The Man Behind the "9/11 Million Muslim March" Is A "‘Virulent Anti-Semite’, Blames 9/11 on the Jews .

“They’re basically a bunch of ‘truthers’ who think that the America is to blame for everything,” Jasser said of Alam’s group. Faces From Mediaite:

On Thursday night, MD Rabbi Alam, the organizer of the Million Muslim March planned to take place on September 11 in commemoration of the attacks of 9/11/2001, engaged in a heated debate with Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity over whether such an event was appropriate on that day. On Friday morning, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser joined Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade where he called Alam one of several “virulent anti-Semites” who should rethink their plans

A French minister of Arab origin says ‘there is no such thing as moderate Islam’

Jeannette Bougrab, who is originally from Algeria, is a French junior minister with responsibility for youth. She said that any legislation based on Islamic sharia law “inevitably” imposed restrictions on rights and freedoms. (Reuters)(Al Arabiya/ AFP) A French minister said there was no such thing as moderate Islam, calling recent election successes by Islamic parties in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia “worrying” in an interview published Saturday.
Jeannette Bougrab, a junior minister with responsibility for youth, told Le Parisien newspaper that legislation based on Islamic sharia law “inevitably” imposed restrictions on rights and freedoms.
Bougrab is of Algerian origin, whose father fought on the French colonial side during Algeria’s war of independence, and said she was speaking as “a French woman of Arab origin.”
“It’s very worrying,” she was quoted as saying. “I don’t know of any moderate Islam.”
“There are no half measures with sharia,” she added. “I am a lawyer and you can make all the theological, literal or fundamental interpretations of it that you like but law based on sharia is inevitably a restriction on freedom, especially freedom of conscience.”
She was reacting to electoral successes scored by the Ennahda party in Tunisia, the Justice and Development Party in Morocco and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe has called for dialogue with such parties as long as they respect certain criteria, including the rule of law and women's rights.
Bougrab conceded that ousted Tunisian and Egyptian rulers Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak had used the Islamist “threat” to win backing from Western countries, but she added, “We shouldn’t go to the other extreme.”
And she hit out at the 30 percent of Tunisians living in France who had voted for Ennahda in last month's polls. “I am shocked that those who have rights and freedoms here gave their votes to a religious party,” she said.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part I: Understanding the Threat

It is now March of 2011. That jihadi attack on the United States is over nine years behind us. The declaration of a global jihad from Iran in 1979 is over 30 years in our rear view mirror. The national security apparatus of the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to “make America safer,” yet we still have not defined our enemy – or even tried. There is no place in the national security structure which has objectively evaluated the threat doctrine of our enemy, and then created a strategic plan for victory for the United States – per U.S. warfighting doctrine. This lack of strategic understanding of the nature of the threat we face is not only costing us lives on the battlefield in wars with no realistically stated objectives, but so long as we drift aimlessly, we cannot win and we allow the enemy to move our boat as he sees fit. That, is the enemy’s strategy. And he is executing with great success.

Does anyone wonder how it is the U.S. military is crushing the enemy on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) daily, yet not winning the strategic war? The United States continues to view the wars (the establishment sees this as several conflicts, not as one global conflict) as kinetic engagements where guns, air power, drones, bombs, and other weapon of war are brought to bear on “Al Qaeda terrorists” and others with whom we are engaged on the many battlefields around the world. At the FBI, the focus is on preventing the next attack. While this is important, “attacks” are not the main focus of effort for this enemy. Local and State Police are also focused on preventing attacks, the physical security of office buildings, critical infrastructure, and the safety of important public figures. When the subject of an investigation is found NOT to be involved in a plot to cause “violence” that case is closed and the investigator goes on to the next one in the stack. This is where we are losing the war. While preventing a school bus bombing or the take-over of a bank by Jihadis should be taken seriously by our law enforcement officers, from the enemy’s perspective, these are tactical engagements, not strategic.

Every brand new intelligence officer in the United States military knows that when the United States evaluates a threat, our doctrine drives us to begin our process with WHO the enemy says he is and with WHAT the enemy says are HIS reasons for acting. That is where the U.S. analytical process begins – per our own doctrine. If we had done this after 9/11, we would not have so much confusion about the enemy we are engaging.
One hundred percent of the enemy we are fighting states he is fighting “Jihad” in the “Cause of Allah” in order to implement Islamic Law (Shariah). Therefore, U.S. analysts must begin here. Does Islamic Law exist? If so, what does it say about “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad? In fact, authoritative Islamic Law does exist. There are not “a thousand interpretations” as the Muslim Brotherhood advisors tell our leadership. Islamic Law does define “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad. Islamic Law as defined by those using it to kill us and overthrow our government necessarily becomes the “Stated Enemy Threat Doctrine.” As a 4-star general told me a few months ago when I asked him what he thought about the fact that when Al Qaeda quotes Islamic Law they are always accurately quoting Islamic Law: “Well, if that’s true, it completely changes the nature of the way we are fighting this war.” Exactly.

Our entire national security apparatus is focused (fixed) on the threat of the violent Jihadis – Al Qaeda and the hundreds of other jihadi groups throughout the world engaging U.S and allied troops on the ground around the world.

