Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president and opposition member, has accused the country's rulers of being intolerant, amid restrictions on journalists imposed by the authorities.
"The situation in the country is such that constructive criticism is not accepted," Rafsanjani told students in the northern city of Mashhad on Sunday, the ILNA news agency reported.
He called on Iran's political groups to work together to "create a climate of freedom which will convince the majority of people and erase ambiguities".
Rafsanjani was speaking a day before the annual Student Day, when demonstrations against the rule of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, are expected to go ahead.
Several websites have urged people to gather on Student Day near Tehran University campus.
"Those who demonstrate or protest must express themselves through legal means. Leaders must also respect the law," Rafsanjani said.
"There have always been extremist factions and excessive attitudes on both sides ... several problems will be solved if we adopt the path of moderation."
Iranian authorities have ordered journalists working for foreign media organisations not to leave their offices to cover the protests that are expected to take place on Monday.
"All permits issued for foreign media to cover news in Tehran have been revoked from December 7 to December 9," the culture ministry's foreign press department said in an mobile phone text message sent to journalists on Saturday.
Police and Iran's Revolutionary Guards have said that they will move against any "illegal" rally that takes place in Tehran.
"Any illegal gathering outside universities will be strongly confronted," Esmail Ahmadi-Moqaddam, a police chief, was quoted by Etemad newspaper as saying.
Residents of Tehran said that internet access, including access to email and websites loyal to the political opposition, had been limited in the run-up to Student Day.
Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated in June in the immediate wake of Ahmadinejad's re-election, claiming that the Iranian authorities had rigged the vote.
Hundreds of people were detained by authorities and dozens were killed in clashes with police and pro-government militia.
Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, who were defeated in the presidential election, have not announced whether they will join the planned Student Day protests, as they have done in the past.
Basra was once a stronghold for the Shiite militias backed by Iran. Non-Shiites were persecuted, alcohol was banned, women dressing too Western were attacked, and a mini-theocracy had emerged.
Then, al-Maliki took on these militias and the surge happened. Contrast this report with this one. MEMRI’s report is posted in full here:
The absence of censorship over the sale of books, magazines, DVDs and CDs in Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, and across Iraq in general, has allowed bookstores to offer their customers all titles.
Recently, secular and even pornographic books are selling at a more rapid pace than the religious Shi’a books published in Iran and Beirut, some of which advocate hatred and violence.
The book by Sheikh ‘Abbas Abd Al-Nur (Egyptian) titled “My Ordeal with the Koran and Allah’s Ordeal in the Koran” which is banned in Cairo, Damascus and most Arab countries is selling in Basra “like ice cream in the summer.” Freedom is unlimited.
The provincial governor has permitted the sale of alcoholic beverages because denying their sale will violate individual freedoms guaranteed under the constitution.
Source: Sotiliraq, December 1, 2009
What’s important to notice is that armed extremists weren’t just defeated–their ideology was. This isn’t just a stunning turn-around in terms of security, but of culture and society.
Fundamentalists are men who emulate the looks and actions of the Prophet Mohammed. They claim to be speaking in the name of Allah and acting like the Prophet, yet, they give the Prophet and Islam a bad name.
They perpetuate, and even add to, the Western perception that Islam was won by force or the sword - - not by conviction.
They try to thwart any positive action for peace, not only by undermining it, but by trying to kill those who oppose them, the better to create their vision of a totalitarian theocracy that will allow no free exchange of ideas, no development of thinking such as ijtihad [critical questioning], and no free speech.
The golden age of Islam was built on an efflorescence of ideas that helped it prosper and give so much to the world -- it even kept and preserved philosophy. But under new forces, the Islamic world is being led into the Dark Ages instead of the Renaissance and beyond, where discovery, science and even technology have flourished.
Among the strengths of the Muslim world have been two types of shared power: one secular, led by the governing Caliph or Sultan, and the other religious, led by the Ulama or the religious faction. The two balanced each other out: one cared for the body, the other for the soul. In a fully secular world, whether socialist, communist or capitalist, there can an absence of religious principles or of God; it is believed that man knows best.
