CONTRA EL PINGALISMO CASTRISTA/
"Se que no existe el consuelo
que no existe
la anhelada tierrra de mis suenos
ni la desgarrada vision de nuestros heroes.
Pero
te seguimos buscando, patria,..." - Reinaldo Arenas
America’s top spy needs to be a steely-eyed realist, sensitive to emerging threats and keen about our foes’ intent to deceive us.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, has shown a tendency to fall for the bait from radical Islamists. Globally, he repeatedly expressed a hope that “moderates” within Iran and its terror proxy Hizballah would steer their respective constituencies away from terrorism.
Domestically, he claims that radical Islam does not pose its own, unique threat to American security. He has helped strip language about “radical Islam,” “jihad,” and similar terms from government vernacular, choosing instead to refer to “violent extremism” in an attempt to deny terrorists religious credibility. When it comes to jihad, he stubbornly maintains the word does not belong in conversations about terror, no matter what terrorists themselves say.
Likewise, he also yielded to demands from American Islamists to purge law enforcement and intelligence training material of the terms “jihad” and “radical Islam.”
Despite these positions, some American Islamists still oppose Brennan’s nomination because he is considered the architect of the drone program which has killed scores of al-Qaida terrorists.
That should tell him something. But there is little in Brennan’s record to indicate he’ll learn from the experience.
Brennan Promotes Iran-Hizballah Outreach
Brennan’s complacency regarding the jihad threat was made clear in May 2010, when he expressed a desire to encourage “moderate elements” of Hizballah, which is a State Department-designated terrorist organization.
“There is certainly the elements of Hizballah that are truly a concern to us what they're doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements,” a Reuters report quoted Brennan saying.
He did not explain where such elements could be found, how they could be identified, or what separated them from the Hizballah “extremists.”
That was just the latest in a series of similar statements Brennan has made about Hizballah, the group which ranks second only to al-Qaida in killing Americans in terrorist attacks. The Iranian-founded and funded group “started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time,” Brennan said in an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.
“However, within Hezbollah, there's still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large -- they're going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they're trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon. And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion.”
In a paper published a year earlier, Brennan called on U.S. officials to “cease public Iran-bashing,” and recommended that the U.S. “tolerate, and even… encourage, greater assimilation of Hizballah into Lebanon’s political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence.”
This political involvement is a far cry from Hizballah’s genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence. Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hizballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization.
The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization – as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hizballah primarily as a pawn of Tehran – is to increase Hizballah's stake in Lebanon’s struggling democratic processes.
The record since then could not be further from Brennan’s idealistic hopes. Four Hizballah members have been indicted by an international tribunal in connection with the 2005 car-bomb assassination of Lebanon’s President Rafiq Hariri. Hizballah has helped Iran send fighters and advisers into Syria to try to aid dictator Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless assault on his own people. A new report finds Hizballah, working with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is responsible for a wave of terrorist plots throughout the world. Any move away from violence may have been a strategic lull aimed at avoiding being “caught in the crosshairs of Washington’s ‘war on terror.’”
That lull appears to be over, the report finds.
Brennan’s analysis also was refuted by a senior Hizballah leader. Engaging in Lebanese parliamentary politics does not make Hizballah moderate and Hizballah politicians are still part of the mother ship.
“The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions,” Naim Qassem, a deputy to Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah, told the Los Angeles Times.
The retired Israeli Brigadier General Shimon Shapira observed: “Hizbullah’s own analysis of itself contradicts what Brennan has been writing and stating in recent years.
“Today, saying that Hizbullah has moderate elements that have moved away from terrorism can lead the political echelons in the West to ignore how Hizbullah is serving its Iranian sponsors by directly threatening Israel’s civilian population. On May 20, 2010, Hizbullah military sources boasted to the Kuwaiti daily al-Rai that Israel will be bombarded with 15 tons of explosives a day if a future war breaks out. Hizbullah clearly does not care about the implications of its military build-up for the people of Lebanon, because it only seeks to serve the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
In his 2008 paper, Brennan also advocated direct engagement with Iran despite its well-earned reputation as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. He minimized the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and blamed American rhetoric as “brash labeling” for hardening Tehran’s position toward the United States. Brennan’s recommendations assumed Iranian interest in backing away from terrorism and a nuclear bomb.
A presidential envoy – Brennan suggested Colin Powell – would allow the United States to persuade Iran to behave more responsibly and peacefully and rein in its terrorist proxies, Brennan wrote.
“Initially, Washington should press Iranian officials to cease their vitriolic anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric and to condemn publicly acts of violence that clearly are terrorism. Iran can also take some more tangible steps. For example, Iranian financial and military support to Hezbollah gives Tehran significant leverage over its Lebanese ally, and Iran has the ability to direct Hezbollah to refrain from carrying out any attacks against civilian targets, such as settlements in northern Israel,” he wrote.
