HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES OF WOMEN IN IRAN SPOTLIGHTED NEAR THE U.N. BY: FERN SIDMAN Graphic depictions of the most egregious forms of human rights abuses against women in Iran took center stage at a special seminar in New York City on March 3rd. Sponsored by "Iran180", an organization dedicated to spotlighting the litany of human rights abuses that take place on a daily basis in Iran, the seminar was entitled, "Securing Gender Equality: Iran and the CSW". Held at 777 UN Plaza, a building directly across the street from the United Nations, the objectives of the gathering included raising awareness of Iran's violations of women's rights and the staging of symbolic protests against the welcoming of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the newest member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women at its 56th session. Among the speakers were the Honorable David Kilgour, J.D., co-chair of the Canadian Friends of a Democratic Iran - Shabnam Assadollaki, host and producer of Hamseda Persian Radio in Canada - Fakhteh Luna Zamani, CEO and co-founder of the Association for the Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners in Iran - Renee Redman of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center - Reza Khalil, former Iranian Revolutionary Guard member and author of "A Time To Betray", winner of the 2010 National Best Books Award - Fariba Davoodi, a formerly imprisoned Iranian women's rights activist, and Mertash Rastegar, an Iranian blogger and international law expert. Quoting the findings of exiled Iranian lawyer, Zohreh Arshadi, Mr. David Kilgour, co-chair of the Canadian Friends of a Democratic Iran intoned, "the Iranian penal system is a principal means of sustaining inequality of genders. Its ludicrous premise is that women are deficient in abilities." He added that Arshadi stresses that Iranian women, "have managed to achieve equality in one field only: equal right to imprisonment, exile, torture, being killed and now being slaughtered..." Speaking of the many Iranian women who are unjustly imprisoned, tortured and often sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit, Mr. Kilgour relayed the narrative of Sakineh Ashtiani, a mother of Turkic descent (a minority known to be targeted for human rights abuses, especially in Teheran) who did not speak Farsi or understand her charge of alleged adultery. "She was incarcerated and beaten, then humiliated in front of her family by a public lashing. Her plight and narrow escape from death by stoning became a successful test case for the global community's response to the regime's misogyny," he said. Mr. Kilgour also spoke of Irwin Cotler, a Canadian member of parliament and chair of the Inernational Responsibility to Protect Coalition who recently warned that Iran is on an "execution binge", while engaging in a "wholesale assault on the rights of its own people." He added that, "in 2011 alone, the Iranian regime has already executed at least 120 people. It now leads the world in per capita executions, many of which are in secret, taking place after arrests, detentions, beatings, torture, kidnappings, disappearances, and brief trials in which no evidence is presented." Calling for the disqualification of Iran's membership in the UN Commission on the Status of Women, Mr. Kilgour suggested that the CSW convene a special session to discuss women's rights in Iran and act in its capacity to stop the repression of women. "It is our responsibility to act in robust solidarity with the struggle for women's rights everywhere across Iran," he concluded. Addressing the issues facing ethnic minority women in Iran, Fakhteh Zamani of the Association for the Defense of Azerbaijani Political Prisoners in Iran (ADAPP) said, "In Iran, as throughout the world, women are victims of violence on a daily basis but Iran's justice system provides little or no remedy to the obstacles and violence facing women and girls." She noted that women are not encouraged to bring complaints against their attackers for fear of bringing, "dishonor" on the family as well as reprisals from the attacker and relatives. Quoting the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Ms. Zamani said, "discriminatory law in both the civil and penal codes in Iran play a major role in enpowering men and aggravating women's vulnerability to violence. In particular, discriminatory provisions in the civil code relating to the areas of marriage, child custody, freedom of movement and inheritance may lead to, perpetuate or legitimize violence against women perpetrated by private actors." Highlighting the ubiquitous phenomenon of trafficking in or girls and women, Ms. Zamani said that the UN Special Rapporteur reported that, "most of the trafficking is said to occur in the eastern provinces, which are mainly Baluchi areas, where women are kidnapped, bought or entered into temporary marriage in order to be sold into sexual slavery in other countries." Concluding with an oft quoted phrase used amongst Iran's women human rights defenders, she said, "We are both women and minorities; so, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, we are doubly accused." "I am absolutely opposed to the imposition of Sharia law," declared Shabnam Assadollahi, the producer and host of the Canadian based Hamseda Persian radio program. "Sharia law tells us that female hair has evil energy and those women's rights activists in Iran who refused to wear head coverings were beaten and tortured while their children watched," she said. She detailed gruesome accounts of torture of women in Iran saying, "young girls and virgins were raped prior to being executed and after execution their bodies were burned and electrocuted." Fulminating at the decision to include the Islamic Republic of Iran on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, Ms. Assadollahi said, "There is no place for Iran on this commission. Just think about the arrogance of this regime to judge others concerning gender equality and human rights." Speaking in her native Farsi with an interpreter, Fariba Davoodi, an Iranian women's rights activist told of her incarceration in Iran and the barbaric tortures that were inflicted upon her by her captors. "It is the common aspiration of all Iranian women to be free", she said. "When the regime came to arrest me for my activism on behalf of women's rights, they beat me up in front of my children and brought me to their notorious prison where I was kept in solitary confinement in a tiny cell where I was interrogated for long periods of time; where tey kept the lights on all the time and forced me to shower in front of them." "The fear that women's rights advocates in Iran have is not only from the repressive government but from male family members including husbands, fathers and brothers," she said. Trying to remain optimistic about the future of Iran as it pertains to women's rights is a daunting challenge for women such as Ms. Davoodi. "We hope that very soon we will live in a free and democratic Iran, but so long as the regime stays in power, our hopes will not be realized," she said.
