 By Robert Spencer The Stoning of Soraya M. is a riveting, immensely important film that unforgettably and unflinchingly depicts the horror of the Islamic Sharia punishment of stoning for adultery. But in today’s politically correct environment, reviewers are rushing to divert attention away from or downplay the root causes of the crime the film indelibly depicts – and by doing so, are condemning more women to suffer Soraya’s fate. This phenomenon – which I call Islamophobophobia – was vividly manifested in a review of the film by Kevin Thomas that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Friday. Islamophobophobia: John Derbyshire coined the term to refer to his distaste for those (foremost among them me) who study how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam in order to justify terrorism and Islamic supremacism, and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. But now that Derbyshire has coined the term, I think it should be applied not only to a distaste for so-called “Islamophobes” (an appellation that I reject in any case), but also to an anxiety not to appear “anti-Islamic,” no matter what contortions one may be forced into as a result. This kind of Islamophobophobia especially manifests itself among politically correct types who find themselves for whatever reason in the position of discussing some human rights abuse or terrorist activity that its perpetrators justify by reference to Islamic teachings -- they will discuss it, all right, but will go to any length to make sure nobody thinks that it really has anything to do with Islam, or that it is any different from what those nasty Christians do. Read more ...Source: FPM
By Mark LeVine, Middle East Historian  | Iranian-Americans have called on Obama to be more forceful with Iranian leaders [GALLO/GETTY]
| It took two weeks of intensified government repression against protesters in Iran before Barack Obama, the US president, moved from cautious commentary to describing the crackdown as "violent and unjust". The acknowledged elephant in the room preventing a more robust US response to the Iranian crisis is the Anglo-American-organised coup in 1953, which overthrew Mohammed Mossadeqh, the nationalist prime minister, and brought the 33-year-old Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, back to the country as unchallenged ruler. The coup was motivated by Mossadeqh's and the Iranian parliament's decision to nationalise the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, and by the fear that Soviet-inspired communists might take over the government. The US-sponsored overthrow of Mossadeqh and our subsequent whole-hearted support for the Shah's brutal rule are ignominious chapters in the history of US foreign policy. But does a coup 55 years ago really disqualify the US from standing up forcefully for democracy in Iran today? It is highly unlikely. US policies flawed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, do not fear the US but rather their own people's desire to live in a country more like the US. In fact, in poll after poll Iranians have revealed themselves to be among the most pro-American and pro-democratic people in the Muslim majority world. The Iranian government needs little excuse to beat, jail, and otherwise punish its citizens. It is already doing a thorough enough job without US interference, and seems poised to go even further. However, if it goes too far it risks "losing legitimacy in the eyes of its own people," as Obama said at a June 25 press conference. Obama is acutely aware of the real reason why he cannot be too forceful in supporting the millions of Iranians demanding to have their votes counted.
The problem is not with US administrations long past, but with the policies of the current administration. The fact is that the US counts as its closest allies in the Middle East regimes who routinely rig elections - if they even bother to hold them at all - which produce governments that are far less legitimate than Ahmadinejad's today. The substance of Obama's foreign policies in the Middle East and North Africa remain in many key areas strikingly similar to, and are in some cases more aggressive than, those of George Bush, his predecessor. Saudi Arabia remains our most crucial Arab ally despite the fact that its government is among the world's most repressive and undemocratic (about which Obama has had nothing to say since becoming president). Rather than encourage Arab democrats, the Obama administration is improving ties with Libya and returning an ambassador to Syria, where today we are courting Bashar al-Assad as a "key player" in the region, despite his country's abysmal record on human rights and democracy. Read more here... Source: Al Jazeera English H/T Gateway Pundit
Jun 29  Palestinians attend a Hamas rally in Gaza City
According to the results of the poll published Monday, 18.8 percent of the Palestinian population backs the Islamist group, compared to 27% when the last JMCC survey was conducted in January.
