By Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy - majed_thabet@hotmail.com
This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.
First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as "behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically." However, the term violence mustn't be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights. Read more ...
Source: Yemen Times
H/T: Jihad Watch
Friday, January 4, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Attention Rabbi Yoffie: Please Speak To Moderate Muslims
As adherents of moderate religious and intellectual trends within the Islamic global community, the signatories of this column view with dismay a report in The Washington Post of Dec. 16, 2007, on a "partnership" between the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). This new alliance was announced by the URJ's president, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, at his organization’s biennial convention in San Diego. We do not presume to judge the political or theological outlook of Rabbi Yoffie or his organization, except with regard to his and their comments about Islam. We, however, know the Muslim community, worldwide and in North America, and we do not recognize or otherwise support ISNA as a legitimate representative of mainstream Islamic believers in the West.
Rabbi Yoffie was cited by the Post in a number of statements with which we disagree. He said, "As a once-persecuted minority in countries where anti-Semitism is still a force, we [Reform Jews] understand the plight of Muslims in North America today."
We are Muslims concerned to protect the rights of our communities in non-Muslim societies, but we consider absurd any attempt to equate the situation of Muslims in Western Europe and North America today with historic anti-Jewish prejudice and oppression. Muslims in Western Europe and North America have not been subjected, in recent times, to wholesale denial of civil rights.
Free discourse about Islam in the Western democracies is occasionally abrasive, but has never resembled the wholesale libels directed against Jews — including by latter-day Islamists — and has not been embraced by or institutionalized by any government in Western Europe or North America.
Rabbi Yoffie continued, "Islamic extremists constitute a profound threat. For some, this is a reason to flee from dialogue, but in fact the opposite is true."
We do not understand the intent of this statement. It appears that Rabbi Yoffie believes dialogue is possible with extremists. We do not agree. We believe that dialogue between mainstream Muslims, Jews, and Christians is necessary, but that the defeat of Islamist extremists is necessary for such interfaith efforts to succeed. We do not support "dialogue" with Islamist and other apologists for violence, or proponents of restrictions on freedom under the pretext of religion.
We also disagree with Rabbi Yoffie's statement, "There exists in [the Jewish] community a profound ignorance about Islam, along with a real desire to learn about what moves and motivates Muslims today. We must respond to this desire with serious programs of education."
If Rabbi Yoffie believes that Jews are ignorant about Islam, he should be recognized as speaking only for himself.
In reality, we and other Muslims recognize the contribution of numerous Jewish scholars to the understanding of Islam by Westerners. Most educated Muslims know the name of Ignaz Goldziher, the pioneering 19th century Jewish scholar on Islam. Sufis are aware of the historical writings of Gershom Scholem, one of the greatest 20th-century Jewish figures, on the relationship between Kabbalah and Sufism. Further, numerous Jewish community leaders and public intellectuals have commented soberly on the problems of Islamic extremism, in a manner we wish were more commonly visible in the ranks of Muslim believers.
ISNA, which URJ has accepted, apparently uncritically, as a "partner," has a long history of association with extremist trends in Islam. ISNA has served as a front group for Wahhabism, the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the jihadist ideologies originating in Pakistan with the writings of a certain Mawdudi and the Deoband schools in that country — the latter of which produced the Afghan Taliban, and the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, or Muslim Brotherhood.
Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA, revealed the style of radical rhetoric with which the organization is saturated when, in addressing the URJ's recent convention, she declared that in the current U.S. presidential primaries, "we see candidates being asked to prove that they comply with an ever narrower definition of what it means to be a Christian — forget about being a Muslim or a Jew."
This is an inexcusably irresponsible, inflammatory charge. Although Christian affiliations have been a topic among some presidential candidates, none has been compelled to "comply" with a Christian religious test and no such criterion is reasonably possible in the American electoral process.
Many Islamic mosque congregations, Sufi orders, and Muslim personalities have called for intelligent and sincere discussion with Jewish individuals and groups, to further interfaith civility and cooperation. This noble goal, to which we as Muslims are called by our revelation and our traditions, cannot be served by flattery toward groups like ISNA, in which radicals are camouflaged as moderates.
We therefore appeal to Rabbi Yoffie and other Jewish leaders to conduct a serious and thorough survey of the situation in Western Islam, identifying authentic moderates, and enabling them as interlocutors with Jews and other non-Muslims. We do not believe that ISNA qualifies for such a role. We fear that heedless acceptance of ISNA as an ally of URJ does harm to both our communities, by legitimizing a radicalism that, regardless of ISNA's rhetorical claims, is fundamentally hostile to Jews and suppresses the intellectual and social development of Muslims.