THE ISLAMIC TSUNAMI: ISRAEL AND AMERICA IN THE AGE OF OBAMA BY: DAVID RUBIN REVIEWED BY: FERN SIDMAN Issuing an impassioned clarion call to the Western world on the litany of existential dangers that radical Islam represents to America's cherished democratic principles, author David Rubin's meticulously researched monograph reveals that Islam is in actuality a political ideology predicated on a pernicious dogma, rather than the "religion of peace" that its proponents purport it to be. "The Islamic Tsunami: Israel and America in the Age of Obama" (Shiloh Israel Press) is an exceptionally well documented treatise on the gamut of commonalities that are endemic to both Israel and America in terms of religion, politics and culture. Rubin calls on all free peoples, especially Americans, to take serious heed of the escalating dangers that Islam represents in terms of the perpetuation of bellicose actions bent on mass murder or the more insidious and subtle kind of aggression that is manifested by the potential silent incursion of Sharia law into American jurisprudence. He exhorts both Jews and Christians alike to carefully examine the Judeo-Christian value system that has bound them together for centuries and strongly suggests that they create concrete alliances in order to thwart the nefarious agenda of radical Islam; thus preserving "Western civilization" as we know it. Rubin speaks with authority as he explains the Islamic concepts of dhimmitude (slave status for all "non-believers"), how the Koran metes out punitive measures against infidels, the genesis of "jihad" and its attendant ramifications as well as outlining the ultimate goal of Islamic global dominance in the form of a Caliphate. Rubin is neither an alarmist nor he is suffering from paranoia and to his credit he does not posit himself as an abstract theoretician or a think-tank denizen. Having studied the Koran, the Bible, as well as plumbing the depths of resources on American history as it pertains to the views of the founding fathers and more recent events, Rubin's book is replete with a plethora of highly enlightening quotes from these sources that help to state his case. As a Brooklyn born American Orthodox Jew who now lives in Israel, he has first hand experience of the travails of Islamic terrorism as he ruefully recalls his victimization and that of his three-year old son, Ruby. In December of 2001 while driving home to Shiloh from Jerusalem, Rubin and his son were both injured in a terrorist attack carried out by Islamic militants. When Rubin arrived at the hospital he was told that he was "the hospital's 1000th victim of terrorism" and recalls that he was later told by a surgeon that, "the bullet which entered the head and traveled through the neck of my three-year old boy missed his brain stem by one millimeter." Determined to assist others facing similar crises, Rubin founded the Shiloh Israel Children's Fund, an organization dedicated to relieving the trauma suffered by child victims of terrorism. Indeed, politics make for strange bedfellows. Under a sharpened lens, Rubin examines the nexus of ideas promoting multi-cultural and moral relativism as extolled by the ideologues on the far left of the political spectrum and those who would seek to vanquish any vestige of moral clarity, namely radical Islamists. Chiding President Obama for his own associations with left-wing radicals such as convicted terrorist Bill Ayres and his futile attempts to reach out "in peace" to the Muslim world, Rubin details the predominant Muslim influences in Obama's background and his adamant denial of the very real threats that Islamists present to America, Europe and the free world. While there is a virtual laundry list of hard hitting points that leap forth from the pages of this book, what really stands out is Rubin's assertion that Obama's Harvard law school education was financed by Saudi petro dollars. Says Rubin: "The tentacles of Islamic aggression reached their highest levels of American influence when it was revealed that Barack Obama's higher education was likely financed and guided by the anti-American, anti-Israel alliance of secular leftists and Islamic ideologues." He qualifies this by saying that the radical American Muslim ideologue Khalid al-Mansour, (a.k.a. Donald Warden), a former mentor to Black Panthers founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale was "raising money for Obama, apparently for his education, although the reason why al-Mansour would be raising money for a virtually unknown young student was not divulged." Rubin tackles the burgeoning phenomenon of Islamic dominance by encouraging the United States to tap into a treasure trove of timeless lessons for life. Quoting the Prophet Isaiah, he says that, "the Torah will go forth from Zion, thereby spreading its wisdom to the entire world." He asks the sublimely simple question: "What can the U.S. learn from the ongoing struggles between Israel and Islam?" Among other things, Rubin calls for the halt of immigration (both legal and illegal) from Islamic countries to the U.S. and suggests that the U.S. require the emigration of actively hostile Muslims and those Islamists who are engaged in anti-American subversion. He also decries the passage of hate crime legislation which he says "will be used as a big brother technique to curtail the free speech of those who dare to speak out against Islamic ideology." Reminding us of the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson who said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" and Ronald Reagan who said, "At least let our children and our children's children say of us that we justified our brief moment here; we did all that could be done", Rubin leaves us with a sense of optimism and hope as we prepare to gird our loins and defend our liberties and freedoms and our very lives from those who would obliterate us and them.