The survey of 1,199 people also showed that 35% of Palestinians support Fatah, a nine percent rise compared with the previous survey. In addition, 26.5% said they blamed Israel for the lack of a breakthrough in Fatah-Hamas reconciliation talks, while 23% said Hamas was responsible and 15% blamed Fatah. Khader Khader, head of the JMCC media unit, said Hamas's popularity was hit by disgruntlement among Gaza residents over a lack of a deal in Egyptian-mediated reconciliation talks and the continued blockade of the territory. "It's a sort of protest by the people (of Gaza) because there is no progress on these two major issues," Khader was quoted by Reuters as saying. Source: Jerusalem Post
| By Magdi Abdelhadi
Arab Affairs Analyst |  Prince Walid bin Talal is one of the world's richest businessmen | A member of the Saudi royal family has called for the assets of his brother to be frozen. Prince Khaled bin Talal denounced his brother's media empire in an unprecedented public attack from within the ruling family. Prince Khaled accused Prince Walid bin Talal of disseminating vice and violating the rules of Islamic Sharia in the conservative kingdom. Prince Walid is one of the richest businessmen in the world. It has long been known that there is a split within the ranks of Saud family between liberals and conservatives. But, until now, they have always managed to keep a lid on the problem. Prince Khaled said he had been forced to speak out after quiet efforts to advise his brother to mend his ways had fallen on deaf ears. Prince Walid, known for his liberal lifestyle, owns a media empire which features entertainment channels that have long angered conservative Saudis. Prince Khaled, told an Arabic website that his brother's plan to introduce cinema into Saudi society was the straw that broke the camel's back. This was a reference to a Saudi film financed by Prince Walid, and shown in Saudi Arabia late last year despite fierce opposition from Islamist activists. Nearly all forms of modern entertainment - particularly those that bring men and women together - are regarded by conservative Saudis as morally corrosive and can, in their eyes, undermine the religious foundation of the Saudi society and state. Source: BBC
 Presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, center, joins thousands of supporters of
Mir-Hossein Mousavi at a mosque in Tehran's northeast.As supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi shout out their support in Tehran, European leaders voice anger at the Saturday arrests of eight British Embassy staffers.By Borzou Daragahi Reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates -- Thousands of Iranians disputing the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marched at an unauthorized rally Sunday, defying truncheon-wielding security forces and dire threats by Iranian leaders. Meanwhile, European leaders' hackles were raised by the arrest a day earlier of eight British Embassy staffers in Tehran, a move that has sharpened Iran's confrontation with the West over the disputed election and its violent aftermath. Several of the staffers, all Iranian nationals, were quickly released. Read more ... Source: L.A. TimesH/T: FPM
 By Alyssa A. Lappen When a pro-terrorist organization announces its intention to launch a financial jihad against the West, it is well worth learning their methods. More significant than the promotion of a religious pseudo-financial scheme is the possibility their largely unregulated practices could release a new wave of toxic assets into the wider economy and trigger a series of small-scale Enrons. The Muslim organization Hizb Ut Tahrir capitalizes on Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna's 20th century derivative, encouraging followers to build a parallel financial structure. Al-Banna envisioned the resultant Shari'a-compliant finance as a “back door” into Western financial markets and institutions through which to supplant liberty and prosperity with Islam. Muslim clerics including MB spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi promote Shari'a finance as generally safer than Western investments, a diversification method to steady personal assets -- and a stable economic system that should replace capitalism. Call it “financial replacement theology,” if you wish. In July, Hizb Ut Tahrir plans to launch its U.S. arm with a huge Chicago “Khalifah conference” heralding the coming Caliphate and global Islamic supremacism. After 9/11, Germany and Sweden outlawed Hizb Ut Tahrir. In July 2005, Pakistan's then-president Pervez Musharaf warned Britain not to tolerate its continued U.K. presence. But in the U.S., Hizb Ut Tahrir has proudly announced intentions to replace capitalism with Islam. Read more ...Source: FPM
By Joshua Muravchik | June 27  Is history ending yet again? Much as the hammers that leveled the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the end of the Cold War, so might the protests rocking Iran signal the death of radical Islam and the challenges it poses to the West. No, that doesn't mean we'll be removing the metal detectors from our airports anytime soon. Al-Qaeda and its ilk, even diminished in strength, will retain the ability to stage terrorist strikes. But the danger brought home on Sept. 11, 2001, was always greater than the possibility of murderous attacks. It was the threat that a hostile ideology might come to dominate large swaths of the Muslim world. Not all versions of this ideology -- variously called Islamism or radical Islam -- are violent.