In a theocracy, however, men speak in the name of God; people become ruled over by men who believe they have all the answers, or by men who believe they speak for God -- without any constraints. A despotic type of governance results and the people suffer. The despotic types of governance hinder those who know the difference between personal faith and politics.
Radical movements, whether religious or secular, have a trend: over time, their intensity increases. Their adherents demand equal time. You cannot say this or that on the air. You are not allowed to speak of us in a bad way. You are a racist. You fear my religion. We are the religion of peace.
When these tactics do not work, they go after one person and start harassing him. They go over the head of the person and complain. They meet with his bosses, demand an apology. They use pressure tactics to get their way. They are after power and control, so the media and journalists are not safe.
The radicals flood inboxes, telephone lines and faxes with letters of demand. They order their people to write, to call, to make their demands heard. But the majority of these callers are uninformed; they never heard of or read the offensive article. They react blindly to an order that comes from above, from the earthly leader who claims to speak in the name of God. The aim of the radicals is to get the person fired.
If this fails, they go the Human Rights Commission, or start lawsuits to try to get money. For they are not just after power and control, but above all money, the mighty dollar. All of this is done in the name of God.
Let me ask you, since when does God ask for money? Since when does God ask people to harass, lie, and control others into doing His way?
God gives us Freedom of Choice; those radicals, in the name of God, take this freedom away.
Conservative and religious groups in Afghanistan reacted with fury yesterday to the news that Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, who was sentenced to death for promoting women's rights, has been freed.
After President Hamid Karzai secretly pardoned the 24-year-old student, hardliners called for an urgent ulama, a meeting of Islamic scholars, to organise protests against the decision.
Mr Kambaksh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, said he was "very glad, very happy" at what had happened, and human rights organisations and a number of liberal parliamentarians welcomed the news.
The fate of Mr Kambaksh became a cause célèbre after his plight was revealed by The Independent. A petition to secure justice secured more than 100,000 signatures and the Afghan government came under pressure from Western leaders to free him.
Mr Kambaksh's original death sentence was set aside by Afghanistan's Supreme Court. But the judges ruled that he must serve at least 20 years in prison. Following the presidential amnesty he is now starting a life with a new identity in another country after 20 months of incarceration.
Mr Ibrahimi said: "We are all very happy that so much progress has been made with Pervez and I want to thank all the people who have helped in this. I have to be careful about what I say but, of course, Pervez should never have been put in that position, it was wrong. The family is very glad he is out."
A judge in Florida has determined arguments over a young Christian who ran away from her Muslim parents in Ohio when her father allegedly threatened her life will continue in Florida, and she will not be returned immediately as her parents wished.
Fathima Rifqa Bary, 17, an honor student and cheerleader, was raised in a Muslim family in Columbus, Ohio. She became a Christian four years ago as a result of her interactions with children at school.
But Bary, a native of Sri Lanka, hitchhiked to a bus station and ran away from home July 19 because she says her family will murder her in what is known as an "honor killing." In Islamic tradition, an honor killing is the killing of a person believed to have brought dishonor upon his or her family.
Bary sought refuge with a church group in Florida but has been in state foster care pending the hearing today. The judge speculated mediation might work, but there are expected to be no major developments immediately.
John Stemberg, an attorney representing the teen, said, "What occurred today was an amazing victory for Rifqa and an amazing victory for religious liberty and freedom in America.
"The court is going to allow at least for the time period, for Rifqa to stay in Florida and not be returned to her home in Ohio," he said.
In the Columbus area, where she lived, "There is a densely populated group of Muslims with connections with radical Islam and al-Qaida," he said.
"She made a statement in open court that she loved her parents very dearly, but she also feared for her life. She did not want to go home.
The judge did the right thing, acted in the best interests of my client," he continued. "She was shaking but she was very honest, and her statement was from her heart. She professed her faith in Christ."