 Internationally acclaimed award winning Bangladeshi journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury and his film production company recently announced a project [named Learning Through Entertainment], under which seven movies will be made on Sharia law, Jihad, Burqa, Stoning, Beheading, Polygamy and Child Marriage in Muslim nations. Filming of BLACK, a movie under this project will begin in December 2010. Meanwhile, script and screenplay for this has already been completed. Commenting on the first movie of the Learning Through Entertainment project, public relations department of Vibgyor Films said, the short synopsis of this film is: “Shantigram is a remote village in Bangladesh. Thirty-five years back, there was religious harmony in the area, where people from various religious beliefs were living in peace. But, for past decades, Islamism and activities of Islamists became gradually prominent in the entire village. Clergies in the mosques and madrassas became increasingly influential in the locality, thus imposing Sharia law, which ultimately turned into nightmare for the villagers. Muslim men are encouraged by the clergies in having more than one wife, as Islam allows polygamy. Under such situation, wives of the Muslim men ultimately turned into mere slaves, thus taking part domestic works as well helping the husband in agro production. When a wife became physically ill, the husband showed unwillingness in sending her to nearby hospital for treatment, as the man considers hospitals as evil, as male and female doctors work their without burqa. Whipping and other form of severe physical torture of men and women on various charges gradually become regular in the village, which is applied by local ‘Sharia Committee’ formed by clergies and Islamic fanatics. In Bangladeshi rural areas, male and female Bauls, [who are a group of mystic minstrels from Bengal. Bauls constitute both a syncretic religious sect and a musical tradition. Bauls are a very heterogeneous group, with many different subsects, but their membership mainly consists of Vaishnava Hindus and Sufi Muslims. They can often be identified by their distinctive clothes and musical instruments], enjoyed a loving status for centuries, while they are known to be people promoting religious harmony and tolerance. But, with the rise of Islamist groups, Sharia appliers and Muslim fanatics, Bauls are declared infidels in the locality, thus pushing their lives into misery. Bauls, who live on entertaining people through Sufi songs thus receiving donations and charities, are denied any help by the local influential Muslim leaders and clergies. They are given ultimatum either to become Muslim to leave the area. This though generates anger and severe reaction in the minds of Bauls, they are unable to speak out fearing harsh actions by the Islamists and Mullahs. In the meantime, several Islamist NGOs become extremely active in the village, while mostly they target Hindu, Christian, Buddhist and non-Muslim families. In the name of offering loans of financial help, young boys and girls in those non-Muslim families are regularly abducted for forceful conversion into Islam. Gradually the village sees systematic eliminations of religious minorities. BLACK is a film, which shows the current situation in rural Bangladesh [which actually is very similar with villages in other Muslim nations], where Sharia law is forcefully imposed on people while systematic elimination of religious minorities continue. Hidden tears of Muslim women under the imposed Islamic veils are clearly shown in this film. This film is against Sharia, Islamism, religious intolerance, hate speech and repression of women under Sharia law. This film is aimed at creating massive awareness in the people in Muslim nations in standing against Islamism and Sharia, thus voicing for reform in Islam, Koran and Islamic codes. BLACK is the first film of the planned series of seven movies. Each of the movies is aimed at ultimately projecting problems inside Islam and Sharia law in a very bold manner. Initial language of BLACK is Bangla, while it will be dubbed in various languages in future. There are around 300 million Bangla speaking population in Bangladesh and India only. Our initial target group is this 300 million people. Later, with dubbing in other languages as well as using sub-titles in English, French, Hindi, Urdu etc, we shall reach a few hundred millions of people in the entire Muslim country and the world.” Shoaib Choudhury has earlier directed a Bangla film named Shongshoy and is currently working on another feature film named Leelakhela. Shongshoy is based on the story of high-profile dowry in Muslim societies as well repression of women after marriage. This film has already drawn attention of Bangladeshi cine critics. Vibgyor Films has requested broadcast companies in India, Middle East, United Kingdom, European Union, United States, Australia and Canada to contact for broadcasting this film on various TV channels as well as copyright for selling DVDs. Total length of Shongshoy is 90 minutes. Leelakhela is based on the theme of confronting militant Islam, Jihad and social evils in the societies. This film will be ready for release in 2011. Vibgyor Films will sign a Bollywood female actor in Leelakhela. Choudhury’s films are not made for mere entertainment. But, each of his films contain very specific and bold message for the society.
 If you find it hard to believe that women received 40 lashes in Sudan recently for wearing (wide) trousers, read about the life of women under Shari'a (religious Muslim) law. Gaza is almost there, but the rest of the world is the goal. A warning. Shari’a, that is Muslim law, controls the private as well as the public life of the woman. In the Western World (including America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shari’a Law under which wives can not obtain a divorce and men have full and complete control of their children. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and other parts of the Western world are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shari'a law. By publicizing the information below, I hope to help enlightened American and other women avoid becoming slaves under Shari’a Law: 1. In the Muslim faith, a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old, consummating the marriage by 9.
2. A dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman who becomes a slave.
3. Even though a woman is abused she cannot obtain a divorce.
4. To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.
5. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.
6. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and do not have to say why the beating occurred.
7. A husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for a limited period at his discretion.
The goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shari’a law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Shari’a) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.
Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.
While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others..
While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with G-d, Shari'a advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.
It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed.
Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.
While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in Egypt and elsewhere.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA . Dearborn Mich. is one... and there are others....
It is too bad that so many accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam... While America is getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America . More about the author:
Nonie Darwish recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. In it she warns about creeping shari’a law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza.
When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing and later abandoned Islam. INN 
 Rachel Abrams has a powerful blog post that I wanted to reprint here. The Saudis are tackling Al-Qaeda and have made reforms to help combat terrorism, but terrorism isn’t Islamic extremism’s only manifestation. To those that want to paint Saudi Arabia as the “moderate” example we’re looking for, read her words below: When they condemn a woman who’s been gang-raped to 200 lashes for “having sex outside marriage,” or give a destitute 75-year-old widow 40 lashes for engaging in “prohibited mingling” by receiving charity from two young male relatives, or, in the most recent (known) instance, sentence a 13-year-old girl to 90 lashes—to be delivered in front of her classmates—for bringing a cell phone to school—what do they believe they are doing? For this is as far from protection as you can get, I think. In fact, it’s the opposite: it’s a form of rape; it exposes women and little girls to shame for the accident of being female, and renders them powerless to shield themselves from the disgust, and the disgusting judgement, of the men who control their lives. World Threats
 In twenty years of working as a cop in the Colorado Criminal Justice System, I never heard anything from a judge like what the Amsterdam Chief Judge said yesterday at the opening of Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders’ criminal prosecution. Wilders, who is on trial for producing his movie “Fitna” and for opposing the Islamization of Europe, sat motionless as the litany of charges was read aloud. The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling. I could laugh at this sadistic inanity, but the defendant is on trial for his freedom. All that is missing from this proceeding is the thumbscrew or the rack. And like Galileo (pictured above during trial), who faced his Inquisitors in 1633, Wilders is playing against a stacked deck. From Radio Netherlands Worldwide comes this report from John Tyler: “Geert Wilders sat expressionless next to his lawyers at the defendant’s table while the public prosecutor read out the charges, including incitement toward hatred of Muslims, incitement toward hatred of Moroccans, and discrimination against Moroccans and non-western immigrants… …The panel of three judges said it was unnecessary, but did instruct the prosecutor to read out Mr Wilders’ statements on which the case is based. After the statements had been read, the senior judge had the following exchange with the defendant (translated): Judge: “Mr Wilders, I can see that you are listening very intently, but what are you feeling right now? I cannot sense any emotion in you whatsoever.”