Nawab Agha, president, American Muslim Congress
Omran Salman, director, Aafaq Foundation
Kemal Silay, president, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director,
Center for Islamic Pluralism
Salim Mansur, Canadian director,
Center for Islamic Pluralism
Jalal Zuberi, Southern U.S. director,
Center for Islamic Pluralism
Imaad Malik, fellow, Center for Islamic Pluralism
M. Zuhdi Jasser, president,
American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, president,
International Quranic Center
Source: The Jewish Week
More on the subject:
• Rabbi Eric H. Yoffee's speech
• Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of ISNA, speech
• Muslim Brotherhood' strategy for Islamic takeover of North America / ISNA is a part of American Muslim Brotherhood [.pdf]
• Members of Congress to DOJ: ISNA is a radical group [.pdf]
• ISNA - Saudi/Terrorist links
• ISNA is a front group for Muslim Brotherhood
• Sami Al-Arian (convicted on terrorism charges) helped establish ISNA
Union for Reform Judaism
Latest recipients of the Retarded Rabbi Award
 |
Palestinians Who Prefer Israel
By Daniel PipesPalestinians have a hidden history of appreciating Israel that contrasts with their better-known narrative of vilification and irredentism.
The former has been particularly evident of late, especially since Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, floated a trial balloon in October about transferring some Arab-dominated areas of eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority. As he rhetorically asked about Israeli actions in 1967, "Was it necessary to annex the Shuafat refugee camp, al-Sawahra, Walajeh, and other villages, and then to state that these are part of Jerusalem? One can ask, I admit, some legitimate questions about this."
In one swoop, this statement transformed pro-Israel statements by Palestinians (for a sampling, see my 2005 article, "The Hell of Israel Is Better than the Paradise of Arafat") from the mostly theoretical into the active and political. Read more ...
Source: FrontPage Magazine
Now They Call Me Infidel
FrontPage Interview with Nonie Darwish
By Jamie Glazov
Nonie Darwish, author and founder of ArabsForIsrael.com. She grew up in Cairo and Gaza, the daughter of a high-ranking Egyptian army officer. She now lectures around the country to civic organizations, universities, churches, and synagogues. She is the author of the new book, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.
FP: Nonie Darwish, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Darwish: My pleasure.
FP: Tell us some of the things you were taught as a child in the Arab Middle East.
Darwish: I was born and raised as a Muslim in Cairo, Egypt and the Gaza Strip. I attended Gaza elementary schools where I learned hatred, vengeance and retaliation. Peace was never as an option; it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. Those who wanted peace and compromise were called traitors. Jews were described as monsters, apes and pigs and the enemies of God from the pulpits of mosques. When I asked: "why do we hate Jews?" The answer was: "aren't you a Muslim?" Read more ...
Source: FrontPage Magazine
H/T: Citizen Warrior
Nonie Darwish, author and founder of ArabsForIsrael.com. She grew up in Cairo and Gaza, the daughter of a high-ranking Egyptian army officer. She now lectures around the country to civic organizations, universities, churches, and synagogues. She is the author of the new book, Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.FP: Nonie Darwish, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Darwish: My pleasure.
FP: Tell us some of the things you were taught as a child in the Arab Middle East.
Darwish: I was born and raised as a Muslim in Cairo, Egypt and the Gaza Strip. I attended Gaza elementary schools where I learned hatred, vengeance and retaliation. Peace was never as an option; it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. Those who wanted peace and compromise were called traitors. Jews were described as monsters, apes and pigs and the enemies of God from the pulpits of mosques. When I asked: "why do we hate Jews?" The answer was: "aren't you a Muslim?" Read more ...
Source: FrontPage Magazine
H/T: Citizen Warrior
Honor Killings In America
My friend Eric at Classical Values has a post up on honor killings in America. Let me quote a bit:
The idea of "honor killings" of Muslim girls by their fathers for dressing like Westerners or dating boys would strike most Americans as too horrific to contemplate. Certainly not the kind of thing that would happen here, right?Eric has much more with lots of links. Go read the whole thing.
Think again. Not only is it happening, but it's barely being reported.
If you're as horrified as I am that even a hint of this sort of thing would happen here, don't miss Phyllis Chesler's "Dead in Dallas: Honor Killings Land on our Shores -- a story about Amina and Sarah Said, who were shot to death, and whose father is being sought by police.
Islam(ism) vs. Free Speech
By Jed Babbin
Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First Amendment rights in America.
Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British libel laws and Canadian "human rights" laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point.
Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it." In that book, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded terrorism directly and indirectly.
Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.
Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writing -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he’d not only have to prove that what was written was false, he’d also have to prove it was published maliciously.
Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That’s why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.
Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for £10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment also requires that there be no further "defamatory" statements published in England and Wales.
In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz's lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: "Rather than check her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism."
"Harmful journalism" is what tyrants and despots call free speech, especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The "legal lights" Mahfouz’s lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, "Alms for Jihad."