History again proved Brennan’s assumption wrong. While there is still talk of direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, four years of tempered rhetoric and invitations for negotiation have done nothing to slow Iran’s march toward the bomb.
Brennan Lets Radical Islamists Dictate Policy
During his time as a White House adviser, Brennan displayed a disturbing tendency to engage with Islamist groups which often are hostile to American anti-terrorism policies at home and abroad. Those meetings confer legitimacy upon the groups as representatives of all Muslim Americans, despite research indicating that the community is far too diverse to have anyone represent its concerns.
Organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the talk became an outlet for Brennan’s argument that terrorists benefit from being identified by religious terms, including “jihadist.” In doing so, Brennan waded into theological revisionism by denying the Quranic foundation exists, even though jihadists routinely cite chapter and verse.
“As Muslims you have seen a small fringe of fanatics who cloak themselves in religion, try to distort your faith, though they are clearly ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam. Instead of creating, they destroy – bombing mosques, schools and hospitals. They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said. “We're trying to be very careful and precise in our use of language, because I think the language we use and the images we project really do have resonance. It's the reason why I don't use the term jihadist to refer to terrorists. It gives them the religious legitimacy they so desperately seek, but I ain't gonna give it to them.”
Like his positions on Iran and Hizballah, Brennan’s views about using religious references like “jihad” have been uttered repeatedly and consistently. “President Obama [does not] see this challenge as a fight against jihadists. Describing terrorists in this way, using the legitimate term ‘jihad,’ which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve,” Brennan said in an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
“Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said.
Brennan’s interpretation of jihad stands in stark contrast with how the term has been consistently understood, especially by the intellectual founders of the global Islamist movement.
Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose ideas have influenced all subsequent Islamic extremists including Hamas and Al-Qaida, rejected the definition of jihad that Brennan suggests is correct.
In a pamphlet titled “Jihad,” al-Banna wrote: “Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one's ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: ‘We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad.’ They said: ‘What is the greater jihad?’ He said: ‘The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one's ego. This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah's way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition…”
Sayyid Qutb, al-Banna’s successor in defining Islamist thought, clearly endorsed the idea of violent jihad, suggesting that it should not be fought merely in a defensive manner.
“Anyone who understands this particular character of this religion will also understand the place of Jihaad bis saif (striving through fighting), which is to clear the way for striving through preaching in the application of the Islamic movement. He will understand that Islam is not a 'defensive movement' in the narrow sense which today is technically called a 'defensive war.' This narrow meaning is ascribed to it by those who are under the pressure of circumstances and are defeated by the wily attacks of the orientalists, who distort the concept of Islamic Jihaad,” Qutb wrote in his book Milestones. “It was a movement to wipe out tyranny and to introduce true freedom to mankind, using resources according to the actual human situation, and it had definite stages, for each of which it utilized new methods.”
Even Brennan’s NYU host advocated violent jihad. A December 1986 article appearing in ISNA’s official magazine Islamic Horizons notes that “jihad of the sword is the actual taking up of arms against the evil situation with the intention of changing it,” that “anyone killed in jihad is rewarded with Paradise,” and that “a believer who participates in jihad is superior to a believer who does not.”
Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the senior Muslim Brotherhood imam who the Obama administration reportedly has used in its negotiations with the Taliban, connects jihad with fighting in his book Fiqh of Jihad. In it, he says that Muslims may engage in violent jihad in the event Muslim lands are threatened by or occupied by non-Muslims as he contends is the case with Israel.
These Brotherhood treatises are relevant because Brennan’s host, ISNA, was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, some of whom remain active with the organization. And, although it denied any Brotherhood connection in 2007, exhibits in evidence in a Hamas-support trial show ISNA’s “intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.” In addition, the federal judge in the case found “ample evidence” connecting ISNA to Muslim Brotherhood operations known as the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and Hamas.
ISNA has sought to publicly moderate its image, yet it has kept radicals such as Jamal Badawi on its board of directors and granted a 2008 community-service award to Jamal Barzinji, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, as well as a former ISNA board member.
Badawi has defended violent jihad including suicide bombings and has suggested that Islam is superior to secular democracy. Barzinji was named in a federal affidavit as being closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
At the NYU event, Brennan was introduced by then-ISNA President Ingrid Mattson, who made Qutb’s writings required reading in a course she taught. Mattson has advocated against using terms like “Islamic terrorism” since the earliest days after 9/11. During his speech, Brennan praised Mattson as “an academic whose research continues the rich tradition of Islamic scholarship and as the President of the Islamic Society of North America, where you have been a voice for the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.”