Wilders: “Indeed, I have been listening intently, but some things were missing. Particularly the quotes from Fitna [his anti-Islam video, ed.], I was trying to reconstruct it, to see if they were right. Some were, some weren’t.”…” Wilders claims the quotes attributed to him in the Charges are not accurate – as if that should matter to the prosecution and to this Court. Perhaps the Judge expected Wilders to break down in tears and confess his guilt, like some soppy Perry Mason TV episode from the 1960s. I don’t know. I do know that this entire proceeding has taken on a medieval Inquisition-like countenance.
But this time it is the 21st Century Dutch Government, intimidated by and acting as a de facto agent of the World of Islam, that is persecuting one of its own elected public officials in a scene that is a throw-back to the Middle Ages. It is a sham. It is a shame on all the governments of Europe that have chosen to surrender to Sharia and silence their patriots rather than to resist Islamization. And if you think this cannot come to The United States, you had better think again. NewsReal Blog
 A 13-year-old girl has been sentenced to 90 lashes and two months' prison in Saudi Arabia after she took a mobile phone to school.A court ordered the girl to be flogged in front of her classmates following an assault on the school principal, according to the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Watan.
After the assault she was discovered to have concealed a mobile phone, breaking strict Saudi regulations banning the use of camera-equipped phones in girls' schools.
Brutal: public floggings, such as in this archive picture, are a common punishment handed down by religious courts in Saudi Arabia Al-Watan said a court in the northeastern Gulf port of Jubail had sentenced the girl to 90 lashes inside her school, followed by two months' detention.
The punishment is harsher than that dished out to some robbers and looters.
Saudi Arabia, a leading US ally in the Middle East, is an absolute monarchy controlled by the Al-Saud ruling tribe, and lacks any legal code.
Absolute monarchy: King Abdullah, ruler of the oil-rich state, meeting Gordon Brown on a 2007 visit to Downing Street King Abdullah has promoted some social reforms since taking the throne in 2005 but diplomats say he is held back by religious clerics and princes.
Cinemas and music concerts are banned, while many restaurants and even some shopping centres cater to families only, especially on holidays.
Religious police roam streets to make sure no unrelated men and women mix.
The Saudi court system is exclusively controlled Wahahbi/Salafi clerics, and bans the employment of non-Salafi citizens, especially as judges.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading country in the use of torture-by-flogging, public beheadings and publically crucifying condemned prisoners.
The country crucified two people in 2009, including one in the capital Riyadh during President Barak Obama’s visit last April.
In September, twenty Saudi teenagers who ransacked shops and restaurants were publicly flogged.
Newspapers reported that the teenagers received at least 30 lashes each in a public square. Most of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks in 2001 came from Saudi Arabia. Mail Online
 
An innocent little girl, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, aged only 13yrs was stoned to death in Somalia. None of men she accused of rape were arrested.
 The cannibals at the UN were unavailable for comment. Too busy were they working on a resolution to kill free speech, criminalize defamation of Islam, and annihilate the Jews. Feminazis were insisting that Islamic misogyny empowers women. Clitorectomies await them. Naomi Wolf first! Innocent Little Girl, Stoned to Death for Being a Victim of Rape, Cries for Mercy Before they Kill Her. FFI
An innocent little girl, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, aged only 13yrs was stoned to death in Somalia.
She pleaded for her life, a witness explained. "Don't kill me, don't kill me," she cried, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous.
Numerous eye-witnesses say she was forced into a hole, buried up to her neck then pelted with stones by over than 50 men until she died in front of 1,000 jeering spectators.
She had been accused of adultery in breach of Islamic law, but sources told Amnesty International that she had in fact been raped by three men, and had attempted to report this rape. Aisha was killed on Monday 27 October in a stadium in the southern port of Kismayu. None of men she accused of rape were arrested. She was detained by militia of the Kismayo authorities, a coalition of Al-shabab and clan militias. During this time, she was reported to be extremely distressed, with some individuals stating she had become mentally unstable.
Initial reports said she confessed to adultery before a Sharia court. Amnesty said it had learned she was only 13 and that her father had said she was gang raped by three men.