But at the core of even the peaceful ones, such as that espoused by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, is the idea that the Islamic world has been victimized by the West and must defend itself. Even before the United States invaded Iraq, stoking rage, polls in Muslim countries revealed support for Osama bin Laden and for al-Qaeda's aims, if not its methods. If such thinking were to triumph in major Muslim countries beyond Iran -- say, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- violent extremists would command vast new stores of personnel, explosives and funds. This is precisely the nightmare scenario that is now receding.
Even if the Iranian regime succeeds in suppressing the protests and imposes the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by force of bullets, mass arrests and hired thugs, it will have forfeited its legitimacy, which has always rested on an element of consent as well as coercion. Most Iranians revered Ayatollah Khomeini, but when his successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, declared the election results settled, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets, deriding his anointed candidate with chants of "Death to the dictator!" "Even if they manage to hang on for a month or a couple of years, they've shed the blood of their people," says Egyptian publisher and columnist Hisham Kassem. "It's over." Read more here,,, Source: Washington Post
by Daniel Pipes
June 29 "Iran is the world's most conspiracy-minded country" I declared in my book, The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy. An entire chapter of that study focused on the Islamic revolution of 1978-79, documenting how "Regardless of political complexion, Iranians interpret the revolution not as an act of will but as the manifestation of mysterious forces. They debate less the causes of the upheaval than the identity of those forces." Another chapter took up the Iran-Iraq war. In both cases, I showed how the conspiracy mentality had a major role in the evolution of events. And so, as the events of the past month unrolled in Iran – an intense buildup to elections on June 12, the regime's blatant act of electoral fraud, the massive street demonstrations, and the violent crack-down – I watched with special interest the role of conspiracy theories in Iranian political life. To my surprise and delight, their role appeared to be minimal. For once, Iranians were dealing with realities in Iran rather than imagining foreign bogeymen manipulating events in the country. Then, as the crackdown ensued, the authorities resorted to form and, starting with Ali Khamene'i's key speech on June 19, they began blaming perfidious foreigners, and especially the British government, for their problems. Khamene'i described Western countries as "hungry wolves ambushing us and removing the diplomatic cover from their faces. Do not neglect these people." He went on: The outstanding diplomats of some western countries who have talked to us with diplomatic courtesy up to now, have, during the past few days, taken the masquerade away from their faces and are showing their true image. They are showing their true enmity towards the Iranian Islamic state and the most evil of them is the British government. The crowd responded by chanting of "Death to Britain." The regime followed up by focusing on the Persian television service of the British Broadcasting Corporation, as John F. Burns explains in "Persian Station in Britain Rattles Officials in Iran":  The set of the BBC's Persian television service. | As Iran's ruling ayatollahs tell it, the main strike force plotting to end Islamic rule in their country is not on the streets of Tehran but on the upper floors of a celebrated Art Deco building in central London. The propagators of an "all-out war" against the Islamic republic, as Iran's semiofficial news agency has called them, are a group of 140 men and women who work at the BBC's Broadcasting House, a stone's throw from the shopping mecca of Oxford Street in London. Mainly expatriate Iranians, they staff the BBC's Persian-language television service, on air for only six months and reaching a daily audience of six million to eight million Iranians — a powerful fraction of viewers in Iran, with its population of 70 million. … The government has singled out several foreign news broadcasters for what it calls biased coverage: CNN, broadcasting in English, as well as the Voice of America and the BBC, which broadcast in Iran in Persian, the country's national language. But the BBC's Persian channel has been cast as the main threat, partly, BBC officials say, because Britain's colonial past has earned it a special place in Iran's official demonography. Hamid Reza Moqaddamfar, chief of the semiofficial Fars news agency, has described the channel's coverage as "psychological warfare," and said its mission was "spreading lies and rumors and distorting facts." A pro-Ahmadinejad newspaper, Vatan Emrouz, even claimed that Jon Leyne, the BBC's Tehran correspondent, expelled from Iran on June 21, paid "a thug" to kill Neda Agha-Soltan, the young woman who became a martyr to the protesters after she was shot dead during the demonstrations. State-run television has interviewed protesters who said the Persian channel influenced them to take to the streets. One woman said the channel inspired her and her son to go out armed with hand grenades. Another woman said the channel's report that the riot police had attacked protesters prompted her to go to the streets, where she said she had found that it was the protesters, not the police, who were "beating up people." Comment: It is one thing for the mullahs to raise conspiracy theories and another for the population to believe in them. I don't live in Iran and cannot judge the situation at first hand, but I get a sense from news reports that Iranians no longer suffer under the sway of their historic conspiracist mindset. If so, this would be a huge advance for the country. Source: Daniel Pipes