Brennan met privately around the time of the NYU speech with another advocate of ignoring the Islamic motivation driving many terrorists. Both Salam al-Marayati and his organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have long records of defending suspected terrorists and terror supporters and of arguing the terrorist threat in America is exaggerated.
During a 2005 ISNA conference, al-Marayati blasted the idea that Muslims would be used as informants to thwart possible terrorist plots. "Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us. We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country,” he said. “So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another."
The White House invited al-Marayati to attend the NYU speech despite his prior comments suggesting Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, condemning the FBI’s use of informants in counter-terror investigations, and his argument that Hizballah engages in “legitimate resistance.”
After the meeting, MPAC claimed credit for the administration’s policy of sugar-coating terrorist motives. “Mr. Brennan made two important points in his address that signified the importance of MPAC’s government engagement over the last 15 years in Washington,” an MPAC statement said. Among them, “He rejected the label of ‘jihadist’ to describe terrorists, because it legitimates violent extremism with religious validation, a point MPAC made in its 2003 policy paper on counterterrorism.”
Terrorists Disagree
While Brennan and his associates like Mattson and al-Marayati may wish to disconnect terrorism from religion, this strategy has proven meaningless among those who plot attacks against Americans. Many describe acting out of a belief that America is at war with Islam. Asserting that religious motivation doesn’t exist does nothing to lessen the threat.
When Army Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo’s mother asked her son what would drive him to plot a bombing and shooting attack on a restaurant that serves personnel at Fort Hood, Tex., his answer was succinct.
Similarly, would-be bombers Faisal Shahzad and Farooque Ahmed justified their attempts to blow people up in New York and Washington as part of a war, a jihad, they felt compelled to join.
"This time it's the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah," Shahzad said at his October 2010 sentencing for trying to detonate a car-bomb in Times Square. "So let's see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never do. Therefore, the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah [God willing], which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order."
Ahmed, who scouted subway stations along the Washington, D.C. Metro line in hopes of aiding a bombing plot, acted in response to "an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam," his lawyer said at Ahmed’s April 2011 sentencing, "that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action… that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don't do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith."
Brennan grew prickly when challenged on this view of jihad. The Washington Times editorial board pressed him about the role of armed jihad in history during an Aug. 23, 2010 interview. After acknowledging that history – “Absolutely it has” happened – Brennan tried to deflect the question, saying “I’m not going to go into this sort of history discussion here.”
He cut the interview short and walked out after the editorial board pressed the point, asking Brennan to distinguish between those historical armed jihads and al-Qaida’s current jihad.
Brennan further displayed his eagerness to kowtow to Islamist demands in the fall of 2011. After a small number of materials in FBI training manuals and libraries were found to be excessively negative in describing Islam as a religion and Muslims as a people, Islamist groups demanded a purge of anything they considered offensive.
An Oct. 19, 2011 letter to Brennan written by Muslim Advocates Executive Director Farhana Khera and signed by 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations demanded that Brennan create “an interagency task force, led by the White House,” that would, among other things, review all counterterror trainers, so as to purge those that the Muslim organizations, which included many with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood ties, found unacceptable. The task force would also “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and more to ensure that only the message about Islam and jihad preferred by the signatories would get through to intelligence and law enforcement agents.
Brennan readily agreed, promising in a November 3, 2011 response to Khera written on White House stationery obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, that such an interagency task force was indeed “necessary,” and agreeing to purge training programs of all materials that the Muslim groups found objectionable.
To this day, officials have declined to identify those with whom they consulted in identifying the material to be removed. During an April 2012 talk at the New York Police Department, Brennan refused to answer when asked specifically whether Muslim Advocates was among those consulted.
“Now I’m not going to, you know, take on any individuals or claim or charge on this. But I just want to underscore that at least from the national government perspective and all my discussions with Commissioner Kelly and others, there is a real interest in trying to make sure that all of the different communities of different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, political affiliations, have an opportunity to express themselves, so that we are able to do this,” he said. “When we talk about, you mentioned about, you know, Muslim Advocates… obviously al-Qaeda, which is, purports to be an Islamic organization, is anything but; it’s a murderous organization. They certainly misrepresent what they stand for. But we need to make sure that we’re able to talk with the Muslim community here in the United States. The Muslim community is as much a part of the United States as any other community of any religious background. The Muslim community is part of the solution on terrorism, not part of the problem. We need to make sure that we have all the expertise, the representation and the perspective, so that we can bring it to bear.”
But in his letter to Khera, Brennan acquiesced to virtually every demand.