"SHE WILL NOT BE SENT TO OHIO! Praise G-d," wrote blogger Pamela Geller, who has followed the case on her AtlasShrugs site. "At least not for now." Geller had dispatched sources that were inside the courtroom this afternoon.
Using technology to topple the Islamic dictatorship of Iran Radio Neda: Could it be the voice of freedom for Iran?
By Dr. Arash Irandoost
In reaction to Islamic Republic's media crackdown, I have been discussing the merits of establishing shortwave radio broadcasting with media experts and those interested in over throwing the Islamic Dictatorship of Iran. The idea has received wide acceptance as a viable tool. I have decided to share it with the people of the world and ask them for their input and financial support, as they have been most generous and supportive allies of this pro-movement, absent and silent: many world leaders and international organizations.
Taken into consideration that the Islamic Republic has systematically attempted to cut off communication links to accomplish its inhumane and bloody massacre of the peaceful demonstrators who within the confines of the ever- restrictive Islamic Republic's laws rose up and demanded an accurate vote count, then, establishing reliable communication between Iran and the people of the world is essential and of utmost urgency. Read more ...
How much damage did Barak Obama do to the incipient Iranian revolution—and by extension, to peace in the Middle East and to the U.S. national interest—when he failed to support the Iranian protesters, and instead poured cold water on Moussavi as an alternative to Ahmadinejad? His defenders say, not much, for two reasons. First, sending troops or guns was out of the question, and without that mere words were not going to make much of a difference. And second, Obama later corrected himself, and issued a statement which (though he denied it) changed his position to one of support. They could not be more wrong on both counts. The damage Obama did was enormous, and his self-correction did nothing whatever to repair that damage.
In the last thirty years we have seen many revolutions around the world in which people took to the streets in large numbers and were faced there by a much smaller number who were heavily armed. What we have learned from these situations it is that one factor matters more than any other: confidence. For the police and security forces, there is no safe course of action. It’s dangerous to follow orders and shoot unarmed people, and it’s dangerous not to follow orders and not shoot. The one might get them tried for murder if the revolution succeeds, and the other might get them executed for mutiny. And so they try desperately to see which way the wind is blowing. If the police become confident that the revolution is failing, they’ll obey orders. If on the other hand they believe that it is succeeding, they’ll join the crowds. Every single one of them is trying to discern the tipping point, the moment when it becomes clear which way things are going, and until then they try to avoid committing themselves. An added factor in this game of confidence is that the people with the guns probably have relatives and close friends among the protesters. Even if they don’t get into trouble with the authorities (whether the old or the new) they also have to worry both about the safety of those dear to them, and how their own actions will be judged at home. Read more ...
The life that God gives, no man should extinguish. The illegitimate mullahs presently ruling Iran blatantly violate this sacred covenant by shooting at a large number of peaceful demonstrators who are demanding nothing more than their God-Given-Right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. The mullahs and their mercenaries are wasting precious human life to maintain themselves in power through terrorizing the population.
Our hearts are bleeding watching how brutally the government agents are beating up the children and assault them in their dormitories at night while they are sleeping or invade the sanctuary of their homes to beat them up or arrest them. Regretfully, the ruling regime sees these actions as part of their sacred duty. They see any defiance to the supreme leader as defiance to God. They call the demonstrators who just want their voices to be heard "terrorists," “thugs” and “agents of foreign governments.” If they do not shoot people outright, they savagely attack them with axes, chains, batons and any other crude weapons they can get their hands on.
We call upon the free governments of the world, as well as all other businesses, organizations and individuals to enlist in a non-violent campaign of ending the reign of terror of the belligerent clerical regime. Governments should enact the following:
* Renounce the use of force for ending the impasse.
* Declare unequivocally the commitment to respect the territorial integrity of Iran, as well as the rights of the Iranians to decide, through a democratic process, all matters pertaining to their life and country.
