canadienne aura lieu le 31 juillet en soirée au Centre communautaire de Mississauga et durera seulement deux heures. Selon le site Internet du Centre communautaire, le Salon Frank Bean (la salle qui est réservée pour la réunion) n'accueille que 40 personnes. Les organisateurs de la conférence du HT ont décrit la réunion comme « une session questions/réponses ouverte portant sur des sujets qui sont d'importance pour la Oumma, notamment le rétablissement de l'islam comme un mode de vie, le rôle du Califat Rashida, et le rôle de la communauté musulmane au Canada. » Lire la suite...
Source: Counterterrorism Blog (Traduction française par Poste de veille)
Hizb ut-Tahrir, (HT) the pro-jihadist organization meeting this weekend in suburban Chicago, has been waging a below-the-radar campaign to recruit Americans for decades. While HT (the "Party of Liberation") says it is committed to advancing radical Islam by nonviolent means, it advocates violence (see here, here and here) and its prominent alumni include terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and Abu Musab Zarqawi along with suicide bombers. The open nature of this weekend's Khalifa (Caliphate) Conference in Chicago under the Hizb ut-Tahrir banner indicates that the group has decided to enhance its recruiting efforts among U.S. Muslims. Until late last year (when it publicly called on American Muslims to boycott the November election) HT had operated in secret or through front organizations here. Read more ...Source: IPT News
Racism in Islam: Allah’s White Faces
by Abul Kasem - 06 Dec, 2008 From FrontPageMagazine.com on December 04, 2008
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. His latest contribution is in Why We Left Islam published by WND Books.
FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Kasem: Thank you Jamie.
FP: I would like to talk to you today about the racial apartheid that exists in Islam. How is the best way for us to begin this discussion?
Kasem: Jamie, let’s begin with the incredible hypocrisy and double standard that exists on the issue of racism in general. Islamists living in the West often portray Islam as a religion free of racism. They never fail to criticize western countries of its racist attitude and contempt for people who are not of white complexion. It is quite perplexing that these Islamists never look at their own backyard, of blatant, naked racism enmeshed in the Islamic doctrine.
Any non-Arab, non-white, who has been to a Middle East Arab country will tell the story of absolute racism practiced there. It is no secret that in rich Arab countries, (such as Saudi Arabia) people of dark complexion, such those from Africa, South Asia (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh) receive much lower pay than a white person from the western country would. There is strict, unspoken, racial apartheid practiced in the rich Arab countries.
FP: And the lefties that are confronted with this reality immediately say how this has nothing to do with Islam and that it is “cultural.”
Kasem: For sure, and they are completely wrong. The racism practiced in the Arab countries is solidly founded in the very doctrine of Islam.
FP: Tell us about it.
Kasem: Blatant Islamic racism is permeated in the founts of Islam, the Qur’an, ahadith, Sunna, and Sharia.
Let us start the beginning with the end in mind. What I mean is the Islamic Resurrection day.
It is an Islamic day of black and white.
Allah promises in verse 3:185 that life in this world is an illusion, that every person shall die, and every person will receive his judgment on the resurrection day. In verse 5:26, Allah vouches that all that is on earth will perish. Allah says in verse 10:26 that He will reward the doers of good with paradise and much more; their faces will be radiant-stained. They will never be humiliated.
Ibn Kathir says that there will be no blackness or darkness on their faces. In contrast, the faces of the non-believers will be stained with dust, blackness, and darkness. On the Resurrection Day Allah will remove His veil and show His face to the dwellers of paradise. He will make the believers’ faces white.
Where are all the radical leftist scholars deconstructing these texts in the way they have done to Western literature?
The Islamic texts clearly reveal that Allah is a white supremacist; He does not like black faces; He likes white faces.
It is clear from the exegesis of these verses that Allah likes white people and dislikes the black people, so much so, in fact, that even when a Black Muslim is entitled to enter Islamic Paradise, he will not enter it until Allah has turned him into a white person. Verse 20:102 says that on the day the trumpet is sounded (resurrection day), the sinners will be gathered together with blue eyes and black faces. A hadith in Mishkat says that on judgment day, Muslims will have white faces, white arms, and white legs (Mishkat al-Masabih, Ibn Abdullah Tabrizi, Sheikh Wali-ud-Din Muahmmad, Tr. Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, Kitab Bhavan, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daraya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, India.1990, p.1.168).