Our enemy has no intention of defeating us on the battlefield. The kinetic war being waged by organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the many other jihadi groups is meant to bleed us, fix us in place, and create a strategic distraction while the real war they are fighting is won in the information battlespace. While AQ fixes us in place, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) presses the U.S. – and the West at large – into a corner with a stated foreign policy mirroring that of Al Qaeda. Who is the OIC? The OIC is the umbrella organization for every Muslim nation in the world – 57 states (they count Palestine as a state). At the Head of State and King level the OIC seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law. They have a 10-Year Plan in English on their website that may begin shedding light on who they are and what they intend for the West. In 1993, the OIC served an official treaty to the United Nations called the “Cairo Declaration” stating the OIC defines “Human Rights” as Shariah (Islamic Law) – this is significantly different from the International Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, the reason the International Muslim Brotherhood is calling for the death of Qaddafi is because he is “killing Muslims without right,” a capital crime under Islamic Law, and an act defined as “terrorism” by the OIC – that means the Head of State and King of every Muslim nation in the world has a parallel foreign policy from the one they are discussing with our State Department, and our State Department does not have clue one about it.

The International Muslim Brotherhood, the “vanguard” of the global Islamic Movement, is the leading edge of the enemy’s assault on the United States and the West. The Muslim Brotherhood, like the OIC and Al Qaeda, seeks to re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate) and implement Islamic Law (Shariah). You do not need a SCIF or a “secure space” to pull this information up on a classified government system. All of the enemy doctrine can be found on the worldwide web, in books, in speeches, in their training curricula, and coming out of their mouths on a daily basis. We just need to listen. The Muslim Brotherhood’s creed includes the the phrase “…Jihad is our Way, and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.” The MB assassinated the Egyptian Prime Minister in 1948, and the Egyptian security service killed MB founder Hassan al Banna on the streets of Cairo in 1949. Violence is inherent to MB operations, manifested in the “Special Section.” The “Special work” of the MB is “Military work” – violence and warfare. Hamas was created out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood as the result of international MB meetings. Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. Recordings obtained by the FBI of MB meetings in the U.S. reveal they have had weapons training camps here as early as the mid-1980’s. When the MB says they have “renounced violence” they are – hold onto your hats – lying.

From several major terrorism trials in the United States, and other information, we now know nearly every major Muslim organization in North America is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or a derivative group. We know many are support entities for Hamas, and all of the Islamic organizations working with the U.S. government are controlled by the MB. These include: the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Hamas support entity; the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas organization; the Muslim Students Associations (MSA); the Muslim American Society (MAS); the Interntional Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Hamas support entity; and many other. We also know that the objectives of the MB mirror those of Al Qaeda.

The MB’s doctrine is crystal clear on their objectives. The means for achieving these objectives is to wage a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” – a “grand jihad” – to destroy us from within. They seek to co-opt our leadership in all areas of our society – political, military, intelligence/law enforcement, media, religious. Civilization jihad by our hands. When we see that the Islamic advisor to President Clinton was a Muslim Brother and an Al Qaeda operative currently in federal prison, or that the MB runs the Shariah Compliant Financial programs for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or that senior policy advisors to Secretary Napolitano are Muslim Brothers, or that the Assistant Director for the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate is an Iranian-born

Muslim, we see that there are catastrophic security issues within the U.S. government and that - just maybe – the MB means what they say.

During this series, we will go into painful detail to identify and describe the primary Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States, especially those working with U.S. law enforcement, intelligence, and national security organizations. We will also detail some of the individual within the U.S. system who are aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least unwittingly assisting them. The utter and complete catastrophic failure of the very agencies charged with protecting us will be detailed over the next several weeks. If facts are upsetting to you, please don’t read.


Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a former active duty Infantry/Reconnaissance Officer in the United States Marine Corps, and a former Special Agent of the FBI in Washington, D.C. for over 12 years. He currently advises the government on a variety of issues.
The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part II: MB History & Their Arrival in America

The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Part III--'The Settlement Process'

 

Sadat and Mubarak were against the Muslim Brotherhood

BENTLEY [American journalist]: What, in your opinion, do these people hope to gain from this war [World War One]?

LAWRENCE: They hope to gain their freedom.
BENTLEY: They hope to gain their freedom? There's one [sucker] born every minute!

LAWRENCE: They're going to get it, Mr Bentley. I'm going to give it to them.
--From "Lawrence of Arabia"