* Initiate, without delay or equivocation, a comprehensive program of assistance to all democratic Iranian opposition groups, both within as well as outside of Iran, in their struggle to accomplish the regime change themselves.
* Proclaim wide and far, the cardinal reason for taking these measures against the Mullahs' reign of terror is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, the threat they pose to the region as well as to the world, and the stimulus they provide for other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenal.
* Enforce the U.N. sanctions by inspecting every vessel headed for Iranian ports to make sure they are not ferrying prohibited material. Other than vessels known to be carrying foodstuff and medicine, each ship should be subjected to elaborate inspection.
* Establish an Iran Assistance Fund, from Iran’s frozen assets as well as contributions from peace-loving individuals and organizations, to assist Iranian families during the hardship that the sanctions may create.
* Persuade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and other Persian Gulf oil producers to significantly increase their output and drastically cut the price. It is what they must do to help forestall the emergence of a nuclear clerical Iran bent on ruling the region.
* Obtain court orders to freeze the overseas assets of Iranian leaders, since they are clearly ill-begotten funds that rightfully belong to the nation.
* Shut down, or severely restrict the operation of the Mullahs' businesses in Dubai and other Persian Gulf states.
* Reduce the staff or completely shut down Iranian missions. Severely restrict Iranian officials and nuclear scientists from foreign travel. Recall your ambassadors from Iran.
* Deny the Iranian airlines operation and encourage non-Iranian airlines to cease serving the country. Provide for flights that serve emergency medical and other health needs of the Iranians.
* File legal charges against the leaders of the Islamic Republic's wanton violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; for their crimes against humanity, genocidal actions against religious and political groups; for support of international terrorism; for demolition of religious sites and cemeteries; for rape, torture, and summary execution of prisoners of conscience; for forgery of documents, for acts of blackmail and fraud, and much more.
* Declare and treat the clerical regime as illegitimate.
* Stop or slow down Iran's import of refined petroleum products.
* Shut down the Islamic Republic's web sites and block their television and radio broadcasts.
* Locate and seize the regime's front organizations such as Alavi Foundation in New York City.
* Identify the agents of the Islamic Republic and prosecute them as promoters of international terrorism.
* Investigate individuals and organizations that lobby or front for the Islamic Republic.
* Take all necessary steps to stop investments in Iran. Persuade banks to refrain from dealing with Iran and the issuance of letters of credit.
* Pressure businesses to stop dealing with Iran.
* Pressure governments to stop doing business with Iran. Warn countries such as China and Russia against circumventing the U.N. resolution and engaging in commercial adventurism.
We, the undersigned, are greatly concerned that the confrontational course of the illegitimate clerical regime of Iran may ignite the flame of war. We urge the leadership as well as people of the world to join in the non-violent campaign of dislodging the mullahs and helping Iranians to establish a secular democracy. The Iran problem is both serious and urgent. It is a world problem. A warning to the world governments and others: You need to act now. Apathy is sleep. If you sleep, we will all weep.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” John F. Kennedy
By Amil Imani
Today, all Iranian expatriates are united in solidarity with the Iranian people in Iran. Today, we are all standing tall to let the world hear our continuous aspiration for a free and democratic Iran. Today, we pledge ourselves, under the divine inspiration, to stand beside the Iranians in Iran and echo their voices around the globe. Today, we make history, yet again.
It is critical that freedom-loving people, governments and media, rally behind the Iranian people and end the tyrannical mullahcracy that is a scourge on Iran as well as the world. The Iranian people themselves are fully capable and are determined to remove the cancer of Islamism from their country. The United States and Israel and other democracies have a huge stake in the success of the Iranian people to rid themselves of the Islamic oppression and tyranny.
The situation in Iran is dire indeed. Anyone who believes that sane rational people on both sides are engaged in brinkmanship to secure the best advantage, but would eventually work out a compromise, is deluding himself. In some cases, time works as a healer and even as a solution of thorny problems. Yet, this problem will not go away, and time would only make the cataclysmic clash more likely and deadly. The best chance for resolving the impasse is regime change in Iran. Read more ...