Allah’s preference for light-skinned people and His disdain for dark-skinned people is repeated in verse 7:46. Ibn Abbas writes that this verse tells the joy of the believers when they know those who enter hell by their darkened faces and blue eyes and those who enter Paradise by their lightened faces: at once handsome and radiant.
Allah says in verse 86:8-9 that He will bring back life for Muhammad to commence judgment. According to ibn Kathir, on resurrection day, a banner will be raised for every deceitful person from his anus; the size of this banner will depend on the size of the perpetrator’s calumny. Thus, Muhammad will have no trouble sifting the believers from the non-believers. All Muslims will be of white complexion, and all infidels will be of black complexion, with a banner on his/her anus.
In verse 18:29 Allah says that He does not care whether people believe or disbelieve in Islam. The disbelievers (non-Muslims) and the wrongdoers will be surrounded by the tent of fire; they will be given water (acid) like molten brass to shower and to scald their faces. Ibn Kathir says that this verse means the water of Hell is black, and it itself is black and its people are black.
In verse 3:107 Allah emphatically pronounces that white faces on the judgment day will receive His mercy. Jalalyn writes that, on judgment day, Muslims’ faces will be white.
In Mishkat (ibid, p.1.76) we read humans were emitted as white ants from Adam; paradise is for the whites, hell is for the blacks.
Islamic Paradise will offer its white male residents unlimited, unbridled, uninterrupted sex with houris of exquisite beauty. These houris will also be of fair (read white), radiant complexion (44:54, 55:70) quite similar to the Hollywood movie actresses. Even the wine-serving boys will be white, like pearls (52:24, 76:19).
FP: How do you explain this kind of racism in Islam?
Kasem: We might wonder why Allah is such a racist—white supremacist, even on Islamic resurrection day. The answer is Muhammad was a white man. Here are a few examples:
Muhammad was white. (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.486)
Let us read one hadith from Sahih Bukhari (1.3.63) Narrated Anas bin Malik:
While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." The man then addressed him, "O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib.”
Tabari writes that Muhammad was of white complexion, reddish tinge, deep-black large eyes, long eyelashes. His breast hair was thin and he had thick beard. He had no hair in his armpit. The perspiration on his face was pearl-like (al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir, History of al-Tabari, Translated by Ismail K. Poonwala. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990, p.ix.157).
In Ash-Shifa, Allah, through Sharia, expresses a great disdain for the black people in this manner:
Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed. (Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi, Qadi ‘Iyad. Ash-Shifa. Tr. Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley. Medina Press, P.O. Box 5531, Inverness IV5 7YA, Scotland, UK, fifth print 2004, p.375)
FP: So who is Allah then?
Kasem: Allah is a white Arab supremacist. Allah dearly loves the Arabs. He chose them over all other races, making them the best pedigree in the human race.
Does Allah look like an Arab, especially an Arab from Saudi Arabia and from the Quraysh stock? Let us read from ibn Sa’d, the famous biographer of Muhammad:
…Abu Damarah al–Madani Anas Ibn ‘Iyad al–Laythi informed us; he said: Ja’far Ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali informed us on the authority of his father, Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn Ibn “Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who said: Verily the Prophet said: God divided the earth in two halves and placed (me) in the better of the two, then He divided the half in three parts, and I was in the best of them, then He chose the Arabs from among the people, then He chose the Quraysh from among the Arabs, then He chose the children of ‘Abd al–Muttalib from among the Banu Hashim, then he chose me from among the children of ‘Abd al–Muttalib (Ibn Sa’d, Abu Abd Allah Muhammad. Kitab al-Tabaqat, vol i. Translated in English by S. Moinul Haq, Kitab Bhavan, 1784, Kalan Mahal, Daraya Ganj, New Delhi, India, 1972, p1.2).
According to ibn Sa’d, Allah favours Arab racism—prophet is to be of Quraysh stock and of white complexion (ibid, p1. 95-96).
Here is a hadith from Sahih Muslim which declares Allah’s special love for the white Quraysh Arabs.