Yes, that was her crime, she was raped by three savage Muslim men! When the family tried to report the rape, the girl was accused of adultery and detained. With thanks to Atlas
 By creeping In other words, as Gawker titled their story: Muammar Qaddafi More or Less Owns Your Links. Astute reporting below from a blog entitled Workbench:  Bit.ly Builds Business on Libya Domain
The URL shortening service Bit.ly just secured $2 million in financing from investors including O’Reilly’s AlphaTech Ventures. Though URL shorteners have been around for years, Bit.ly believes there’s money in offering Twitter-friendly short links along with web analytics to track how the links are used. The company reports that its links were clicked 20 million times last month. So far, the news coverage I’ve read about Bit.ly has neglected an unusual aspect of the startup: It’s one of the only prominent online ventures using a domain name in the .LY namespace, which is controlled by Libya. There are two issues that arise from this relationship. First, of course, is the appearance of an American company doing business with Libya, a country that the U.S. considered a state sponsor of terror from 1979 through 2006. On Dec. 21, 1988, Libyan intelligence agents planted a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 that blew up 31,000 feet over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 people onboard. Bit.ly’s only doing a trivial amount of business with Libya — the domains sell for $75 per year from the registrar Libyan Spider Network — but its use of .LY domain is helping to popularize and legitimize the top-level domain for general use on the Internet. It’s only a matter of time before a reporter decides to ask the families of Lockerbie victims what they think of the arrangement. I can’t imagine that story going well for the company. Even without that PR hit, there’s another potential concern for Bit.ly and any other venture that builds its business on an .LY domain. These domains are governed by Libyan law, as it states on the Libyan Spider Network site: Any .LY domain names may be registered, except domains containing obscene and indecent names/phrases, including words of a sexual nature; furthermore domain names may not contain words/phrases or abbreviations insulting religion or politics, or be related to gambling and lottery industry or be contrary to Libyan law or Islamic morality. So the names must conform to Islamic morality, and it’s possible that the use of the domains could fall under the same rules. What are the odds that some of those 20 million clicks on a Bit.ly-shortened URL end up at sites that would be considered blasphemous or otherwise offensive in an Islamic nation? Bit.ly conveniently provides search pages for such topics as Islam, sharia, gambling and sex, any of which contain links that could spark another controversy. Bit.ly’s building a business atop a domain that could be taken away at any time, and the company’s only recourse would be to seek redress in the Libyan court system. Take a look at Section 11 of the regulations for .LY owners: The Arabic language is the language of interpretation, correspondence and the construction of the Regulation or anything related to it. … In case of conflict between the Arabic and the English versions the Arabic version shall prevail. I hope Bit.ly’s attorneys are brushing up on their Arabic. ~end More from Domain Name Wire: Is it wise to run a web service using a questionable country code domain? I’ve warned about the dangers of country code top level domains. Rogers Cadenhead made some interesting observations about Bit.ly, a URL shortening service that just scored $2M in funding. You see, .ly is the country code for Libya, which has a not-so-great history with the United States. He also points out some of the rules attached to country code domains. I’ve written before about .AE for United Arab Emirates that restricts uses within Muslim law. There’s no poker.ae, for example. The same thing goes for .ly. This presents a problem since the Bit.ly service let’s you forward to just about any web site with any topic. Technically the content isn’t hosted on a .ly domain, but the danger is there that Libya would lay the hammer on this. No serious business should use a country code domain name other than a major, unrestricted domain without special content rules. Update: Twitter’s selection of bit.ly is demise of popular URL shortening service tr.im: tr.im is now in the process of discontinuing service, effective immediately. Statistics can no longer be considered reliable, or reliably available going forward. However, all tr.im links will continue to redirect, and will do so until at least December 31, 2009. Your tweets with tr.im URLs in them will not be affected. We regret that it came to this, but all of our efforts to avoid it failed. No business we approached wanted to purchase tr.im for even a minor amount. There is no way for us to monetize URL shortening — users won’t pay for it — and we just can’t justify further development since Twitter has all but annointed bit.ly the market winner. There is simply no point for us to continue operating tr.im, and pay for its upkeep. We apologize for the disruption and inconvenience this may cause you. (there’s money in tr.im somewhere – how about an auction?) Another update: Feedback from tr.im users convinced them to continue the service. With thanks to Creeping Sharia (Note also Tinyurl as another option)
 The battle which began in Egypt in December over a ban on the niqab in universities continues, with female students opposing the measure by Higher Education Minister Hani Helal alternating defeat and victory.
As it had done on January 3 for 55 petitioners, on Saturday in Cairo the State Council Administrative Court once again sided with the ministry against the appeal filed by 17 students, though on Friday the Mansoura (Nile Delta) court instead sided with that by 42 others.
The Egyptian daily Al Masri Al Yom reported that the Mansoura judges issued their sentence on the basis of Article 2 of the Constitution, which establishes Islam as the state religion and Sharia (Islamic law) as the main source of laws.
They added that neither the Koran nor the Sunna state in any explicit manner the need not to cover hands and face. Therefore, the use of the niqab, in their opinion, is not prohibited. They noted that a ban on it is therefore incompatible with the personal freedoms guaranteed in other Articles of the Constitution. It is a sentence that seems to give weight to the thesis expressed by Egyptian intellectual Nasr Abu Zayd, who said that if the debate has now shifted to the niqab, it is because the hijab - the veil covering only women's hair - is "a religious order" now taken for granted.
In his opinion, this is in part the direct responsibility of the Al Azhar University - the highest Sunni religious authority - despite the fact that the Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi has said that the niqab does not come into play as concerns religion, prohibiting it in schools linked to the institution.
On the other hand, Abu Zayd has also asked, "why is individual freedom only spoken of in terms of the niqab? I am prepared to stand up for it as such in Europe, where human rights are guaranteed and forcing a girl to get married - to take an example - is a crime.
But here in Egypt it is a different situation."
 Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy's ideology as:
"Islamic Fundamentalism", "Islamic Extremism", "Totalitarian Islam", "Islamofascism", "Political Islam", "Militant Islam", "Bin Ladenism", "Islamonazism", "Radical Islam", "Islamism", etc....
The enemy calls it "Islam".
Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as "Radical Nazism", "Extremist Shinto" and "Militant Communism". Those who use terms other than "Islam" create the impression that it's some variant of Islam that's behind the enemy that we're facing.