An urgent message from Iranian freedom activist Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi:
ACT NOW! Please call up your foreign office and demand from them to have their embassy in Tehran open their gates for injured people!
People are arrested in the hospitals and therefore cannot go there for treatment. A number of embassies have already opened their gates, including Australia and Great Britain.
I am quite tied up today trying to finish my upcoming book; for extensive and up-to-the-minute coverage of what is going on in Iran, see here and here at Atlas Shrugs.
Do it, President Obama, please. Take the side of democracy.
Declare yourself and your nation on the side of hope and change where it is more than a slogan and better than a rationalization for ever-bigger government. Stop measuring the success of your diplomacy with Iran by the degree to which the grinning, hate-filled stooge of a clerical junta will "temper" his rhetoric about the pressing need to destroy Israel and slow his ineluctable pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Instead, choose a higher standard. Look to history. Look to the aspirations of the students risking their lives and livelihoods to protest a sham election. Stop fawning over the mythological Muslim street only when it hates America, and look to the real Iranian street at the moment of its greatest need, when its heart may be open to loving America.
You often invoke President Kennedy's pledge to put a man on the moon to justify your domestic agenda. You and your supporters invite comparisons to Camelot. Well, what of John F. Kennedy's most solemn vow? "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
No, we should not bomb Iran, or invade it. Those prices are too steep; those burdens are too heavy. But maybe you could lift a finger for democracy?
During the campaign you mocked those who belittled your rhetoric as "just words." Well, what you've offered so far is less than just words. You've put a fresh coat of whitewash on Iran's sham "democracy." On Monday, you proclaimed yourself "troubled" by the events in Iran, before hinting that you'd negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no matter what an official investigation into his "landslide" victory found. (Would you trust Mafia internal audits, too?)
Before the sham election you cheered Iran's "robust debate." But that debate has been robust only if you are grading on a curve. Ahmadinejad's main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was an accidental reform candidate. The mullahs had disqualified about 400 others, leaving in the race only four presumed hacks deemed pliant enough not to rock the boat. Mousavi's popular support and the robustness of the debate he ignited were an unintended consequence of a rigged election and a clerical politburo indifferent to its people's desires, not the intention of a democratic regime.
Reportedly, you are biding your time, waiting to see what happens, as if it is a great mystery. Your campaign lived and breathed YouTube. Check it now, check it often. You and your team promised "soft power" and "smart power." How about moral power? Because by not clearly picking a side, it appears you have chosen the wrong side.
Do you fear antagonizing the powers-that-be in Iran? That ship has sailed. Though I am sure they're tickled by your eagerness not to roil the seas around them. Is it because you think "leader of the free world" is just another of those Cold War relics best mothballed in favor of a more cosmopolitan and universal awe at your own story?
"Enough about those people bleeding in the street. What do you think of me?" Is that how it is to be?
During the Bush years, what was best about liberalism had bled away. One of the worst things about the Republican Party has always been its Kissingerian realpolitik, the "it's just business" approach to world affairs that amounted to a willful blindness to our ideals beyond our own borders. The Democratic Party may not have always gotten the policies right, but it had a firm grasp of the principle.
In the 1990s, liberals championed "nation building," and many conservatives chuckled at the naivete of it. Then came Iraq, and Republicans out of necessity embraced what liberals once believed out of conviction. The result? Liberals ran from their principles, found their inner Kissingers and championed a cold realism whose chill emanated from the corpse of their ideals.
Labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO, once battled tyranny abroad on the grounds that workers everywhere need democracy. Today, the president turns a blind eye to the independent labor movement in Iran, and the unions and Democrats spend their time trying to figure out how to eliminate the secret ballot in the American workplace.
So far, "hope and change" has meant spending trillions we do not have on expanded government we do not need. Meanwhile, the huddled masses of Iranians yearning to breathe free think hope and change means something more. But the new American colossus stands all but silent, her beacon dimmed, her luster tarnished.