Book 020, Number 4483
It has been narrated on the authority of Amir b. Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas who said: I wrote (a letter) to Jabir b. Samura and sent it to him through my servant Nafi', asking him to inform me of something he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He wrote to me (in reply): I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say on Friday evening, the day on which al-Aslami was stoned to death (for committing adultery): The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraish. also heard him say: A small force of the Muslims will capture the white palace, the police of the Persian Emperor or his descendants. I also heard him say: Before the Day of Judgment there will appear (a number of) impostors. You are to guard against them. I also heard him say: When God grants wealth to any one of you, he should first spend it on himself and his family (and then give it in charity to the poor). I heard him (also) say: I will be your forerunner at the Cistern (expecting your arrival).
FP: So Arabs must rule the world?
Kasem: Yes. The ultimate goal of the Islamists is the creation of a Pan Islamic world, which must be ruled by a caliph (the Islamists call it the Khilafat movement) who will be responsible to enforce Islamic laws (Sharia) globally.
FP: What are the requirements to be a caliph?
Kasem: According to Islamic law, (Reliance of the Traveller, published by Amana Publications, Bettsville, Maryland, 1999, pp.640-642, law number o25.3) the mandatory qualifications of an Islamic caliph are:
1. must be a Muslim
2. must be a male
3. must be from the Quraysh tribe of the Arabs
4. must be a freeman (i.e., not a slave)
5. must be of sound mind. Read all here: http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/Racism-in-Islam-Allah-White-Faces.htm
 By Raymond Ibrahim Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The less accurate words are, the less accurate the knowledge they impart; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the war on terror, to acquire accurate knowledge — which is pivotal to victory — we need to begin with accurate language. Would the free world have understood the Nazi threat if, instead of calling them what they called themselves, “Nazis,” it had opted to simply call them “extremists” — a word wholly overlooking the racist, expansionary, and supremacist elements that are part and parcel of the word “Nazi”? Unfortunately, the U.S. government, apparently oblivious to this interconnection between language and knowledge, appears to be doing just that. Even President Obama alluded to this soon after taking office when he said, “Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we’re going to win this struggle [war on terror] is through the battle of [Muslims'] hearts and minds.” According to an official memo, when talking about Islamists and their goals, analysts are to refrain from using Arabic words of Islamic significance (”mujahidin,” “salafi,” “ummah”); nor should they employ helpful English or anglicized words (”jihadi,” “Islamo-fascism,” “caliphate”). Instead, vague generics (”terrorists,” “extremists,” “totalitarians”) should suffice. Read more ...Source: Pajamas Media
Over 150 women gathered to discuss a way forward in Gaza during a conference in Manchester. The event organised by the sister arm of Hizb ut-Tahrir and held at the Pakistani Community Centre in Lonsight looked beyond the ceasefire, evaluated practical steps that could have prevented atrocities in Gaza and mapped out a future political set up to ensure stability and peace for the region. Dentist Shazia Rashid, spoke about the failure of current Muslim leaders in responding to the calls of Palestinians being attacked in the Gaza region. She said: "Arab regimes were more interested in organising conference after conference laden with plush settings and foods, spending days arguing over the text that could go on the ‘declaration’ to ‘condemn’ Israel rather than using military pressure to stop Israel in its advances." Read more ...Source: Asian NewsH/T: Weasel Zippers
 Amir Taheri | January 9, 2009
For Islamists in Gaza, Palestine is part of a global religious struggle not a battle to create an independent state
The conflict in Gaza has been triggered by Israel's belief that the status quo has become intolerable and should be overturned.
There are several reasons why Israel felt it could not live with the situation in Gaza. The most immediate is the rocket attacks by Hamas that have made life for nearly a tenth of Israelis an exercise in anxiety. Also a factor is that Hamas, since it staged its putsch two years ago, has closed Gaza to all Palestinian groups that have accepted a two-state solution. This makes it impossible for Israel and the administration of President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) in the West Bank to restart negotiations that could lead to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
More importantly, perhaps, Hamas has forged an alliance with Iran based on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's strategy of “wiping Israel off the map”. Tehran's investment in Hamas is large enough to have given it a decisive say in shaping the group's strategy. Israelis see Hamas as one of the two arms of a pincer, along with Iranian-funded Hezbollah in Lebanon, that Tehran is building against them.
Thus, Israel's war aims are clear: end the rocket attacks, reopen Gaza to other Palestinian parties and eliminate the Iranian presence. This means creating a new status quo in which Hamas is not the dominant party in Gaza.