“We share your sense of concern over these recent unfortunate incidents, and are moving forward to ensure problems are addressed with a keen sense of urgency,” he wrote. “They do not reflect the vision that the President has put forward, nor do they represent the kind of approach that builds the partnerships that are necessary to counter violent extremism, and to protect our young people and our homeland. American’s greatest strength is its values, and we are committed to pursuing policies and approaches that draw strength from our values and our people irrespective of their race, religion or ethnic background.
"While much work remains, I am confident that concrete actions are being taken to address the valid concerns you raised. Thank you again for your letter and for your leadership in addressing an isue that is crticial to ensuring the security of the United States.”
Denies Religious Dogma Entices Terrorists
In addition to purging training material at the behest of Islamist groups, Brennan’s theories about what drives people to plot terrorist acts betrays a further desire to conceal religious dogma. Economic conditions, more than religious beliefs, account for the draw of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, he has said.
“This includes those upstream factors – the political and economic causes and conditions that help to fuel hatred and violence, including loss of faith in political systems to improve daily life and the vulnerability of young minds to predators like gangs and terrorist recruiters,” Brennan said during his NYU speech. “And while poverty and lack of opportunity do not cause terrorism, it is obvious that the lack of education, of basic human services and hope for the future make vulnerable populations more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death.”
That may be true in some cases. But numerous examples expose this as a misguided stereotype. And terrorist leaders – those who recruit terrorist operatives – hail from professional classes. Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is a physician. So was Palestinian Islamic Jihad founder Fathi Shikaki. Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook has a master’s degree and pursued a PhD. Would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad had a steady job and a decent wage. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were middle class or affluent. The Times of London observed in an April 3, 2005 article that a large percentage of 500 al-Qaida members had discovered that an overwhelming percentage came from middle class or affluent backgrounds.
Scholar Daniel Pipes reached a similar conclusion in a Winter 2002 article examining militants held in Egyptian jails.
“What is true of Egypt holds equally true elsewhere: Like fascism and Marxism-Leninism in their heydays, militant Islam attracts highly competent, motivated and ambitious individuals. Far from being the laggards of society, they are its leaders,” Pipes wrote.
INTERPOL similarly warned in a Sept. 21, 2010 press release that the proliferation of extremist websites showed that al-Qaida recruiters were deliberately targeting middle-class youth.
“Speaking at the two-day International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) summit (21-22 September) in Paris… INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said that terrorist recruiters exploited the web to their full advantage as they targeted young, middle class vulnerable individuals who were usually not ‘on the radar of law enforcement,’” the INTERPOL press release said.
Al-Qaida publications such as Inspire magazine, along with its other media, make it clear that its followers are driven by religious zeal rather than by economics. Its slick, glossy production and the content of its articles appealed to educated people with access to at least some money. "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" is a notorious example.
Fawwaz bin Muhammad Al-Nashami, leader of the jihadists who killed 22 people in a 1994 attack on Americans in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, invoked Islam’s prophet: “We are Mujahideen, and we want the Americans. We have not come to aim a weapon at the Muslims, but to purge the Arabian Peninsula, according to the will of our Prophet Muhammad, of the infidels and the polytheists who are killing our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq. “
John Brennan’s recipe for fighting terror seems to cast these motivations aside. That’s the mindset poised to direct American intelligence gathering for the next four years.
No longer content with preaching Sharia in the mosque, some British Muslims are now attempting to impose Islamic law on the streets. In videos posted on YouTube, self-described “Muslim patrols” have filmed themselves berating young women for being inappropriately dressed, seizing cans of beer from men, and burning posters advertising women’s underwear.
In another video, a mob pursues a man they suspect of being gay down a street, calling him a “fag” and telling him to get out of their “Muslim area.”
The videos are the latest example of how many Muslims — particularly young men — are not just failing to integrate into British society, but are becoming increasingly open in their hostility to it. It’s more evidence, if any more were needed, of the disastrous legacy of the policies of mass immigration and multiculturalism inflicted on Britain by Tony Blair’s “New Labour” government.
Only the worst excesses — such as the vigilante videos and the case last year of a Muslim gang that raped and abused vulnerable white girls — get widespread media attention. But national and local media regularly carry stories of less sensational yet alarming incidents. Even these are only the tip of the iceberg; the failure of multiculturalism is manifested in countless minor incidents in cities across Britain every day.
Typical of such incidents is what my partner experienced recently when walking through an ethnically mixed area of a city that is home to large numbers of Somali refugees. She had to run a gauntlet of hissing, spitting, and hostile comments from Somali men. The Somali women, meanwhile, turned their backs on her. Such insidious, low-level incidents go largely unremarked upon, but are the source of growing tensions.