Please, Mr. President, prove me wrong. Stop voting "present" on democracy.
FrontPage Interview’s guest today is Roozbeh Farahanipour, an Iranian journalist, democracy activist, former political prisoner in Iran and head of Marze Por Gohar Party (MPG), an Iranian opposition party seeking the establishment of an secular republic in Iran. He was a student leader in the 1999 uprising, just one year after creating MPG.
FP: Roozbeh Farahanipour, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Tell us about the latest developments in your homeland.
Farahanipour: Thank you Jamie.
The movement has grown, as the world has witnessed, beyond the capital and to other cities - Shiraz, Isfahan, Tabriz, Ahvaz, etc. - and the people's demands are more clear: freedom and changes to the current constitution.
FP: So this isn’t really a Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejad battle, or a battle over the election, as much of the media is portraying it as, right? Can you talk a bit about what the media and our literary culture is missing in what is really happening?
Farahanipour: This movement is quickly surpassing the Mousavi issue and raising various demands of the people in the streets. Mousavi is much too slow and much too reluctant to lead this forward since it will jeopardize his behind the scenes negotiations and even challenge the whole system. Perhaps one reason that Obama is reluctant to openly support this movement is that it has gone beyond the predicted and simplistic victory of the “elections” process.
FP: So what freedom do Iranians want? What changes to the constitution do they want?
Farahanipour: Discrimination against women in the constitution and laws which institutionalize control and exclusion in all levels of Iranian elections such as the powers of the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader have always been criticized and even openly challenged by periodical movements within Iran.
FP: What is happening, exactly, with Hossein Mousavi?
Farahanipour: The Interior Ministry denied Mousavi’s supporters their demonstration permit for Monday’s demonstration, again with the world’s eyes upon them, and Mousavi asked the people to postpone it.
When his message was publicized, people turned on him. Slogans on the street were: “Mousavi, for shame, for shame, we asked you for support, you betrayed us all the same,” and “Mousavi, we want our votes back!”
After Mousavi said he'd boycott the demonstrations, people ignored his gesture and went ahead on their own. Other candidates - Karrubi, Karbaschi, and Rezai - said they'd participate; Mousavi, not wanting to be left behind, changed his mind and joined in.
He asked people to remain calm and not agitate the situation – not create incidents. People ignored it and did not heed his advice and continued pushing on. Read more ...
The spirit of liberty finally arrived at Tehran's Freedom Square. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians demonstrated Monday against Friday's election, which handed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an improbably lopsided victory.
The mass protests followed a weekend of street demonstrations, rioting and other expressions of discontent. These events were brought to the world in real time through social-media networks and online video.
Tehran's authoritarian leaders clearly were caught off-guard. They had managed to take down the telephone system opposition supporters used for texting but for some reason were slow to eliminate other social media. As open defiance of the election results broke out, citizen journalists used new media to spread the word. And the whole Web was watching. Read more ...
After President Obama’s Cairo speech, many of my Middle Eastern Arab readers reacted with bewilderment. As one of them expressed; “Who should we believe, Obama or you?” ‑ in particular his statement that “America and Islam overlap and share common principles, the principles of justice, tolerance and dignity for human beings”.
True, reading the Arab press’s reaction to his speech it is clear that many Muslims now love Obama. After all, he introduced to them a narrative that affirms their conspiracy theories and their identity as victims of the West. Hence, the Arab media expressed their confidence that the speech will provide a “new stance towards Islam and the Muslims, after centuries of aggression and hostility.” (Al Ahram - Egypt- MEMRI)
More than anything, I am reminded of a story by Nizar Qubbani, the famous Syrian poet. His young son was a physician and suffered from an acute heart problem. When Nizar asked his son about his heart condition, the son drew a red heart. Being a poet, the father interpreted the drawing as a sign of a vibrant and healthy heart and took great comfort in believing this to be a sign of recovery. After his son’s passing, Nizar wrote a poem describing his feelings as a heartbroken father. He felt unbearably saddened as he realized he had misinterpreted the drawing. Obviously, the son’s sketch of a red heart was meant to convey no hope for his profusely bleeding heart, while the father’s understanding of the symbol as a hopeful one was wrong.