IRAN says it has freed five of the local British embassy staff it arrested on accusations of stoking post-election unrest, a move that further threatened tense ties with London. "Eight people were arrested. Five were freed and three are still being interrogated,'' ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said at a press conference in Tehran today. Earlier, English-language state television Press TV had spoken of a total of nine arrests. Mr Ghashghavi also said that Iran, which has accused Western nations, particularly Britain and the US of "meddling,'' has no current plans to close embassies or downgrade diplomatic ties with foreign nations. "There is no plan at the moment to close any embassy or downgrade ties with them,'' Mr Ghashghavi said when asked if Tehran planned to close the British embassy. The Fars news agency, announcing the arrests yesterday, said the British embassy staffers were accused of playing a "considerable role'' in the unrest that swept Iran after the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie accused the British embassy of sending local staff "undercover among rioters in order to push its own agenda,'' the official IRNA news agency reported. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said yesterday that London had protested strongly over the arrests, which he described as "harassment and intimidation'' and dismissed claims the embassy was behind the demonstrations. EU nations also vowed to respond to any harassment of diplomats in Iran with a "strong and collective response'', Mr Miliband said at an EU foreign ministers' meeting in Corfu. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki - who has previously said Tehran was considering downgrading its ties with London - urged Britain and the EU not to take rash action over the arrests. "Don't continue with this losing game because this is neither in the interests of the British people nor the two countries' relations that have (already) been damaged because of the British Government's behaviour,'' he said. He also called for European countries and officials to "revise their stand'' towards Iran, after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused European and American officials of making "idiotic comments'' about the country. Britain and Iran have already expelled diplomats in tit-for-tat moves last week. Source: The Australian
By Steve Doughty | 29th June At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.
 Disputes: Islamic leaders rule on disagreements
However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said. Commentators on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act. But the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals. The spread of sharia law has become increasingly controversial since its role was backed last year by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice who stepped down last October. Dr Williams said a recognised role for sharia law seemed 'unavoidable' and Lord Phillips said there was no reason why decisions made on sharia principles should not be recognised by the national courts. But the Civitas report said the principles on which sharia courts work are indicated by the fatwas - religious decrees - set out on websites run by British mosques. Read more here... Source: Daily Mail
'The positions of the U.S. and Palestinian Authority are closer than ever' June 28
By Aaron Klein
Jerusalem | JERUSALEM – The Obama administration told the Palestinian Authority the "golden era" of Israeli construction in sections of Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank will soon come to an end, a top PA negotiator told WND. "The U.S. assured us that for the first time since 1967, we are going into a period where there will not be allowed a single construction effort on the part of the Israelis in the settlements, including in Gush Etzion, Maale Adumum and eastern Jerusalem," said the negotiator, speaking from Ramallah on condition his name be withheld. Maale Adumim is located in eastern Jerusalem. Israel reunited the eastern and western sections of Jerusalem and the West Bank during the 1967 Six Day War. Eastern Jerusalem, claimed by the PA for a future state, includes the Temple Mount. The negotiator told WND the positions of the PA and U.S. regarding ongoing Jewish construction in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem "are closer than ever." "The U.S. used to differentiate between natural grown and adding new communities. Not anymore. No