Some commentators have claimed that the cause of the current war is Israel's occupation. But Gaza - until last weekend - was the one bit of Arab territory nominally under Israeli occupation that was free of Israeli settlers and troops. Yet, most of Israel's troubles, in the form of rocket attacks and suicide operations, came from Gaza. At the other end of the spectrum, the Golan Heights, under Israeli occupation since 1967, have been as quiet as a churchyard despite the presence of large numbers of Israeli settlers and troops.
Hamas, as its charter and political literature make clear, does not want an end to Israeli occupation. It wants the end of Israel. That is because Hamas is part of a pan-Islamist movement with global messianic ambitions. Creating a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank is not its aim. A branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas dreams of world dominion for its version of Islam rather than a mini-state in 5,000 square kilometres of barren land in a geopolitical backyard.
Although officially created in 1987, Hamas's roots go back to the 1930s when Haj Amin al-Hussaini, the Grand Mufti of Palestine under the British Mandate, allied himself with Hitler and dreamt of reviving the Islamic Caliphate with himself as Caliph.
That Hamas cares little about Palestine as a would-be nation state is clear from its name and charter. Hamas is the Arab acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement”, making it clear that the movement regards Palestine not as a nation in its own right but as a small part of the ummah, the community of believers. Hamas is the only significant party in Palestine whose name does not include the words Palestine or Palestinian.
To Hamas ideologues, such as the late Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, love of Palestine as a nation is a form of sherk, that is to say false worship or idolatry. Hamas sees Palestinian nationalists such as Abu Mazen as traitors to Islam.
To Hamas, Palestine is part of a cause rather than a political project. One cannot negotiate with a cause that claims celestial benediction, especially when it rejects the very legitimacy of one's existence. A political project, however, is negotiable because it is about worldly problems such as territory, borders, security, exchange of populations and joint administration of certain areas, which could have worldly solutions.
For decades, Palestinians suffered because their leaders - starting with the Mufti and ending with Yassir Arafat - linked the problem of Palestine with big power rivalries in which Palestine was a slogan and a pretext. It was only in the 1990s that the Palestinian leadership, led by Fatah, managed to redefine Palestine as a territorial conflict between two neighbouring nations, rather than as part of a clash of civilisations. That redefinition led to the Oslo Accords and the creation of a Palestinian administration - the first step towards statehood.
Hamas, however, rejects that redefinition and is trying to recast Palestine as a religious issue in Islam's global struggle against the “infidel”.
Many Palestinians see this as a betrayal of their national aspirations. They do not wish to be the sacrificial lamb of pan-Islamist global ambitions as they were for pan-Arabism in the 1960s.
Cutting Hamas down to size would be good not only for Israel but also for the Palestinian people, more specifically the people of Gaza, who have become captives of a one-party state mired in corruption and incompetence.
That, however, is no easy task. Hamas is a many-headed beast. One head represents the part of Hamas that deals with welfare, health and education. It imposed its domination in that field by driving out more than 200 NGOs, seizing control of the running of independent clinics and schools and infiltrating its people into the running of international aid agencies.
A second head is represented by Hamas's political network that managed to win 46 per cent of the votes in the only free elections held in the territories. Although the Hamas political machine remains strong, it is not at all certain that it could deliver that many votes in the next elections.
A third head of Hamas consists of its network of business concerns. Through a mixture of patronage, judicious investments and intimidation it has gained control of the Gazan economy - everything from barber shops to textile workshops. It also runs a protection racket and a contraband network. As a business concern, Hamas raised its profile when it seized control of more than 600 companies controlled by Fatah and the Arafat clan.
Finally, there is Hamas's terror machine, a paramilitary force of about 20,000 men and women, answerable only to their own command structures. It is that part of Hamas that Tehran is trying to buy and control through figures such as Khaled Mishal, head of the Hamas political bureau.
Later this year Palestinians are due to vote for a new parliament and president. Divided into a Hamasstan in Gaza and Fatah-land in the West Bank, they would have little chance of creating a unified government capable of pressing for a Palestinian state. A change of status quo in Gaza could give them a chance.
Amir Taheri's latest book is The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution, published this month by Encounter Books
Source: Times Online
 By Nonie Darwish | Thursday, January 08, 2009
With the explosive current events in Gaza, the world needs to understand the roots of this eternal conflict, otherwise we are all kidding ourselves with hopes of peace.