The poet and the physician perceived reality in totally different ways; similar to the dichotomy between President Obama’s view of the Islamic world and mine.
The truth is, however, that only one reality exists.
Mr. Obama is a politician, and a very astute one. However, his speech revealed that his view is unduly influenced by naïve desire. His perception of Islam and the reality of Islam need to be synchronized. I am a physician and a realist who has lived and experienced the effect of my Arab culture and Islamic religion since childhood.
The president pandered to Muslims: praised their accomplishments, commiserated with their grievances, and apologized for injustices done to them by centuries of colonialism -- without once mentioning the history of rampant and violent Arab colonialism. He avoided any mention of Jihadi tenets, or of the Islamic political ideology of supremacy over non Muslims -- principles embedded in Sharia law. These are taught and sanctioned openly by Al-Azhar, the university that hosted him, the foremost center of Sharia studies. Obama underscored the supposed American mistreatment of terrorists and apologized for torture in Guantanamo, forgetting that Islamic regimes are brutal to their own people. The president also repudiated significant U.S. contributions in both the lives of its soldiers and humanitarian aid to Muslims across the globe made throughout history -- despite Muslim attacks against America and Americans. In short, parts of his speech sounded like a new Pan-Arab messiah come to usher the Arab world back into its rightful world dominion.
Most disturbing was the president’s call to defend Muslims against negative stereotypes. A dangerous precedent is set when freedom of speech is silenced and ideological criticism forbidden. This, again, is the stuff of nightmarish totalitarian regimes. The beauty of the US Constitution is its balance, and the wisdom it embraces by distinguishing between that which should be protected and defended and that which should be prosecuted and decried. Encouraging laws to make criticism of Islam an offense punishable by law is troubling.
Since arriving in the US, I have enjoyed the freedom to educate my Arab brothers and sisters in the Middle East, who yearn for real freedom - and I have seen successes. Mr. Obama calls these very successes into question rather than championing freedom.
As the president embarks on his new task to defend Muslims “against negative stereotypes,” does this mean he will somehow interfere and undermine that message? Or, perhaps it means he may join with the Organization of Islamic Conference, the 57 Muslim countries that work relentlessly to promote a United Nations resolution to suppress voices of dissent against Islam? I am confident we would all come to regret this.
Obama sidesteps the acute state of affairs in the Islamic world with flattery, failing to encourage accountability for rhetoric, practices and the behavior that feed stereotypes. I did not hear an exhortation to the Islamic world to open itself to diversity, to accept women as equal citizens with the same rights and protection under law as men. I did not hear a challenge to the Muslim world to accept other religions and their ability to practice openly within the Islamic world -- where the practice of Christianity, Judaism and other religions could cost an individual his or her life. I did not hear a call to erase for all time, Dhimmi racism -- the Sharia law-based dictate that Christians and Jews are inferior and should be suppressed. Are these “…the principles of justice, tolerance and dignity for human beings”?
In contrast, I see my people’s heart bleeding and know the pressing need for self-correction and honest examination for the sake of urgent repair. Obama dangles the carrot but shies away from the imperative issues boiling beneath the surface.
Obama’s reality makes my work and that of others who speak up against intolerant Islamic doctrines more challenging. He undermines this mission by placating abusive, xenophobic policies and enabling those within the Islamic world to subjugate others, to coerce others to its beliefs, and to continue these pursuits with his blessing.
The president failed to join freedom-loving individuals, liberated Arabs like myself. He failed to lead the Muslim world into modernization and vital reform.
Rather than calling out, “The house is on fire.” Obama smiles and tells us how beautiful the house is as it burns out of control and threatens to destroy us.