The encounters captured in those videos show a new development. In the past, the worst excesses of Muslim extremism have been perpetrated in the shadows. The victims were mostly either young girls from poor white communities — as in the “grooming” incident — or other Muslims who are the victims of abuses ranging from being denied an education to female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and “honor” attacks which in some cases result in murder. But the people being harassed and threatened in the videos are random passers-by. Many of them will be young, liberal-minded urban dwellers who fancy themselves as sophisticated and tolerant types and who desire living in culturally mixed communities.
Increasingly, Islamists are coming into conflict with the very people who have been most eager to embrace liberal thinking on immigration, political correctness, and “diversity.” Multiculturalism has been a warmly satisfying and largely consequence-free indulgence for white liberals. It allowed them to flaunt their moral superiority over “racist” conservatives (an advisor to the Blair government has admitted that Labour’s immigration policy was a political project intended to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”). It also served to alleviate their guilt over past actual sins, such as the slave trade, and to present imagined ones, such as “globalization.”
Labour’s lax attitude to immigration had distinct material benefits for the liberal elites. It ensured plentiful supply of cheap nannies, exotic food stores, and hip ethnic restaurants, while those who could afford to were able to keep a safe distance from the squalor and criminal activity of the slum areas that mass immigration helped create.
Non-Muslim Muslims, or as some call them “Moderate Muslims,” give the Jihadist enemy cover. They’re pointed to as “proof” that violence has nothing to do with Islam when, in fact, non-violent Muslims are reluctant Muslims. And they’re the reason we’re playing a game of Muslim Roulette in the middle of the Muslim world’s jihad on us. While we’d like to discriminate between “moderate Muslims,” “extremist Muslims,” etc., Muslims see us as Infidels, period. Not moderate Infidels, extremist infidels, etc., but simply Infidels.
Since 9/11 – a day that FAR too many Muslims celebrated – we’ve been expected to treat Muslims as if they’re not only above reproach, but as if it’s racist or “Islamophobic” to consider for an instant that any Muslim might be up to no good; that they’re All innocent no matter how many of them have been proven guilty of engaging in or supporting jihad.
When our government bureaucrats tell us “If you see something, say something,” they rely on us to be the ones to decide what that means, in order to protect themselves from accusations of “Islamophobia.” Islam is an ideology, not a race, so what we’re supposed to be looking for gets very complicated, since, in addition to Arab Muslims, there are white, black, Hispanic, female, blond-haired, red-haired, and blue-eyed Muslims as well. This is not a call to condemn all those who call themselves Muslims, it’s just a reminder that we need to be better able to detect killer Muslims before they kill. And that’s the job our government should be engaged in — not protecting Muslim feelings, but protecting American lives.
There’s been a lot of discussion within some in the media regarding
the demographic changes taking place in Europe. But those of us who’ve
travelled there have observed it firsthand: namely, the decreased
birthrate among Europeans compared to the enormous birthrate increase
among Muslim immigrants.
Overall, the birthrate across the continent is far below the replacement
level of 2.1 children per couple. Italy, Spain, Austria, and Germany
have a fertility rate of only 1.4, while Poland and Russia languish at
1.3 and 1.2, respectively.
However, as a subgroup, Muslims in Europe are producing from 4 to 6
children per couple. Encouraged by some sheiks in Muslim countries who
have forbidden the use of birth control, Muslim immigrants are producing
children at two to three times the rate of Europeans.
Even Muslims in Europe who came from more westernized Islamic countries,
like Turkey and Tunisia, have twice the birthrate of other Europeans.
And the rate among their second generations is holding to that factor.
There are many projections as to when the Muslim population will gain a
majority in Europe. Some say it could be as soon as 2025. Others as late
as 2050.
Regardless of when Muslims become the majority in Europe, that turning
point will present one of the greatest ironies in 1,400 years of
European history.
Ever since Islamic expansion under Caliphates Umar and Usman, Muslims
have tried again and again to invade and defeat Europe. But they failed.
The Ottomans got the closest; in fact, as close as Austria. But
ultimately, that attempt and all others were unsuccessful. Until now. As
Sheik Yousef Quardawi has been quoted to have said: “What our forbears
failed to do by the sword, this generation is accomplishing through
legitimate birthright, immigration, and petro-dollars.”
It’s impossible to predict whether radicals or more westernized elements
will dominate the coming generation of majority Muslims. Certainly the
current push for Sharia implementation in many European countries,
including England, presents a foreboding omen.
That news doesn’t bode well for atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists. At least Christians and Jews will be treated as demis, or second-class citizens. But the Sharia will have no such leniency for out and out non-believers.