For decades, Arabs had demanded that Israel end the "occupation," and in 2005, Israel did so, disengaging unilaterally from Gaza. With their demands met, there was no ‘cycle of violence’ to respond to, no further justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. With its central location and beautiful beaches on the East Mediteranean, a peaceful and prosperous Gaza could have become another Hong Kong; a shining trade and commerce center. But instead of choosing peace, the Palestinians chose Islamic jihad. They rolled their rocket launchers to the border and started bombing Israeli civilians.
Understanding the reasons why the Palestinians chose violence over peace requires connecting the dots from the behavior of Muslim states back to the laws of Islam: Sharia. Mainstream Sharia books define Jihad as: "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion." (Shafi’i Sharia o9.0). Jihad is not just the duty of the individual Muslim, but it is also the main duty of the Muslim head of State (the Calipha):
"A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive Jihad. He must organize Jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land." (Shafii Law o25.0 to o25.9).
Sharia law# o25.9 states:
"(When the caliph appoints a ruler on a region, his duty includes) if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, (he will) undertake Jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants and setting aside a fifth for deserving recipients."
Also:
"The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax provided he has first invited them to enter Islam or pay Jizya, the non-Muslim poll tax, (in accordance with the word of Allah Most High Chapter 9 verse 29)."
Zia-Ul-Haq, former President of Pakistan, said "jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim Ummah."
One of Islam’s eminent 20th century scholars, Sheikh Maolana Maududi said:
"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program … the objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish instead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."
Some people seem to think that such laws are just historical relics, on the books but not in practice or in control of the minds of Muslims. But that is the kind of denial we cannot afford; these laws rule the hearts, minds and actions of a majority of Muslim individuals and states around the world today. These scriptures are taught, preached and promoted as the incontrovertible and eternal word of God and funded by Saudi petrodollars throughout the world, including Western nations such as the U.K. and the United States.
No Muslim leader can survive in a Muslim country if he announces the end of Jihad against non-Muslim countries and states that all references to Jihad in Islamic law do not apply today. Treating non-Muslim neighboring countries and individual as equals, with respect and in peace without trying to convert them to Islam, is simply against Islamic Law.
Muslim leaders who dare to go against this theology are called traitors and puppets of the ‘Great Satan’ West. That is a description that no Muslim leader wants to be labeled with. When president Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, he told his confidants that he knew he was signing his own death warrant. He understood that under Sharia he must have permanent war with non-Muslim Israel.
How can a Muslim leader or individual avoid the hundreds of Quran and Hadith commandments to Muslims to kill Jews and Christians? Q 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Q 9:5: "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them". Q47.4: "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads."
A Muslim leader cannot face his devout Muslim subjects after making a decision to engage in friendship and peace with Jews. Mosques all over the Middle East, after all, recite Mohammed’s commandment to Muslims:
"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!" (Sahih Muslim 41:6985, also Sahih Bukhari 4:52:177)
This Hadith, issued by Mohammad, makes a whole group of people illegal to exist. It was issued in the 7th century, not after the 1948 creation of the State of Israel. It is not a response to modern-day grievances; it is a permanent commandment.
Many Muslims claim that Arabs and Jews lived well together for many years before 1948. But that claim ignores the fact that Jews had to live as ‘dhimmies’ under Islamic Law and were never allowed to rule themselves separate of the Islamic Sharia. When Muslims were weak they often treated their dhimmi subjects well and ignored the commandments to kill, subjugate and humiliate them. But Jew hatred is intrinsic to Islamic scriptures that do not permit reformation under the penalty of death.
This is the real basis of the Arab/Israeli conflict: not a conflict over land or occupation, but a divine obligation to destroy neighboring (non-Muslim) Israel, where Jews are no longer dhimmis but are free to rule themselves. We cannot ignore the root of the problem in Muslim scriptures. That is the true force behind the hate and propaganda Jihadist machine against Jews in the Muslim world.
Some Muslims tell me that they don’t believe in Sharia and question why am I making a big deal about it. My answer is that Sharia is the law of the land in 54 Muslim countries and many Muslim groups are demanding Sharia in the West. In 1990, 45 Muslim countries signed the Cairo Human Rights Declaration which stated that Sharia has supremacy over the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Muslim world must look within to its sacred laws, scriptures, sermons, teaching and preaching, and reform the obstacles for peace that have condemned them to a permanent state of jihad. The non-Muslim world must have no illusions.