An Egyptian Christian (Coptic) group has put up a superb six-minute video of a speech by the late (more on why he's dead in a moment) President Anwar al-Sadat about the Muslim Brotherhood. It is very timely.
Sadat makes clear why this group is so radical, dangerous, and inevitably at some point violent. He ought to know.
Some ironies: Of course, Sadat was the leader who let the Brotherhood operate again after two decades of being banned. Even then, in the 1970s and until just about today, it has remained illegal but the group still operated and even ran candidates in elections albeit not under its own name. (Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Syrian, and Iranian dictatorships didn't let their opponents run under any name, which tells something about the comparative harshness of dictatorships.) I haven't seen a single mention in the Western media as to the reason given by Egyptian governments for keeping the Brotherhood from running candidates in the past. It was this: no party should be allowed to claim a monopoly on "proper" Islam. Remember that point because it is going to be important in future, although the Brotherhood's new party--to make itself less scary--doesn't have the word "Islam" in its name either.The second irony is that Sadat was assassinated by Islamists. It is important to correct an error many have made recently. The terrorists were not Brotherhood people. But many of those terrorists who killed Sadat, joined al-Qaida, or carried out massive terrorism in Egypt in the 1990s (people now being released from prison to renew their activities) are former Brotherhood members. Radicalized and learning Islamist ideology in the Brotherhood they then went on to form or join separate radical Islamist groups.
The Brotherhood has not committed terrorism within Egypt directly (though it has, at times, endorsed terrorist murders of those deemed to be too secular) but it has been the cradle of terrorism in Egypt and even (al-Qaida; Hamas) abroad.
Finally, if you watch the brief film, keep in mind one poor piece of translation. At just before the two-minute mark, Sadat refers to the Brotherhood as viewing governments and societies as pre-Islamic. The significance of this--not explained--is that "pre-Islamic" societies are viewed by Islam as pagan and evil.
While that standpoint is definitely mainstream Islam, political Islamism's has also produced a dangerous concept of its own at variance with traditional Islam: It claims the right to declare pious Muslims as heretics and then kill them. That is precisely what it did to Sadat, who was a very pious Muslim personally, and is the basis for their overthrowing every government (including that of Saudi Arabia) that doesn't meet their interpretation of Islam.
Part of the problem with the Islamists is that even when they deviate from mainstream Islam, their positions may become popular and change Islam as it is practiced by many or most people. Thus, twenty years ago if you had told a mainstream Muslim cleric in the Middle East that suicide bombing was martyrdom he would have thrown you out of his office saying that such an idea was obviously heretical. Today, many mainstream clerics endorse this standpoint.
A legalized, large, and active Muslim Brotherhood (especially if it gains control of the key religious posts in Egypt, Jordan or--through Hamas--among the Palestinians) redefines mainstream Islam in a more extremist and radical direction. Sadat knew that also.
[PS: Note that the Enlightenment and Renaissance began in Europe precisely because very pious Christians there were ready to incorporate pre-Christian Classic Greek and Roman culture and philosophy into their societies. ]

By RubinReports via docstalk.blogspot.com

Let us not forget the assassination of Anwar Sadat, Egyptian Islamic Jihad

The Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring have long been rearranging the deck chairs on the Middle East Titanic. Unfortunately they are trying to sink the rest of the world with them. [Mooserider]
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Arabic: الجهاد الإسلامي المصري ý; also formerly called simply Islamic Jihad, الجهاد الإسلامي , "al-Jihad," a"the Jihad Group", "the Jihad Organization," ("tanzeem al Jihad) is a violent Islamist terrorist group dedicated to world Jihad and to overthrow of the Egyptian government, establishment of an Islamic state in Egypt and eventually world domination by Islam in a renewed Caliphate. It was closely allied to, part of, or father to, the Gamaa al Islamiya and shared with it for many years basic ideology, leadership and participation in various terrorist activities. (see here for a detailed account of some of the interrelationships)
The Egyptian Islamic Jihad was founded in 1979 or 1980 by a merger of a group founded by Mohammed Abd al-Salam Farraj in Cairo and a Saidi (Upper Egypt) branch under Karam Zuhdi. In the 80s, the groups may have split apart again, with one branch becoming theGama'a al Islamiya (see here). Ayman Zawahiri is a member or leader of both groups .
The charter or founding manifesto of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad was written by the group's founder Mohammed Abd al-Salam Farraj. It is called "al-Faridah al-Gha'ibah." - the neglected duty. Farraj begins by stating that "Jihad for God's cause...has been neglected by the Ulema of this age." He goes on to expound the interpretation of Jihad as violent struggle (Jihad by the sword) - a duty incumbent on all Muslims. This theology is familiar from the writings of Sayyed Qutb and Hassan al Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamic Jihad can be viewed as nothing more than the continuation of the original Muslim Brotherhood ideology, after the Ikhwan Muslim brotherhood in Egypt had renounced violence.

Islamic Jihad's initial terrorist operation was the murder of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in October 1981. Sadat was ostensibly murdered because he had reneged on his promise to institute Sha'aria law, because he had made peace with Israel and because of his ties with the United States. In fact however, the assassination was to have been the prelude to an Islamic takeover of Egypt, just as previous attempts on the life of Gamal Abdel Nasser had attempted to achieve. The Egyptian police rounded up a great many leaders of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Gamaa al Islamiya including Ayman Zawahiri, Farraj, Colonel al Zuhour who apparently had plotted the takeover of the government, Khaled Istambouli who carried out the assassination and roughly 300 others. They were tried in civil and military courts. Farraj, al-Islambouli and his fellow assassins were executed in April 1982, while al-Zumor,

Ayman al-Zawahiri

Ayman al-Zawahiri and others were given lengthy prison sentences. However, al-Zawahiri won an appeal, and was released and subsequently traveled first to Saudi Arabia, and then to Peshawar Pakistan where he and Osama Bin Laden formed a dilletantish group of Arabs who more or less vicariously participated in the struggle against the Soviet backed government in Afghanistan. Zawahiri became actual leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (or "al Jihad") about 1991.
The Egyptian Islamic Jihad had a blind-cell structure, like that of the Leninist Communist party. Members in one cell did not know the identities or activities of those in another, so that if one member were captured they would not be able to endanger more than a few people. However, Egyptian police captured the membership director of EIJ. The database in his computer listed every member's address, aliases, and potential hideouts. Al-Jihad leader al-Zawahiri bitterly lamented "the government newspapers" elation over “the arrest of 800 members of the al-Jihad group without a single shot being fired."
-continues at the above link-