What will happen to the gospel of “tolerance” that secular forces preach
today? Although purveyors of that gospel are, in reality, the most
intolerant of all, that won’t matter. “Tolerance” is used to give
Islamists a foothold in the West, and then the proselytizers of that
gospel will be swept into the dustbin of Islamic intolerance.
As a believer whose permanent home is in Heaven with Christ, I grieve
over those who are being led away from His incredible love. Jesus is
reaching out to them through Christian believers; He longs for them to
turn to Him before it is too late.
I grieve for them, but I will not give up praying for them.
The man known as the "American Taliban" won a legal fight that will allow him and fellow Muslim inmates to gather for daily prayers.
A federal judge ruled Friday that the warden at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, was violating John Walker Lindh's rights by not allowing the religious activities.
Lindh argued that before 2007 Muslim prisoners were allowed to pray together for at least three of Islam's five daily prayers. Since then, with the exception of the holy month of Ramadan, the Muslim prisoners are allowed to gather only once a week.
The unit Lindh is housed in has 55 cells, and the majority of the prisoners are Muslim, according to court documents.
By not allowing group prayer, while at the same time allowing other group activities such as board games, the warden was violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson found.
The law was designed to protect freedom of religion in prison, where policies can place burdens on such rights.
The judge ordered an injunction "prohibiting the warden from enforcing the policy against daily congregate prayer for Muslims, including Mr. Lindh, for whom daily congregate prayer is a sincerely held religious belief," the court order states.
Already, prisoners are allowed to gather in the unit's multi-purpose room to listen or watch recording of Quran verses. Allowing them to pray is not significantly different from this and should be allowed, the judge ruled.
Lindh, who was born in California, converted to Islam as a teenager.
He traveled to Afghanistan in 2001 and attended a terror training camp where he was introduced to Osama bin Laden.
Lindh was captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance on November 25, 2001, and imprisoned in a compound in Mazar-e-Sharif, where he was questioned by CIA agent Johnny Michael Spann, who was killed in an uprising at the compound a short time later.
As part of a deal, Lindh pleaded guilty to supplying services to the Taliban and carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony. His family filed a petition for clemency to commute the 20-year sentence, a request that was denied by President George W. Bush in one of his final acts in office.
CNN's Chelsea J. Carter contributed to this report.
This
is the sharia you are now seeing on billboards all over America,
telling people that sharia is totally compatible with our
Constitutional laws. This is the sharia for which CAIR is spending
millions of dollars in court battles against U.S. legislators trying to
have it banned in their states. This is the sharia CAIR never talks
about in court, because this is the sharia that comes later.
Observers.france24
On January 1, Islamic extremists from the Movement for Unity and Jihad
in West Africa (MUJAO) in Gao broadcast footage they had filmed of two
men punished according to the movement’s strict interpretation of Sharia
law. One man had his hand amputated, the other was flogged. Our
Observer witnessed a similar occurrence just a week earlier.
According to the video, the first man
punished by the Islamic extremist group was accused of stealing from
“three stores and one woman”. The group claims his name is Argu Ma’isa,
that he is a repeat offender, and that he has admitted to his
wrongdoings. Accordingly, the men on the video explain, “we will cut his
hand off in front of the public”. They proceed to amputate his hand
with a knife.
These events happened last week. The
video was uploaded on the YouTube channel of a Jihadist group that is
calling itself the “as-Asab foundation for media production”. The
propaganda video is interspersed with verses from the Koran and calls
for Jihad.
A summary of polls about the ideological makeup of the Muslim-American community shows that the majority is moderate, but there is a formidable minority influenced by Islamist doctrine. A significant number are refusing to give answers or are still figuring out where they stand on issues like terrorism and Sharia Law.
The number one question is how many Muslim-Americans support terrorism. A 2011 Pew poll found very little support for Al-Qaeda, with only 2% viewing the terrorist group very favorably, 3% somewhat favorably and 11% somewhat unfavorably. About 70% view Al-Qaeda very unfavorably, an increase of 12% since 2007.
There are 2.6 million Muslim-Americans, a number that is expected to rise to 6.2 million by 2030. This means there are 130,000 Muslim-Americans who will admit that they view Al-Qaeda favorably and that assumes there are no supporters among the 14% who did not answer the question. Plus, the survey did not poll support for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups.
Only 1% of Muslim-Americans say violence against civilians to defend Islam is “often” justified. About 7% say it is sometimes justified and 5% say it is rarely justified. Approximately 81% say attacks on civilians are never justified. Of course, the definition of “civilian” varies. Hamas supporters, for example, argue that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian. The survey did not poll support for attacks on soldiers.