Nonie Darwish is an American of Arab/Moslem origin. A freelance writer and public speaker, she runs the website www.ArabsForIsrael.com. Source: FrontPage Magazine
 By Kathy Shaidle In the wake of last month’s horrific Mumbai massacre, a recent warning about the spread of Islamic extremism in Russia is particularly chilling. On December 12, the Interfax news service quoted Major General Yury Tomchak, interior minister of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, as saying that “the wide-scale expansion of radical Islam into practically all regions of the Russian Federation” is a “source for concern.” He added that, “cells of international extremist organizations have developed intensive activities lately in individual constituent territories [of Russia], activities that include takeovers of “lucrative sectors of business.” This growth of Islamic extremism within Russia’s borders, especially in Chechnya and Dagestan, comes even after the Russian government banned seventeen radical Muslim organizations. For whatever reason, deadly atrocities of the recent past, such as the Moscow Theatre seige or the Beslan school massacre, are frequently attributed to regional, secular separatists rather than Muslim terrorists. This, despite statements made by the terrorists themselves, which reference “Allah” and the establishment of a caliphate “from the Red Sea to the Caspian.” Of course, the situation is extremely complex, and religion plays only one part, as Russia expert David Satter of the Hudson Institute explained to Front Page Magazine via email. In terms of Major General Tomchak’s Kabardino-Balkaria, which was rocked by attacks on police and security facilities in 2005, the spread of Islamic radicalism “is often fueled less by religious fervor than by the corruption of the local pro-Russian authorities and the brutality of the police,” said Satter. Read more ...Source: FrontPage Magazine
 Tarek Fatah’s Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State is in many respects a courageous and edifying book whose bracing opposition to Left-liberal woolly-mindedness and the totalitarian mindset of political Islam is to be applauded. A member of the intellectual vanguard known as “progressive Muslims,” Fatah provides vigorous objection to the nuptials which a blinkered and opportunistic Left has celebrated with a sly “Islamist” aggressor whose purposes it has failed to understand is apt. He is perfectly correct when he warns that we must be wary of “segments of the non-Muslim community in the West, especially the guilt-ridden Left that comes out in support of sharia…under the garb of diversity.” Fatah wants us to realize before it is too late that the “liberal-left custodians of fair play and equity are being taken to the cleaners” by the mosque establishment and the soi-disant Islamic civil rights organizations. But the real strength of the book resides in its stout opposition to the wholesale takeover of Islam by feuding warlords, the devastation it has wreaked among its own peoples, the intrinsic conviction of the supremacy of Arab over non-Arab Muslims, and the duplicity of current Muslim leaders consolingly affirming that jihad is only a peaceful, interior struggle of the soul when it is, in effect, a many-pronged war against liberal democracy. Read more ...Source: FrontPage MagazineTarek Fatah
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
Siraj Wahhaj is a regular visitor to the Central Ohio area, but his next appearance in Columbus will be as a featured speaker at the 2008 Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention held here later this month. One of the unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Wahhaj has been in the news recently for being featured in NY subway ads that have proved controversial in light of his known terrorist ties. Paul Barrett, an editor for Business Week and author of the recent book, American Islam: Struggle for the Soul of Religion, has spent considerable time with Wahhaj and made him one of the primary subjects in his book (read the introduction to Barrett’s book at the Washington Post). Barrett has previously described the transformation of America into an Islamic state that Wahhaj would like to see. Read more ...Source: Central Ohioans Against Terrorism
Hizb ut-Tahrir supporters calling for a worldwide Islamic state have marched through Gaza for the first time. About 3,000 demonstrators waved black flags and shouted slogans calling for a global Islamic government Thursday. Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to establish a caliphate that would govern the world according to Islamic law. The group was founded in Jordan in 1953 and is banned in several countries, including Russia, Germany and some Arab states. The group's activities are outlawed in the West Bank. This week in the West Bank city of Hebron, 20 members were arrested. The group says it uses nonviolent means but is seen as ideologically close to Jihadist groups. The tiny group opposes the Islamic Hamas, which rules Gaza. Source: InfoLive