Islamic Jihad Terrorist Ayman Al-Zawahiri

In 1980, al-Zawahiri returned to Cairo where he began work as a recruiter for jihad. After Egypt's President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by a radical group in 1981, al-Zawahiri and other members of the Muslim Brotherhood were arrested. ^[4]. While in prison, he and his fellow jihad friends faced frequent torture under Egypt's inquisition, Intelligence Unit 75. Through interrogation and torture, al-Zawahiri gave information which led to the arrest of other members of the Muslim Brotherhood. In one instance, he was forced to call a suspected terrorist, who Zawari know closely, to tell him to meet him at a location, Egypt's security officials arrested the suspect at the location and placed him in the same prison cell as al-Zawahiri^[5]. Essam al-Qamari, the suspected terrorist and friend of al-Zawahiri, was sentenced to ten years in prison and later shot dead in an attempted escape.
After three years, al-Zawahiri was released from prison and traveled to Saudi Arabia and later to Jeddah, where he claims he first met Osama Bin Laden.^[6] In 1998, the two Jihad leaders announced the joining of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda to form the World Islamic Front for the Jihand Against Jews and Crusaders^[7]. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzaria were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both Ben Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation, the United States lunched cruise missiles, however, both terrorist leaders escaped.
Occasionally appearing on tapes claiming responsibility for attacks on the United States, al-Zawahiri has become the main spokesperson for the terrorist network. al-Zawahiri was sentenced to death by an Egyptian court in 1999 for his role in organizing variety terrorist attacks, and the United States State Department has offered a $25 million award for information leading to his apprehension after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon^[8]. Although information on his location is not well known, al-Zawahiri, who is fluent in English, is suspected of being located in Afghanistan after traveling around Europe looking for refugeCite error: Closing missing for tag.
On November 19, 2008, Al-Zawahiri released a video referring to President-elect Barack Obama as a 'house negro,' and stating that Obama was "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans."^[9]

Muslim Brotherhood ready to use Egyptian army to attack Israel

ArtCreative Design and Custom coding


Mohammed Ghanem one of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt called on his country to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army to wage war against Israel.In an interview on the Iranian television station al-Alam, Ghanem blamed Israel for supporting President Hosni Mubarak's regime but warned that neither the Egyptian police or army will be able to stop the Muslim Brotherhood.The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the country and criticized Mubarak in the latest parliamentary elections of rigging the votes. While they have not come out vocally in the recent wave of anti-government protests, many believe they are purposely maintain a low profile until the time is right to attempt to take over the government.

For ElBaradei the turnaround happened almost overnight. He was the Brotherhood's front man but...broke with them over the referendum. And now they want to break him.

via Barry Rubin

The only thing surprising to me is that the Islamists have been emboldened so fast. I thought they would be cautious a while longer in their pretense at being moderate and pro-democracy. But revolutionary Islamists quickly become arrogant when people make concessions to them and they conclude that they are strong and victorious. 

via oyetimes.com

and via mooserider123.blogspot.com
image via weaselzippers.us and via ns1763.ca
and via blogs.e-rockford.com

Japan Insults Islam

"Moderate" Qaradawi Defends Hitler and Nuclear Terror :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

http://www.investigativeproject.org/2315/moderate-qaradawi-defends-hitler-and...

During the past month, Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual guide to the Muslim Brotherhood, has called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons "to terrorize their enemies." He also boycotted an interfaith meeting with Jews on grounds he believes they support murdering Muslims in Palestine, and he additionally said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army.
This continues Qaradawi's long-established support of violent jihad. But despite this record, he has been embraced as a "moderate" Muslim by his defenders in the West and the Arab world. In a September interview, former London Mayor Ken Livingstone said "the fact that Sheikh Qaradawi has been banned [from Britain] is a disgrace; he is one of the leading progressive voices in the Muslim world." Livingstone blamed "a huge smear campaign organized by Zionists."
In America, John Esposito, a religious scholar who is close to the Brotherhood, has called Qaradawi a supporter of a "reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights." The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and prominent Islamists like Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, have expressed similar sentiments about Qaradawi.
Barrie Osborne, producer of Hollywood blockbusters like The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix, has hired Qaradawi as a consultant for a movie about the Prophet Mohammed. Last month, Qaradawi was given a medal for public service by King Abdullah of Jordan.
Qaradawi has won these awards despite a long record of anti-Semitism and advocating violence against purported enemies of islam. Consider the following examples:

• In an interview last month with Al-Jazeera's Arabic-language service, Qaradawi was asked if Muslims should try to get atomic weapons "to terrorize their enemies." Qaradawi replied that this goal would be permissible, saying he was "happy" to learn that Pakistan had such a nuclear weapon to defend itself. Qaradawi explained that that was the meaning of Koranic verses urging Muslims "to terrorize thereby the enemy of God and your enemy."

Support for Iran and Muslim rights to possess nuclear technology have been recurring themes for Qaradawi.
"It is obligatory on all Muslims to resist any possible attack the US might launch against Iran," Qaradawi said in a 2007 interview. "The U.S. is an enemy of Islam that has already declared war on Islam under the disguise of war on terrorism and provides Israel with unlimited support."
It was wrong to deny Iran the right to ostensibly peaceful nuclear technology so long as the United States and Israel had nuclear weapons, he said.