The 2007 Pew poll found that about 49% feel mosques should stay out of politics and about the same amount feel the Koran should not be taken entirely literally. The survey concluded that Muslim immigrants are more moderate on this issue than those who were born here.
“Native-born Muslims express overwhelming support for the notion that mosques should express their views on social and political matters. By contrast, a large majority of foreign-born Muslims—many of whom are from countries where religion and politics are often closely intertwined—say that mosques should be kept out of political matters,” the report said.
Perhaps the most surprising findings were related to social issues. The Pew 2011 poll shows that 39% feel that homosexuality should be accepted by society, an increase of 12% from 2007. On the issue of multiple wives, a Wenzel Strategies poll released in October found 22% support allowing polygamy.
The findings related to Sharia Law and specific elements of Islamist doctrine were less comforting.
The Wenzel poll found that almost 40% strongly or somewhat agree that Sharia Law should be the supreme law of the country. A slight majority oppose that proposition, with 35% strongly disagreeing and 18% somewhat disagreeing. However, when presented with a more refined question about what to do if Sharia conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, 70% would follow the Constitution and only 9% would follow Sharia Law. About 21% were undecided.
There is high support for restricting freedom of speech in compliance with Sharia Law.
About 59% feel that criticism of Islam or its founder is not permitted under the First Amendment. Only 41% disagreed. Shockingly, 52% strongly or somewhat support criminal charges against those that criticize or parody Islam, while 33% oppose it. Nearly 15% strongly or somewhat support executing critics of their religion. About 70% strongly oppose it and around 11% only somewhat oppose it.
Only about 30% believe that Americans have the right to encourage Muslims to leave their faith. Around 45% disagree. Note that this question isn’t about whether people should proselytize to Muslims. It’s about whether doing so is a constitutional right.
The polls indicate that the Muslim-American community is more moderate than its counterparts overseas on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A 2011 Gallup poll found that over 80% support a two-state solution. However, the 2011 Pew poll shows only 61% believe a two-state solution that respects the rights of Palestinians is possible. About 20% feel it is impossible, matching Gallup’s result.
The Wenzel poll directly asked Muslim-Americans whether Israel has a right to exist. About 46% strongly agreed that it does and 21% somewhat agree. Only 8% strongly disagree, essentially supporting the elimination of the state of Israel. Another 8% somewhat disagree that Israel has a right to exist and 16% were unsure.
The campaign to demonize the U.S. government’s counter-terrorism efforts by Islamists and Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups has been fruitful. The 2011 Pew poll found that 41% do not believe that the war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce terrorism, while slightly more (43%) believe it is. This is a huge improvement from 2007, when 55% felt the U.S. government had ulterior motives and only 26% felt it was sincere.
The 2007 Pew poll found strong support for 9/11 conspiracy theories. Only 40% of Muslim-Americans would say that Arabs perpetrated the attacks. Of the 28% that said Arabs were not involved, 7% blamed the U.S. government, 1% attributed it to an Israeli/Jewish plot and 2% blamed insane people or others. The remaining 18% of those who denied Arab involvement said they did not know who carried out the attacks or wouldn’t answer the question.
One important observation from the Gallup poll is that the Muslim-American community does not feel represented by any major Muslim-American organization with Muslim Brotherhood origins. The most popular one was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, followed by the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, in declining order of popularity.
Altogether, only 25% of Muslim-American men and 19% of Muslim-American women chose one of these organizations when asked which one most represents their interests. This is remarkable because these organizations have been around for decades without any major challenge from within the community. This may be connected to the 2011 Pew poll’s finding that 48% feel that the Muslim-American leadership hasn’t done enough to speak out against extremism and only 34% feel they have.
The polls show there is a sharp divide in the Muslim-American community between those who completely reject Islamist doctrine and those who subscribe to it, in part or in whole. There is a significant number that is on the fence. Unfortunately, the U.S. government overlooks it.
The nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, won’t say “Islamist” or “jihadist.” The White House is regularly visited by the self-proclaimed Islamist leaders of the Muslim-American community that have actually been rejected by the community. The coordinator of the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism efforts emphasizes that it is focused on violence, not ideology.
You cannot be an Islamist terrorist without first being an Islamist. You cannot spread Islamist doctrine unless you are first a believer in that doctrine. We must recognize that this is a broader ideological conflict than just Al-Qaeda.
August 2012: Hamas leaders at 'martyr' Sheikh Yassin's home with
Interpal trustee Essam Mustafa (wearing a headscarf and sitting under
Sheikh Yassin's portrait).