A term such as "Militant Islam" is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us, "Islam means peace" -- after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name.
He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Washington's defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.
Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and state is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic ("Sharia") Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian.
Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some "extremist" form of it. If jihadists were actually "perverting a great religion", Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can't is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:
"Slay the idolators wherever you find them..." Chapter 9, verse 5
"When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them...." Ch. 47:4
Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life?
This evil man is Islam's ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It's no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent. For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity that he gained power and a large gang of followers.
But he wanted his moral pretense, too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah's conveniently timed "revelation" that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad.
From then on, violence became Islam's way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad's words, "War is deceit", Muslims use earlier "peaceful" verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims.
Those "peaceful" passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.
Note also that the only reason we're talking about Islam is because we've been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam's "conscientious objectors"? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn't stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of "Moderate Islam".
Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims.
And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam.
In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy's ideology "Islam", and they dismiss the idea of "Moderate Islam" as they would the idea of "Moderate Evil". When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a "Muslim Extremist", then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.
Islam is the enemy's ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it's up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can.
If we can't even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we'd be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy's ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, "Jihadists", and our response, "The War on Jihad." But behind it all, it's Islam that makes the enemy tick.
Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam "Islam", I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it's important that we acknowledge Islam's place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying "Islam" helps Islam and hurts us. So let's begin calling the enemy's ideology by its name.
Let's start calling Islam "Islam." Bosch Fawstin is an ex-Muslim, caricature artist and the author "Propiganda", a caricature presentation of Islam. Visit his website: http://fawstin.blogspot.com/. This article appeared in Infidel Bloggers Alliance website. Thanks to Islam Watch
  Doom preacher and Sharia Law enthusiast Anjem Choudary has warned of a Bosnian-style bloodbath after admitting plans for a new extremist group called Democracy Is Dead.
When will the U.K. charge this man with hate speech and treason?
 Obviously I was never going to see eye to eye with the benefitchogging Muslim hate cleric Anjem Choudary, but I didn’t realise how many of his own community think he’s dreadful, too. Few of the cafes on his home turf — London’s East End — will accommodate the bearded 42-year-old firebrand and self-styled “most hated man in Britain”. Indeed, just after he flounces out of our interview in one of the few that will — a halal diner in Whitechapel — a waiter asks me: “Is that the coffin man? I can’t bear him. All he wants is fame, and the easiest way to get that is say that Christian people should be persecuted. I don’t see much difference between him and Nick Griffin.” Two weeks ago Choudary, a British-born Muslim of Pakistani origin and the leader of the now-outlawed extremist group Islam4UK, caused a storm when he announced a plan to march 500 coffins through Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire, a town that regularly honours the British soldiers killed in Afghanistan and repatriated to nearby RAF Lyneham. He wanted to “highlight the tens of thousands of Muslim dead in Afghanistan”, he says now, squeezing into a booth. “But as soon as I had the idea — and it was only ever an idea — Gordon Brown said it was disgusting, abhorrent, and that the home secretary, Alan Johnson, would see to any request to ban it.” As it turned out, Choudary ended up cancelling, but not before Johnson had taken steps to proscribe Islam4UK under anti-terrorism legislation. Still, when we meet on Wednesday afternoon, just eight hours before the ban comes into effect, Choudary remains defiant. “Business as usual,” he barks. “I’ll be going to debates, going into the street, having meetings . . .” Indeed, he’s got five followers in tow right now, a noisy rabble of bearded young men, who pile into the cafe, ordering lattes, fielding calls, telling me about their conversions to Islam and recent trips to the Middle East, “on holiday”, emphasises one, while the others giggle. Well, they won’t be giggling for long; they’ll be winding down Islam4UK, shutting the website and ... that’s pretty much all.
The group is “more an affiliation of ideas”, says one, so there aren’t any formal tokens of membership such as cards or fees. Amid concerns that the group will simply change its name and continue, Choudary, who says he learnt about the ban from “the News of the World on Sunday”, insists he has “no option” but to do just that. “Look, Audrey” — he calls me Audrey throughout the interview, although he has demanded to see my press card — “I have no choice but to propagate Islam and invite people. Certain things are obviously illegal so the government will be monitoring . . .” Like what? According to the 2006 act under which Choudary’s group has been proscribed, it is illegal to promote terrorism or to glorify terrorist acts.
One Whitehall insider indicated last Sunday that members of the group had been making posts on the web in contravention of the act; in the past, Choudary himself has been accused of posting incitements on the internet under a false name. The Home Office has not given any precise indication of Islam4UK’s crime. “They haven’t contacted me,” Choudary says. So what does he think are the reasons for the ban? “Well, no reasons really,” he puffs, “but both you and I know, Audrey, they banned us because they were embarrassed because of Wootton Bassett. But also because of our continuous exposing of the British government, our call for imposing the sharia, the fact that we advocate not co-operating with the police in their fight against terrorism.” Choudary has been shut down before: a previous group he belonged to, Al-Muhajiroun, was banned in 2004. Jointly led by Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed, a fundamentalist cleric from Syria known as the Tottenham Ayatollah until he was excluded from Britain by Charles Clarke in 2005, Al-Muhajiroun had referred to the 9/11 bombers as “the magnificent 19”. More at Times Online
  Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, for taking a stand against Sharia Law in Great Britain.
 Just when it looked like the war between the so-called "conservatives" and the "reformists" over the next phase of the Muslim Brotherhood was coming to a close, it heats up again. The Brotherhood was scheduled to announce the successor to Supreme Guide Mohammad Mahdi Akef, but that has been postponed until the weekend. The Cairo-based English-language weekly Al-Ahram explains: "Three members of the group's conservative wing -- Mohamed Badei, Rashad El-Bayoumi and Gomaa Amin -- competed for the post.