• Last month, Qaradawi boycotted the 8^th Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue conference in Qatar, saying he opposes discourse with Jews on principle.

"How can we conduct a dialogue in a time when they seize lands, shed blood, burn farms, and demolish houses? Palestine's conundrum has to be resolved first before we sit together at the same table," he said.
A source close to Qaradawi told the Egyptian newspaper al-Masry al-Youm that the imam does not oppose talking to Jews because of their religious affiliation, noting that he has met with representatives of the anti-Zionist Neturai Karta, an organization seen here attending a Holocaust-denial conference staged by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Neturai Karta are Jews who reject the principles of Zionism and the occupation of Muslim lands, although "the majority of Jews at present are with the actions of murder in Palestine," the source said in explaining Qaradawi's willingness to talk to the group.

• In a recorded address last month to a Hamas-organized parley in Gaza, Qaradawi said Palestinians must continue violence against Israel.

"Arms must not be laid down; he who wants freedom must pay the price. Independence is not given as alms," Qaradawi said. According to the Arabic-language newspaper al-Watan, Qaradawi stated: "We must irrigate [the] tree of freedom with our blood. We must not leave the Palestinians alone." Every Muslim "must play his part to help our brothers in Palestine until they obtain their rights," he said. "Not one inch of the Land of Islam must remain in the grasp of infidels and occupiers."

• In an interview with OnIslam.net last month, Qaradawi blamed "the Zionist media machine" for popular opposition to the location of the Ground Zero Mosque. Muslims in the U.S. and abroad also have voiced opposition to the plan.
• Qaradawi's website glorifies violence against Jews and against Palestinians deemed to be supporters of Israel. The front page links to a section entitled "Palestine under siege." At the top of the section is an entry from May 2002 showing the body of a "Palestinian collaborator with Israel" being dragged through the streets of Hebron. It consists of Koranic verses denouncing Muslims who work with "evil Jews" to betray Hamas and other "citizen resistance fighters."
• In a September speech reported by the Arabic-language website moheet.com, Qaradawi called jihad an Islamic moral duty and said Muslims are permitted to kill Israeli women because they serve in the army. He said the Prophet Mohammad's prohibition on killing the innocent did not apply to Israel because it is an invader and aggressor society which only knows how to violate the rights of others.
• In a February interview with BBC Arabic, Qaradawi affirmed his support for suicide bombings. "I supported martyrdom operations," he said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) . "This is a necessary thing, as I told them in London. Give the Palestinians tanks, airplanes, and missiles, and they won't carry out martyrdom operations. They are forced to turn themselves into human bombs, in order to defend their land, their honor, and their homeland."
• According to excerpts of a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera in January 2009, Qaradawi called on Muslims to put Jews in "their place" as Hitler had done, in revenge for Israeli military operations in Gaza several weeks earlier. "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption," he said. "The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers."
• At a January 2009 "Gaza Victory Rally" in Doha, Qatar, Qaradawi prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."
• In a January 2009 sermon broadcast on Al-Jazeera television, Qaradawi said Allah "will not allow these people [Jews] to continue to spread corruption in the land. We wait for the revenge of Allah to descend upon them, and Allah willing, it will be by our own hands: 'Fight them, Allah will torment them by your hands, and bring them to disgrace, and will assist you against them, and will heal the hearts of the believers, and you will still the anger of your hearts.' This is my message to the treacherous Jews." He went to urge Allah not to "spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

Qaradawi may hold more tolerant views on other issues. But when it comes to terrorism and anti-Semitism, his words and the consistency with which he offers them, speak for themselves.

Related Topics: Yusuf al-Qaradawi

via investigativeproject.org

liberal... like Robert Scoble... I get it now

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Obama's Fictitious so called Moderate Muslim Majority

I was just talking about Moderate Islam.... weren't you?