construction will be allowed, not even natural growth," the PA negotiator said. "Natural growth" means adding additional housing to existing communities to accommodate the needs of a growing population. The negotiator spoke yesterday just before Defense Minister Ehud Barak took off for Washington, D.C., for meetings with the Obama administration. The negotiator claimed that while Barak might reach an understanding with the U.S. regarding possible West Bank movements, such a deal would be for Israeli political purposes and wouldn't translate into actual Jewish construction on the ground. The Obama administration recently demanded Israel halt all settlement activity, including natural growth, in apparent abrogation of a deal made by President Bush to allow for natural growth. The deal was forged just prior to Israel's 2005 retreat from the Gaza Strip. It was confirmed by Sharon aide Dov Weissglas in 2005, and in a Wall Street Journal column last week by Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser to Bush who reportedly negotiated the arrangement. The deal was in line with an official letter from Bush the year before stating Israel cannot be expected to withdraw from the entire West Bank and that the Jewish state would retain major settlement blocs there. The West Bank borders major Israeli cities and is within rocket firing range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport. Military strategists long have estimated Israel must maintain the West Bank to defend itself from any ground invasion. Terrorist groups have warned if Israel withdraws, they will launch rockets from the West Bank into Israeli cities. Many villages in the West Bank, which Israelis commonly refer to as the "biblical heartland," are mentioned throughout the Torah: The book of Genesis says Abraham entered Israel at Shechem (Nablus) and received God's promise of land for his offspring. He later was buried in Hebron. The nearby town of Beit El, anciently called Bethel, meaning "house of God," is where Scripture says the patriarch Jacob slept on a stone pillow and dreamed of angels ascending and descending a stairway to heaven. In that dream, God spoke directly to Jacob and reaffirmed the promise of territory. And in Exodus, the holy tabernacle rested in Shiloh, believed to be the first area the ancient Israelites settled after fleeing Egypt. Source: WorldNetDaily
 The report in the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper comes in the wake of similar claims last week from European diplomatic sources, the official news agency of the Palestinian Authority and other sources. Israeli security officials said they were unaware of any progress on the matter and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya said yesterday that the reports did "not reflect reality". Despite these reservations, the sense that something major is afoot is widespread in the region. According to the Asharq al-Awsat report, Corporal Shalit, who has been held in Gaza for three years without any visits by the Red Cross, will be visited by his family once he is transferred to Egypt. He will be held on "deposit" until Israel releases Palestinian prisoners. The number of prisoners to be released has been the main point of contention since Corporal Shalit's capture. Hamas has demanded the release of 450 hard-core prisoners, some of them serving multiple death sentences for involvement in the detonation of buses and other terror attacks. Israel has reportedly agreed to release only 175 persons on Hamas' list. Egyptian intermediaries have proposed a compromise figure of 325. The newspaper said Israel would release 400. In addition, Israel has already agreed to release about 600 other prisoners of lesser security weight, including women and youths. Under the mooted deal, Israel would ease its blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has permitted entry of little more than food and humanitarian aid to the area's 1.5million residents for two years and paralysed the economy. The Egyptian-brokered initiative, which reportedly has the blessings of Washington, goes well beyond a prisoner exchange and the lifting of the blockade. The release of Corporal Shalit would be the first step in a process aiming at achieving Palestinian unity as well as an overall peace agreement between Israel and the Arab world. Talks planned in Cairo between the Gaza-based Hamas movement and the Fatah movement, which dominates the West Bank, will focus on forming a unity government in the Gaza Strip until overall Palestinian elections will be held in January. As a first step, the Egyptians are attempting to promote a prisoner swap between Hamas, which holds about 200 Fatah prisoners in Gaza, and Fatah, which holds about 800 Hamas prisoners on the West Bank. If the Palestinians are able to resolve their internal differences sufficiently to establish a stable government, the way will be open to the resumption of peace negotiations with Israel. The US and moderate Arab states, mainly Egypt, would play key roles in this process. The international community advocates bilateral Israeli negotiations with the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon. Source: The Ausralian
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