Sources say Badei is most likely to become the next supreme guide, having won 66 out of total 100 possible votes on the group's Shura Council. His seemingly clear cut victory has been undermined by the support El-Bayoumi, 75, secured from the group's international affiliates." According to the independent Egyptian daily Al Sharouk: "Objections raised by what is called the "Global Shura Council" to choosing Mohamed Badei as the 8th Supreme Guide (and the de facto Supreme Guide for Muslim Brotherhood Movement worldwide), forced the Movement to reschedule the press conference to announce the name of the new Guide to take place on Sunday instead of yesterday. … According to well-informed sources, Mohammad Mahdi Akef is trying to convince the members of 'Global Shura Council,' gathering in Beirut now, to accept the nomination of Badei for the sake of protecting the reputation of the Muslim Brotherhood and its cohesion." This leaves the Brotherhood in a potentially tricky spot. Akef technically is no longer the Supreme Guide. Mohammad Habib, a reformist and the former first deputy, has resigned and Kharait al Shater, the second deputy, is in jail due to one of the Egyptian government's frequent crackdowns on the Brotherhood. As we previously reported, reformists were routed a few weeks ago when the Brotherhood announced the new members of its guidance bureau – the group's main governing body. Through questionable gaming of the election process by outgoing Supreme Guide Mohammad Mahdi Akef, Mahmoud Ezzat and hardliner allies ensured the reformists were virtually squeezed out of the movement's leadership. Hence, Habib resigned, calling it "selection rather than election." One reformist Brotherhood member has been protesting the results on his blog. He states: "I can't accept Sayed Qutb's ideology in Muslim Brotherhood, and it's clear that the new office will adopt the Qutbic Ideology, most of the office members were arrested with Sayyed Qutb in 1965." Qutb was a highly influential Brotherhood intellectual executed by the Egyptian regime in 1966. His two most prominent works, Milestones and In the Shade of the Quran, inspired a new generation of jihadists, including Osama bin Laden, who was taught by Qutb's brother Mohammad at a university in Saudi Arabia. Qutb saw the Muslim world as having descended into jahilliyya, or pre-Islamic ignorance. Qutb called on Muslims to wage jihad to "liberate" the entire world from the servitude of man-made laws, which would be replaced by Shariah. If Akef is successful in his lobbying efforts and Mohammad Badei becomes Supreme Guide, the next phase of the Brotherhood's history will likely be defined by Qutb's ideas and deepening fundamentalism. Badei has held prominent positions in the past on the guidance bureau and in two Brotherhood-dominated professional associations. Some have tried to paint Badei as a consensus candidate who is widely liked in the movement. However, he makes it clear where his influences lie. An article posted on the Brotherhood's English-language website notes that Badei "has been said to follow the conservative ideals of the late Sayed Qutb" whom he defends as a reformer rather than a hardliner. Badei is seen as "one of the most loyal leaders to the organization of Sayyid Qutb," according to the London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Hayah. In an interview last November with Al Youm Al Sabi'e, Badei was stalwart in his opposition to the idea of a woman or a Copt assuming the presidency of Egypt, basing his decisions strictly and solely on Islamic law. When asked about a woman becoming president, he replies, "[O]ur Fiqh [jurisprudence] choice is that women are not suited to lead the state." On Copts, Badei cites "a Prophetic Hadith which forbids a man from outside the faith from assuming the leadership of the state." When asked if such logic results in a religious state, Baddee explains: "We are a Muslim state, not a religious one. The leader undertakes a religious burden alongside his leadership like the Messenger (may God bless him and grant him peace) did in the first Muslim state, being the leader of the state and the executer of legal rules; and he led the army." The interviewer then asks if the people have the right to choose what they want. Badei's answer is chilling to those of us who believe in freedoms of speech, religion, association and other central tenets of democracy: "If the people choose something against the Sharia, it is not proper to implement it. If there is a conflict with the Sharia, it must not be put into force." But what else can we expect from someone who was imprisoned with Sayyid Qutb? According to Al-Hayah: "The new general guide was sentenced in a number of cases, the most famous of which was a 15-year imprisonment in 1965 in the military case that included among the sentenced the fundamentalist leader Sayyid Qutb; Badi spent 9 years in prison on the basis of that sentence…" The now-overwhelming influence of hardliners among the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood will ensure the movement will remain – at its core – strictly committed to establishing an Islamic state with Shariah as the law of the land. Past advocates for the Brotherhood who view it as a "moderate" organization that can serve as a bridge between the West and the Muslim world and a counterbalance to al Qaeda may want to rethink their views. IPT
 Former Archbishop of Canterbury is ruffling British cultural and religious elites by warning against uncontrolled Islamic immigration that threatens Britain’s ”very ethos or DNA.” “The idea that Britain can continue to welcome with open arms immigrants who immediately establish their own tribunals to apply Sharia, rather than make use of British civil law, is deeply socially divisive,” Lord Carey warned in a January 7 Times of London op-ed. “The last thing any of us want is ghettos. And while we don’t expect groups to assimilate, there must be a willingness on their part to integrate with the rest of British society.” Carey was appointed to his former position by Margaret Thatcher and, in retirement, has sometimes offered a corrective to the left-leaning proclivities of his successor, Archbishop Rowan Williams. In America, as in Britain, left-leaning religious groups, most recently the U.S. National Association of Evangelicals, are urging more liberalized immigration laws. In Britain, the stakes are higher, with proportionally much higher levels of Muslim immigration, creating pockets of urban culture where Islamic mores prevail.