August 30, 2010 - Joel Gilbert
Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “story” as ‘an imaginary account of real people and events’ and ‘a yarn’. President Barack Obama has long dispensed the following fiction to Americans: the Muslim world is divided between “radicals” and “moderates.” Unfortunately, this narrative is at the forefront of US foreign policy, and its lack of basis in reality is leading to the failure of US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, while raising a false sense of security at home. President Obama’s “story”goes like this: adherents of Islam are comprised of two groups, "radical Muslims" and "moderate Muslims.” The "radical Muslims" believe in the use of violence, because they are “against freedom.” Fortunately, "radical Muslims" represent a very small minority, while the “vast majority” of Islam’s one billion Believers are "moderate Muslims.” According to President Obama, "moderate Muslims" and Americans have “shared values and common aspirations.” Obama also preaches that “moderate Muslims” wish to join America’s fight against “radical Muslims.” The President assures America that its human and material sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan will succeed due to the partnership with "moderate Muslims" in those countries. Meanwhile at home, "moderate Muslims" should make Americans feel safer, as “moderates” will report “radicals” to local authorities.
Television news provides daily graphic depictions of "radical Muslims." However, if they really exist, where are the "moderate Muslims" that President Obama speaks of so often? Americans are left to imagine what "moderate Muslims" look like, where they might be located, and whether they have organizations with websites they can visit. And, if there are "radical Muslims" and "moderate Muslims,” mustn’t there also be "liberal Muslims? Why doesn’t CNN cover those “liberal Muslim” pro-Israel street demonstrations?
In fact, there are no such groups as “radical Muslims” or “moderate Muslims.” These designations do not exist in the Islamic world. These terms were invented in recent times only because Islamic goals and values are not understood or shared by the West. From the very inception of Islam, the Christian West has had difficulty understanding Islam as a different religious phenomenon than Christianity. When Muslims conquered the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century, Christians referred to Muslims arriving from North Africa as “Moors.” Over the centuries, Spaniards continued to refer to Muslims as Moors, even if they were from India or Indonesia. In the rest of Europe, Muslims were referred to as “Turks,” after the group of central Asian nomadic invaders who converted to Islam and governed the Islamic Empire in the Middle Ages. In Asia minor, Christians referred to Muslims as “Tartars,” an ethnic name. When Europeans finally understood that Islam was not an ethnic group, they mistakenly perceived it in terms of a Western religious group. In the early 1900's, Europeans began referring to Islam as “Muhammadism,” and Muslims as “Muhammadans,” incorrectly assuming the Prophet Muhammad had the same role in Islam that Jesus did in Christianity. To this day, misunderstandings continue: Westerners describe the mosque as a “Muslim church,” equate the Muslim Friday to the Christian Sunday, refer to the Koran as the “Muslim Bible,” and believe sheiks to be “Muslim priests.”
Westerners also incorrectly group Muslims politically, using Western terms such as “moderate,” “conservative,” and “radical.” So different are Western and Muslim world views, that identical words can have two different meanings. In the West, “freedom” is the right of individuals to participate in the formation, conduct, and lawful removal of governments from power - the basis of constitutionalism and parliamentary government. For the Islamic world, “freedom” means “independence”from foreign rule, which they equate with “tyranny.” In the West, the opposite of tyranny is “freedom.” In Islam, the opposite of tyranny is “justice.” For Muslim thinkers, “justice” is the ideal, and justice distinguishes good leaders from bad leaders. For the majority of Muslims, bad leaders are those who have Western values and are allied with the West. The rise to power of Islamist political parties everywhere free elections are held in the Middle East speaks volumes.
Because the West considers its development of “separation of church and state” and "secularism" as the highest evolution of humanity, those not sharing Western values are dismissed as “radical,” or essentially “nuts.” Though lacking a shred of evidence, President Obama insists there exists a “vast majority” of “moderate Muslims” who do share Western values. After all, part of the “story” is that "radical Muslims" are just a small group of former "moderate Muslims" who have been "radicalized," as one can become a "radical Muslim" only through brainwashing.
A more accurate description of political loyalties in the Islamic world is that the majority of Muslims are either active or passive supporters of the movement of Islamism. The movement for Islamic Revival or “Islamism,” is an indigenous, grass-roots movement championed by both poor and educated Muslims throughout the Muslim world. "Islam is the solution!" is the Islamist call to action against Westernization and secular governments in the Muslim world, which provide the masses with little hope or future. Islamists do not consider themselves to be revolutionaries, in the sense of revolution changing society in a new way. Rather, Islamists strive to rebuild internally by applying traditional principles to reestablish the past strength and glory of Islam. A return to success necessitates the purification of Islamic society from secular government systems, legislation, and institutions borrowed from or imposed by the West. For Islamists, political upheaval, if needed by the sword, is a necessary part of the purification of their society, hundreds of years in the making. Islamism advocates the implementation of Shari’ah (Islamic law) and the restoration of the Koran as the sole authority for government in Muslim countries. Meanwhile, Western military presence in Muslim countries constitutes an affront to Islamists. Islamists believe that dominance by unbelievers is blasphemous, as it can lead to abasement of faith, immorality, and violations of Holy Law. Islamists view Israel as the center of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, whose purpose is to infiltrate Muslim countries, destroy Islamic values, and instill the germ of Westernization, with the ultimate goal of eradicating Islam. Despite wishful thinking in the West, Islamism is the only serious alternative to secular forms of government in the Middle East, and does represent the aspirations of the majority of Muslims across the Islamic world.
Discarding President Obama’s fictitious “story” of “moderate Muslims” and “radical Muslims,” the true reality emerges with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan: America has no real allies in these countries, and there is little or no support for secular, Western democracy. Following a US withdrawal, its only a matter of time before the US backed governments collapse and Islamist forces seize power, leaving the American public to ask “what happened to our allies, the moderate Muslim majority?” The answer is that this was only a “story,” a yarn composed by politicians due to their lack of understanding. This misunderstanding has been the basis of US foreign policy failures for years. Jimmy Carter was guilty of it when he withdrew support from America’s ally, The Shah of Iran, believing Western secular democracy would break out in Iran. Its the very same misunderstanding that led President Bush to believe that once the Taliban and later Saddam Hussein were toppled, that “moderate Muslims” in those countries would establish Western democracies. Yet the “story” continues with President Obama, that a “vast majority” of Muslims are “moderate Muslims,” and are America’s allies. Absent any evidence, this “story” should be relegated to Saturday morning cartoons where such imagination is not fatal.
© 2010 Joel Gilbert
Joel Gilbert is an Islamic history scholar and writer/director of two recent documentary feature films on the Middle East. His newest release is the award winning ATOMIC JIHAD: Ahmadinejad's Coming War for Islamic Revival and Obama's Politics of Defeat.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, then US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty with the Barbary Pirates based on Congress’ vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. ”...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise
Moderate Nazis, Moderate Islam, Moderate Hezbollah, Moderate Pedophiles

noahdavidsimon's posterous

The reality of violent religious extremism in our time « and why so called moderates are what define it