In 2006 Cambridge University press published "Alms for Jihad." It's a highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of Islamic "charities" that contribute to terrorism). "Alms for Jihad" -- like Ehrenfeld’s book -- documents bin Mahfouz's funding ties to terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But "Alms"-- in settlement of a libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners won.
Mahfouz's case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the US. Ehrenfeld told me she’s unable to get book publishers to contract for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis’ involvement in funding it.
If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn's case is another instance of Muslims trying to silence "harmful journalism."
Mark Steyn's superb book, "America Alone", makes two important points: first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second that Islam is a political system, not just a religion:
So it’s not merely that there’s a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.
Steyn's stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the Canadian magazine, "Macleans" -- is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference. That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?
Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further "harmful journalism" that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.
What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or "human rights" decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot be enforced.
Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly -- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment. Anyone who doesn't stand forthrightly against these foreign infringements on Americans' Constitutional rights should receive neither our confidence nor our votes.
What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is purportedly corrects "misperceptions" about Islam and "... educate(s) the media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation." But the other aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it's not so much a guide as a set of rules against "harmful journalism." And those who write about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance and racism should they violate them.
We don’t yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law students to preclude what they believe is "harmful journalism."
Source: Human Events
H/T: The Intelligence Summit
Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First Amendment rights in America.Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British libel laws and Canadian "human rights" laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point.
Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it." In that book, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded terrorism directly and indirectly.
Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.
Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writing -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he’d not only have to prove that what was written was false, he’d also have to prove it was published maliciously.
Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That’s why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.
Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for £10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment also requires that there be no further "defamatory" statements published in England and Wales.
In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz's lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: "Rather than check her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism."
"Harmful journalism" is what tyrants and despots call free speech, especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The "legal lights" Mahfouz’s lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, "Alms for Jihad."
In 2006 Cambridge University press published "Alms for Jihad." It's a highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of Islamic "charities" that contribute to terrorism). "Alms for Jihad" -- like Ehrenfeld’s book -- documents bin Mahfouz's funding ties to terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But "Alms"-- in settlement of a libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners won.
Mahfouz's case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the US. Ehrenfeld told me she’s unable to get book publishers to contract for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis’ involvement in funding it.
If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn's case is another instance of Muslims trying to silence "harmful journalism."
Mark Steyn's superb book, "America Alone", makes two important points: first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second that Islam is a political system, not just a religion:
So it’s not merely that there’s a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.
Steyn's stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the Canadian magazine, "Macleans" -- is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference. That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?
Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further "harmful journalism" that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.
What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or "human rights" decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot be enforced.
Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly -- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment. Anyone who doesn't stand forthrightly against these foreign infringements on Americans' Constitutional rights should receive neither our confidence nor our votes.
What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is purportedly corrects "misperceptions" about Islam and "... educate(s) the media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation." But the other aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it's not so much a guide as a set of rules against "harmful journalism." And those who write about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance and racism should they violate them.
We don’t yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law students to preclude what they believe is "harmful journalism."
Source: Human Events
H/T: The Intelligence Summit
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Summary of Special Panel on Holy Land's Ties to Hamas & Muslim Brotherhood
By Andrew Cochran
On Tuesday, December 11, the Counterterrorism Foundation, along with the NEFA Foundation and International Assessment and Strategy Center, conducted a special panel, "Infiltration and Deception: The Holy Land Foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood in America," in the halls of Congress before a packed room of experts, law enforcement and intelligence community personnel, Congressional staff, and industry leaders. Here is the written version of my introduction of the co-sponsors and the panel. The audio of the discussion and Q&A is available for download here. Read more ...
Source: The Counterterrorism Blog
H/T: The Intelligence Summit
On Tuesday, December 11, the Counterterrorism Foundation, along with the NEFA Foundation and International Assessment and Strategy Center, conducted a special panel, "Infiltration and Deception: The Holy Land Foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood in America," in the halls of Congress before a packed room of experts, law enforcement and intelligence community personnel, Congressional staff, and industry leaders. Here is the written version of my introduction of the co-sponsors and the panel. The audio of the discussion and Q&A is available for download here. Read more ...
Source: The Counterterrorism Blog
H/T: The Intelligence Summit
Dissident Saudi Blogger Is Arrested: Popular Internet Commentator Had Called for Political Reform
By Faiza Saleh Ambah
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 31 -- Saudi Arabia's most popular blogger, Fouad al-Farhan, has been detained for questioning, an Interior Ministry spokesman confirmed Monday. It was the first known arrest of an online critic in the kingdom.
Farhan, 32, who used his blog to criticize corruption and call for political reform, was detained "for violating rules not related to state security," according to the spokesman, Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, responding to repeated requests for comment with a brief cellphone text message.