Carey has joined a coalition of British parliamentarians urging sharper controls on immigration. But somewhat unlike the parliamentary group, the former head of the Church of England and the global Anglican Communion is specifically urging that immigrants affirm Britain’s democratic heritage. Citing the monarchy, Parliament, the judiciary, the Church of England, and a free press, Carey lamented that “some groups of migrants” are “ambivalent about or even hostile to such institutions” because they embody the Britain’s “liberal democratic values.” He specifically exampled a proposed antiwar Islamist march as evidence of the dangers that “extremists pose to British society.” As in America, where left-leaning religious elites deride any concerns about immigration as xenophobic, Carey has been widely lambasted in Britain. And he stands virtually alone as a senior churchman public urging more careful immigration, with an eye to Islam’s potentially dangerous growth. In a recent BBC radio broadcast, Carey shared his desire for a “country that values its Christian heritage and democratic standards and all that this country has fought over.” He also asserted that Britain needs a “tougher church” as “Christians are so very often so soft” and “allow other people to walk over us” because “we don’t want to upset other people.” Britain’s retired senior archbishop declared Christians must be “more outspoken.”
The Christian and Jewish idea to ‘welcome the stranger” must be affirmed, Carey said. But uncontrolled immigration could allow Britain to be “destabilized” and the creation of “ghettoes.” “Too often in recent years the call for a rational debate on mass migration has degenerated into name-calling and charges of racism,” Carey bemoaned in his newspaper op-ed. “Even the campaign for Balanced Migration, which I have supported, representing cross-party politicians, has barely been heeded by party leaders who have run scared of the issue.” Britain should “welcome the contribution of both economic migrants and asylum seekers to our lively cosmopolitan culture.” But uncontrolled borders that permit “new communities whose values are sometimes very different, even antithetical, to our own,” will stretch “almost to breaking point the enormous reserves of tolerance and generosity of the British people” and could damage Britain’s “future harmony.” Carey warned that irresponsible immigration policies policies would facilitate support for the far-right British National Party and “otherwise decent people supporting modern-day fascism.” In somewhat veiled critique of the current British government, Carey noted the Prime Minister has emphasized “shared values” such as “tolerance, fair play, pluralism.” But Carey retorted that those traits are not uniquely British and the nation must also look to “language, institutions and our shared history in valuing what it means to be British and what we could lose if the make-up of our nation changes too rapidly.” “It is my firm view that our society owes more to our Christian heritage than it realizes and to overlook this inheritance of faith will lead to the watering down of the very values of tolerance, openness, inclusion and democracy that we claim are central to all we stand for,” Carey warned. In his radio interview, he rejected any specific immigration policy against “non-Christian populations,” which would violate Britain’s “generous spirit.” But he did urge immigration policies that favored immigrants who affirm British “values.” Other religious voices have responded negatively to Carey. Bishop of Lincoln John Saxbee, the Church of England’s immigration spokesman in the House of Lords, demanded a “more nuanced” approach from Carey. “Christians across the country work hard to generate a culture of hospitality rather than hostility towards those who come to live, work and worship among us,” Saxbee was quoted as saying in the Independent of Ireland. “I am sure Lord Carey would not want to do or say anything which might make our task more difficult in that respect,” he harrumphed. United Reformed Church clergy and social justice activist Vaughan Jones was quoted by Ekklesia as more explicitly deriding Carey’s stance. “Crude, populist and simplistic comments like those of the former Archbishop add nothing new or helpful to the debate,” he sniffed. “The migrant is not a stranger to the church to be accepted or rejected at our convenience. We are brothers and sisters within a transnational and interdependent global community which transcends the Archbishop’s narrow and outdated nationalism.” Traditional Religious Left voices simplistically distill immigration law as simply a question of “hospitality.” Lord Carey, with more nuance than his ostensibly more sophisticated critics, seems to understand civil law’s supreme obligation to safeguard society. FPM
 LONDON - Britain will outlaw an Islamist group that provoked anger with a plan to march through a town where British troops killed in Afghanistan are honored, the interior minister announced Tuesday. After a media outcry and criticism from politicians, the group Islam4UK dropped plans to march through the town of Wootton Bassett in southern England, saying it had successfully highlighted the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan. Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the ban aimed to help prevent terrorism. It will take effect Thursday and make it a criminal offence to be a member of Islam4UK, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. "I have today laid an order which will proscribe Al Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organization goes by," Johnson said in a statement. "Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly." Johnson said the organization was already banned under two other names -- Al Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect -- and militant groups should not be able to circumvent proscription simply by changing their names. Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week denounced the group's plan to march through Wootton Bassett, where mourners regularly line the streets as coffins of British soldiers flown back from Afghanistan pass through on their way from a nearby air base. The government is keen to show it is tough on Islamist radicals after a Nigerian who had studied in London tried to blow up a plane flying into the United States on December 25. With a general election looming in the coming months, ministers do not want voters to see Britain as a haven for extremists. The leader of Islam4UK, Anjem Choudary, told BBC radio the ban would not prevent him from continuing his campaigns. "We won't be using those names and those platforms which have been proscribed, but I can't stop being a Muslim, I can't stop propagating Islam, I can't stop praying, I can't stop calling for the sharia," he said. "That is something which I must do, and ultimately I will pay whatever price I need to for my belief." Islam4UK has links to Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has been banned from entering Britain. Peter Neumann, director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King's College in London, said Islam4UK had only 50 to 100 full members, although the group attracted much bigger crowds at its events. "Islam4UK is very much a group that seeks publicity, that wants to be in the public eye, that provokes people in this country, and as a result gets onto the front page of the Daily Mail," Neumann said, referring to a popular newspaper. "That's why the home secretary felt compelled to react." Neumann described the group as a "conveyor belt" toward violent activities, citing evidence that numerous members had gone on to militant training camps in Afghanistan, where they had fought alongside the Taliban. Choudary denied that any member of his group had ever been involved in violence and denounced the ban as a breach of freedom of expression. Reuters
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