Naif Al-Mutawa wrote an essay for the Philadelphia Inquirer last year which is typical of such politically correct thinking.  The central point, in his essay, “The Many Shapes of Extremism”, was this:

“My intent was to advance the notion that extremism is nothing more than a bunch of neurotransmitters working overtime – or perhaps under time. It is not Islam or Judaism or Hinduism that creates extremism; rather, some people are predisposed to extremism and will pursue it in any faith.”

(Here’s a link to Al-Mutawa’s essay published elsewhere)
Al-Mutawa may be correct to some extent. I’m sure certain individuals are indeed naturally (even, perhaps, biologically) more predisposed to extremism than others, just like some people are more predisposed to abusing drugs or alcohol. But, as with alcohol abuse, we wouldn’t deny an element of choice involved in the behavior would we? Further, if certain cultures have a higher degree of alcoholism than other cultures it would be reasonable to ask why…what are the cultural and ethical norms that may contribute to this disparity. Naif Al-Mutawa refuses to acknowledge or address the fact that (while, again, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not extremists), violent extremist acts are, when motivated by religion, dramatically more likely to be carried out by Muslims than by non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.)
The point isn’t to prejudge or, in any way, demonize Muslims.  Rather, the point is that, as extremism in our day is to a large degree a radical Islamic phenomena, it is incumbant for the Muslim community to acknowledge this problem, figure out the religious/cultural factors influencing such aberrant behavior, and stop insisting (contrary to all the evidence) that other religions are also plagued with the same degree of extremism.  Ultimately, the moderate forces in their community must do ideological battle with the extremists in their midst – to win hearts and minds for a future Islam not compromised such extremism.
Here is my reply to Al-Mutawa, published by The Inquirer in their letter to the editor section:

“Naif Al-Mutawa’s op-ed (“The many shapes of extremism,” April 8) advances the erroneous notion that extremism is equally distributed among the three major faiths.While it is important to stress that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists, the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts – according to data published online by the National Counter-Terrorism Center – committed by those inspired by religion are indeed (Sunni) Muslim. While I understand that many well-meaning Americans would cringe at the suggestion that terrorists are far more likely to be Muslim than Jew, or Christian, the problem with extremism in our time is the radical, violent manifestations of specific faith traditions. Empirical data should never take a back seat to feel-good assumptions and platitudes. At stake isn’t merely the intrinsic value of truth and accuracy but, more specifically, the broader truism that we can’t rally the civilized world to win a war – militarily or morally – against an enemy that we’re not allowed to name.

Chart from the National Counter Terrorism Center (2009 Report on Terrorism)

As Herbert London of the Hudson Institute aptly pointed out in a recent post:

“People who know nothing about Islam agree that most Muslims do not commit violent or terrorist acts, therefore the religion is peaceful; but that is a classic non sequitur. Most Germans in the 1930′s did not embrace the excesses of Nazism. Most Chinese did not subscribe to the slaughter of millions during Mao’s Long March. Most Russians did not support Stalin’s purges.
“It usually takes a minority to start a revolution or “killing fields.” The key feature of radicalization in any religion or political movement is the silence, or presumptive acquiesce, of the majority, who is mainly moderate.
“The fact is that fanatics influence history more than moderates…
“The group that counts, the group that launches historical trends, is the extremist one that threatens everything we hold dear. To deny this is to deny a reality that allows fanatics to control our very existence.”
“It is, naturally, difficult to come to grips with this condition. The comforting notion that most Muslims are “just like us” will not fly when one considers who are those moving historical forces. What this adds up to may be difficult to contemplate, but it is better to confront that reality now than at a time when it is too late to resist.”

via cifwatch.com

There is no Moderate Islam if it can not counter so called Radical Islam.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

PA threatens Arabs who want real peace

Ami Isseroff has, pretty much single-handedly, written an encyclopedia of everything related to Israel and the Middle East conflict and put it on-line, along with news, a blog, and who knows what else. Although the sites are difficult to navigate, there is an enormous trove of information an reference material there.
Isseroff is a centrist. He wants a two-state solution. He desperately wants peace. He is in contact with the Palestinian Arab "peace camp."
Which is why his latest post is worth reading:

It hurts me to admit this. As a Zionist, I really wish that the much hoped-for peace was really just around the corner. I wish that Israel could give up a few square meters of real estate and obtain peace. I know it will not happen. I am compelled to admit that by every indication, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that begin this week will be a farcical charade. They cannot be saved by any amount of Israeli concessions. ...
One certain indication that the peace talks must fail is the flood of mail that I have gotten of late from Palestinian peace and dialog groups, and from every Palestinian or other Arab who ever spoke out for peace or sanity. They beg me to remove this or that article or section from a Web site where they are quoted as advocating peace with Israel or coexistence. They say - not for publication - that they are subject to a reign of terror: Emails; Hints; Phone calls in the night; Officials of the '"clean-as-a-whistle" "moderate" "not-like-Arafat" Palestinian National Authority telling them they had better toe the line - or it will be bad for their organization or their personal health.
My Palestinian and Arab friends and others who have asked me to remove their Web pages and demanded that I be silent about it, can be thankful that I do not follow their wishes: Speaking out is the only way to expose state terror. My advice to all those who are threatened is to speak out, loud and clear. But it is their decision. I will not name names. I can only decide what is right for myself.
Everyone who is in any way active in peace and dialog has to have heard echoes of the whisper campaign. The Palestinian youth orchestra that was dismantled because it played for Israeli Holocaust survivors, the One Voice event that was canceled because of death threats, are public manifestations of the same terror. All this happened not in Hamas - ruled Gaza, but, embarrassingly, in the West Bank, ruled by the "moderate" Fatah and the Palestinian National Authority, Israel's "peace partners." The people who are terrorized into begging me to remove their names, their articles and their organizations from any Web site that has the remotest connection with Israel, all are from the West Bank, the land of the Palestinian National Authority, not Gaza. Think about what this means.

This is one of the most under-reported stories out there. The PA is not close to moderate by any objective measure - in fact, they are far more intransigent than any Israeli government in history. Yet the media chooses to highlight how "moderate" they are  in order to fulfill what they believe is a greater good of promoting a mythical "peace." The result is that stories like these are ignored or minimized, and the PA is presented as a moderate government in opposition to the right-wing, hard-line Likud.
Centrist Zionists know the facts, and they yearn for a two-state solution anyway. Yet they are not willing to give up anything close to what the PA is demanding, knowing that on the ground, such concessions would lead to disaster. These simple facts are not reported at all.
Peace - real peace - cannot be built on lies and obfuscation. The ugly reality of the so-called "moderates" of Fatah and the PA needs to be exposed. When the media doesn't do its job, it is not serving the cause of peace - it is instead endangering many, many lives.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

I just tried to friend this guy on facebook. I feared before that he was in cloud nine. Obviously he is coming to a reality that those of us who are less educated understood the whole time. The only Moderates are Jews.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

How Islamists Turned the World Upside Down

A briefing by Melanie Phillips
Formerly a writer for the U.K.'s Guardian, Melanie Phillips is a journalist for the Daily Mail, author of the best-selling Londonistan, and a recipient of the Orwell Prize (1996). On May 10, she addressed the Middle East Forum in New York on the subject of her latest book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

"Asked about whether there were any moderate Muslim leaders, Ms. Phillips answered in the negative. Nonetheless, there are many moderate Muslims who want to live lives "like the rest of us," but who have been betrayed by their community leaders who often have an Islamist agenda as well as Western politicians who appease these radicals. She added that if moderate Muslims can assert themselves with support from the West, they stand a chance of becoming the dominant force in the Muslim world."

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Detoxifying Islamists

someone get me a rock and tree to hide behind.... 

Haras Rafiq is a director of CENTRI, an organization focused on countering extremism at the operational level. A regular commentator appearing in mainstream media, Mr. Rafiq is also co-founder of the Sufi Muslim Council and has been a "cultural ambassador" for the UK government's Projecting British Islam initiative. On January 27, Mr. Rafiq addressed the Middle East Forum via conference call on the subject of de-radicalization.

When his six-year old daughter announced that she no longer wanted to be Muslim because "Muslims are always angry"—she had seen images of Muslims burning effigies of Tony Blair and George Bush—Mr. Rafiq decided to devote himself to counter-extremism.

His work has led him to conclude that the radicalization process involves four stages: 1) A sense of perceived vulnerability owing to a personal crisis; 2) Exposure to a particular worldview (in this case, Islamism) purporting to offer solutions to such crises; 3) Exposure to extremists who further exploit this sense of vulnerability; 4) Internalization of violent values.

Moreover and contrary to common opinion, the initial personal crisis is rarely due to economic or social dislocation. Mr. Rafiq pointed out that many jihadists come from middle-class backgrounds, were well integrated in the West, and have had some sort of higher education.

Next, Mr. Rafiq discussed his de-radicalization programs, which include the promotion of critical thinking skills, "moderate Shari'a rationale," separation of religion and politics, inter-cultural activities, and a close dissection of those Qur'anic verses and hadiths that are often cited by extremists to further their agenda.

Asked why imams are reluctant to criticize jihadist recruitment activities, Mr. Rafiq replied that, although there are individuals, such as Sheikh Kabbani in the U.S., who speak out against jihadists, many are silent out of fear and intimidation, especially vis-à-vis the doctrine of "loyalty and enmity." Mr. Rafiq further affirmed that many mosques in the West are being funded and run by extremists, and not enough pressure is being put on Muslim leaders such as King Abdullah to allow for a "free market" of ideas. He added that all this is further exacerbated by taqiyya, or doctrinal deceit, which permits Islamists to dissemble their true beliefs.

Finally, asked whether Islam is inherently problematic, Mr. Rafiq responded in the negative, laying the blame on the contemporary ideology of Islamism, and the fact that most of the literature on Islam disseminated in mosques has been sponsored by extremists. According to him, "traditional, classical Islam" is in-and-of-itself not a problem.

Summary written by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

A briefing by Haras Rafiq
January 27, 2010 (initial post)

http://www.meforum.org/2584/detoxifying-islamists