Farhan's Dec. 10 arrest was reported last week on the Internet and has been condemned by bloggers in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Bahrain. The Saudi news media have not yet reported the arrest, but more than 200 bloggers in the kingdom have criticized Farhan's detention, and a group of supporters have set up a Free Fouad Web site. Read more ...
Source: The Washington Post
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 31 -- Saudi Arabia's most popular blogger, Fouad al-Farhan, has been detained for questioning, an Interior Ministry spokesman confirmed Monday. It was the first known arrest of an online critic in the kingdom.Farhan, 32, who used his blog to criticize corruption and call for political reform, was detained "for violating rules not related to state security," according to the spokesman, Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, responding to repeated requests for comment with a brief cellphone text message.
Farhan's Dec. 10 arrest was reported last week on the Internet and has been condemned by bloggers in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Bahrain. The Saudi news media have not yet reported the arrest, but more than 200 bloggers in the kingdom have criticized Farhan's detention, and a group of supporters have set up a Free Fouad Web site. Read more ...
Source: The Washington Post
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Islamonazi's Prayer for Stormfront
Sultan Knish informs us that our local HAMAS operative, former CAIR national board member and would-be Columbus Public School Board member Anisa Abd El Fattah/Caroline Keeble has a couple of recent posts on the "Muslims for Ron Paul" Yahoo forum coming out in favor of presidential hopeful Ron Paul and wishing neo-Nazi website STORMFRONT the best of luck in their battle against ADL. How nice.This is the same Anisa Abd El Fattah who spent this past weekend speaking at a conference for an Iranian government front group identified by former FBI Director Louis Freeh as a direct domestic terror threat.
In her first message, she encourages candidate Paul not to bow to outside pressure calling for him to return donations from neo-Nazi leaders. Read more ...
Source: Yahoo groups
H/T: Atlas
An "Apostate" Speaks
FrontPage Interview with Abul Kasem
By Jamie Glazov
FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Kasem: Thank you. I am pleased to be interviewed by Frontpage magazine.
FP: Tell us a bit about your spiritual and intellectual journey.
Kasem: Born in Bangladesh , I attended the secular schools as well as underwent strict religious discipline, and digested religious preaching. Taught by my father, during my childhood, I learned the basic Qur’an without understanding a single word, because like almost all Muslims of Bangladesh, my father did not know the meaning of Arabic words. He only knew how to read the Qur’an in Arabic, and recite it. When I was nine, a typical Mulla taught me the Islamic rituals (like prayer, ablution, fasting), and how to recite the Qur’an correctly. He also taught us that Muslims are the only inheritors of the earth, that we must never mix with the non-Muslims, we must hate them, humiliate them verbally, and if possible, physically. Read more ...
Source: FrontPage Magazine
FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Kasem: Thank you. I am pleased to be interviewed by Frontpage magazine.
FP: Tell us a bit about your spiritual and intellectual journey.
Kasem: Born in Bangladesh , I attended the secular schools as well as underwent strict religious discipline, and digested religious preaching. Taught by my father, during my childhood, I learned the basic Qur’an without understanding a single word, because like almost all Muslims of Bangladesh, my father did not know the meaning of Arabic words. He only knew how to read the Qur’an in Arabic, and recite it. When I was nine, a typical Mulla taught me the Islamic rituals (like prayer, ablution, fasting), and how to recite the Qur’an correctly. He also taught us that Muslims are the only inheritors of the earth, that we must never mix with the non-Muslims, we must hate them, humiliate them verbally, and if possible, physically. Read more ...
Source: FrontPage Magazine
Cleric's chilling warning to UK
By Oliver Harvey
A FANATICAL Pakistani cleric told The Sun yesterday of his chilling dream to turn the world Muslim – by force if necessary.
Qari Hifzur Rehamn, 60, spoke openly of imposing Islamic law’s stoning and beheading on Britain – as Pakistan was rocked by unrest over the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
He warned: "We want Islamic law for all Pakistan and then the world. We would like to do this by preaching. But if not then we would use force." Read more ...
Source: The Sun
H/T: Atlas
Translating Website into Dutch
To all our Dutch supporters:
We are very grateful for your offer to help us translate the site into Dutch. To avoid redundancy, we would like you to coordinate between yourselves via comments on this post.
Order of translation:
1. Header (green - text and links)
2. Footer (green)
3. Manifesto (http://www.reformislam.org/)
4. Other pages
Thank you very much for your help!
We are very grateful for your offer to help us translate the site into Dutch. To avoid redundancy, we would like you to coordinate between yourselves via comments on this post.
Order of translation:
1. Header (green - text and links)
2. Footer (green)
3. Manifesto (http://www.reformislam.org/)
4. Other pages
Thank you very much for your help!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