 By Jeffrey Imm In fighting Jihad, America's greatest challenge remains understanding and confronting the ideology that provides the basis for Jihadist terrorism. Efforts to clearly define this enemy ideology recently have been undermined by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and the State Department in promoting a "terror lexicon" that recommends federal government employees avoid terms such as "jihad," "jihadist," "Islamist," "mujahideen," and "caliphate" when addressing issues involving terrorism. The argument made by the DHS, NCTC, and others is that the use of such terms will aid in the "recruitment" of Muslims to join terrorist organizations, or will alternatively provide "legitimacy" to religious aspects of terrorist efforts. However, this tactical approach to create a "terror lexicon" to ban such terms used in federal government terrorism reports and the 9/11 Commission report undermines the strategic efforts to identify, understand, and confront the ideology that is the root challenge in a war of ideas against Jihad. And, as Bill West points out, it can also open the door to some unintended consequences for law enforcement. Congressmen Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) has been an outspoken critic of such "terror lexicon" efforts, and was the leader of an amendment to the House of Representatives' 2009 Intelligence funding bill to prevent government funding from supporting such activities. On July 16, 2008, the House passed (by voice vote) House Resolution 5959 "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009," which included Congressman Hoekstra's amendment (Section 507 'Jihadists'). Read more ...Source: IPT News
Cairo, 25 July (AKI) - The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has launched a discussion forum on Facebook, the popular social networking website. A group of young Muslims decided to put the Muslim Brotherhood on Facebook after they received the go-ahead to do so from the Brotherhood's second-in-command, Muhammad Habib. The creators of the project decided to call themselves an "electronic student cell of the Muslim Brotherhood" and their aim to to push for the return of an Islamic Caliphate [a Muslim state]." The Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed by the Egyptian government, which accuses the group of encouraging violence in order to establish an Islamic state. This new youth wing decided to choose the Internet as a way to spread their message. Read more ...Source: AKI
 By M. Zuhdi Jasser As a Muslim, I am continually mystified by our nation’s inability to foster an environment conducive to a real “contest of ideas” between Muslims. This ‘”intra-Muslim contest” is arguably the linchpin of an effective counterterrorism strategy and possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. The infamous January 2008 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum, “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations of American Muslims” only stifles progress in this debate. It absurdly admonishes government employees and thought leaders to avoid terms like Jihadist, Islamist, and Salafist. More recently, buried in media coverage last week over the debate concerning the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act of 2009 (H.R. 5959) was discussion over the Hoekstra Amendment (A004) which simply “barred the use of funds to prohibit or discourage the use of the phrases ‘jihadist’, ‘jihad’ ‘Islamo-fascism’, ‘Caliphate’ ,‘Islamist’ or “Islamic terrorist” within the Intelligence Community or the Federal Government.” “Mainstream media” who did mention the amendment spun it in ways which only catered to the Islamist mindset, stating that these terms are felt by so-called experts to cause “religious offense” and “are frequently applied incorrectly.” So who is to determine their ‘correctness’ – a small group of Islamist advisors? Where does that leave the war of ideas? Read more ...Source: Family Security MattersDr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 An open hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs bore witness to an unusually candid discussion about the Muslim Brotherhood's network in the United States. It was unusual in the respect that it was discussed at all. The fact that many major American Muslim organizations are derived from the Muslim Brotherhood is rarely addressed on Capitol Hill. The topic of the July 10 hearing was, "The Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It," and the subject most discussed was Islamist ideology as the root cause of terrorism. What made this hearing significant was the extent to which the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood network was discussed in oral and written testimony – largely by Zeyno Baran, senior fellow and director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute. Ms. Baran's central point was that, while not all Islamists will become terrorists, all Islamic terrorists begin with Islamist ideology. She cited the Muslim Brotherhood as the "prime example" of the spectrum of Islamist groups that, while differing in tactics, agree on their final goal: a world dominated by Islamic law, or Shariah. As such, Ms. Baran pointed out that there were inherent problems with the outreach policies of various government agencies. She specifically cited sensitivity training for the FBI run by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as "completely self-defeating" as FBI agents might be taught to be overly sensitive and may avoid asking certain questions during investigations that they should be asking. Read more ...Source: IPT NewsZeyno Baran
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Most of the stories that have gone out about Abdulmutallab's Internet postings focused on what a lonely fellow he was.
Posts