To the question I received on my e-mail; “Who should we believe, Obama or you?” I elaborated to my Moroccan reader that Obama is a politician who wishes to use sweet talk and to whitewash reality to make amends with Muslims.
I, on the other hand am a pragmatic Arab woman who escaped the prison of Islam to the free world and now devotes her life to expressing views freely and pressing for a genuine difference in Islam. We cannot have it both ways. Intolerance never tolerates freedom.
(English)Islam in Action : Des musulmans américains affiliés au site islamiste haineux
(English)RevolutionMuslim.com basé à NY, font de la propagande dans la rue. Leur chef Yousef al-Khattab soutient ouvertement la charia et l’appel au djihad. Pour couronner le tout, ils sont installés à proximité de Ground Zero. Ça ressemble à Broadway près de l’Hôtel de ville. Cet hurluberlu parle des musulmans qui se font tuer dans la vallée de Swat au Pakistan... Pourtant, ces musulmans sont victimes d’atrocités commises par d’autres musulmans, des talibans enrobés de piété. Les musulmans fuient la vallée en grand nombre, et une bonne partie d’entre eux n’est pas intéressée à vivre sous le fascisme de la charia.
In public pronouncements, President Barack Obama signaled to Muslim governments that the U.S. will pursue a new means of dialogue based upon “mutual interest and mutual respect.”
But instead of extending the olive branch to the authoritarians, dictators, and tyrants that rule most of these countries, shouldn’t he have spoken directly to Muslims desiring a better life who suffer from oppression, discrimination against women, poverty, illiteracy, genocide, and locally-bred terrorism?
The world’s estimated 1.5 billion Muslims mostly reside in Middle Eastern, North African, Central Asian, and Southeast Asian countries. Muslim governments formed the 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) about 40 years ago, among other things, to “ensure the progress and well-being” of their citizens. While the stature and influence of the OIC has dramatically grown during ensuing years, particularly in the United Nations, most Muslim leaders have not loosened their rigid grip on power or made lives of citizens much better. Radical Islamic extremists, whose activists and sympathizers represent up to 20 percent of the total Muslim population by some accounts, offer fellow Muslims little more than a trip back to the seventh century under Shari'a law. Read more ...
Halfway through “Fitna,” the short film about radical Islam made by Dutch MP Geert Wilders, we see an angry imam, speaking Arabic and telling how it will be.
“We have ruled the world before, and by Allah the day will come when we rule the entire world again!” the translation scrolls, “The day will come when we will rule America! The day will come when we rule Britain and the entire world!”
Score one for the Islamists, where Britain is concerned. The cringing bureaucrats of Gordon Brown’s Labour government barred Wilders from entering the country last week to attend a screening of “Fitna” at, of all places, Britain’s Houses of Parliament.
The 17-minute movie, which has been out for a year and is easily viewed online, seeks to make the case that Islam is dangerously in the ascendant in the Netherlands.
The film is composed almost entirely of scenes where Muslims are doing the talking, but it includes images of terrorist attacks and violent passages from the Quran. Read more ...
Riyadh (AsiaNews) - Arab women had more rights at the time of the Romans than they have today. At that time, in fact, their capacity to conduct their own economic affairs was recognised, which is not true in Saudi Arabia today. This is maintained by a female Saudi scholar, Hatoon al-Fassi, in a book entitled "Women In Pre-Islamic Arabia", published by British Archaeological Reports.
Barred from teaching at King Saud University in 2001, the scholar has examined the situation of Nabataea, a kingdom that at the beginning of the Christian era included parts of modern-day Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and had its capital in Petra. Here, Fassi maintains, women were able to conduct business, without even the form of "protection" required by Greek tradition in these matters. In her opinion, it is precisely because of the lack of understanding on the part of Islamic scholars of the influences of Greco-Roman legislation on sharia that the limited rights and freedoms for women have arisen. Read more ...
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president and opposition member, has accused the country's rulers of being intolerant, amid restrictions on journalists imposed by the authorities. 
.jpg)
Posts