Successive British governments continue to tolerate the existence of large charities that encourage and provide for Islamist terror groups. By failing to separate British Muslims from the Islamist charities that exploit them, we flatter and legitimize supporters of terrorism as humanitarians and community leaders. In the US, the charity Interpal is a proscribed organization: when you help terror groups build homes, you are also helping terror groups build bombs. In the UK, however, Interpal is a leading charity that provides support for terror groups. What is Interpal, and why isn't the British government shutting it down?
For hundreds of years, London has mostly been a welcoming home for extremists who wished to destroy the very freedoms the city afforded them. It was here that 19th century nihilists such as Bakunin and Nechayev freely disseminated their violent ideas. In the 20th century, Soviet money seeped into our trade unions and lobbying groups. And now, today, London is a hub for Islamist and Arabist terror infrastructure. It is a city from which financial and logistical support sustains violent supremacist movements across the world. A few months ago, Lord Alton of Liverpool told the British parliament that he believed the Al Muntada Trust, a large London-based charity, is funding the Nigerian Al-Qaeda terrorist group Boko Haram[1]. The speakers at events previously hosted by Al Muntada have described Jews as the "descendants of apes and pigs" and have called for the execution of homosexuals and adulterous women[2]
We do not, however, just idly tolerate anti-Western groups in our midst and abroad; the harder truth is that government is often complicit with their activities, and when caught, our elected leaders simply refuse to discuss the facts. A recent report by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) revealed that British taxpayers are contributing towards the $4.5 million paid each month to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, including terrorists and mass murderers. Despite the evidence gathered by PMW, the British Foreign Office continues to deny that British money is rewarding terrorism. In a letter to Robert Halfon MP, who had voiced his concern at the findings, the International Development Minister Alan Duncan wrote: "We have investigated the matter fully and can confirm that the allegations in Palestinian Media Watch's report are both inaccurate and misleading."[3] Duncan did not say how the report was inaccurate, and nor did he provide any sources or facts to back up his claim. As PMW sharply responded, "the general statements made by the Minister of State in his letter, which lack any sources that contradict PMW's findings, are wrong". [4]
This is unfortunately not the first time the British government has just rejected the accusations rather than examine the evidence. Several years ago, a report by the Taxpayers' Alliance revealed that £100 million in British aid to Palestinian schools was funding textbooks indoctrinating children with pro-terror and anti-Jewish propaganda[5]. Similarly, rather than properly investigate, the government simply dismissed the claims as baseless. Why do politicians and the vehicles of government knowingly allow themselves to be complicit with groups that advance pro-terror and anti-Western ideas?
Look, for example, at a large organization called Interpal. Although in the UK it is a well-established charity which has enjoyed the support of leading British politicians and cabinet members, in the United States Interpal is designated a terrorist organization. What is Interpal, and why isn't the British Government shutting it down?
Interpal
Interpal describes itself as a "non-political, non-profit making British charity that focuses solely on the provision of relief and development aid to the poor and needy of Palestine"[6]. However, many critics believe Interpal to be part of a terrorist fundraising network that helps to sustain the violent terror group Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. In 2003, the United States government classified Interpal as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT), stating:
Interpal, headquartered in the UK, has been a principal charity utilized to hide the flow of money to HAMAS … Reporting indicates that Interpal is the fundraising coordinator of HAMAS. This role is of the type that includes supervising activities of charities, developing new charities in targeted areas, instructing how funds should be transferred from one charity to another, and even determining public relations policy.[7]
Australia followed suit and designated Interpal, along with six other charities, as a terrorist organization. The Canadian government has also cited Interpal as a Hamas front. An Israeli investigation into a 2002 Interpal trustees report noted that every one of Interpal's 'local partner' charities within the Palestinian territories is "affiliated with Hamas or works on its behalf, not only with regard to humanitarian issues but as part of its terrorism-supporting apparatus."[8]
WASHINGTON, D.C.
— A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that the State Department
is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas. This
investment has received criticism as the United States makes an effort
to slash nearly $4 trillion in government spending.Plenty of outrage
following the announcement made Thursday afternoon by a government
commission that suggested huge cuts to the budget, including eliminating
the interest education for home mortgage. This juxtaposed with the
United States investing millions to refurbish mosques as a good-will
effort in Muslim countries has upset many taxpayer groups.
“We are spending money we don’t have. This is all on a gigantic credit card right now,” said Jared Thomas, a taxpayer advocate.
Millions more dollars have been sent to places like Cyprus. The State Department displays before and after pictures of mosques refurbished with U.S. tax dollars.
“I think it is very hard to explain to the American taxpayer right
now whose having an extraordinary time paying bills and making ends meet
that this is why we took this out of your paycheck, so we can fund
this,” said Thomas.
The State Department declined a Channel 2 Action News request for an
interview. We wanted to ask why are we using tax dollars to refurbish
religious buildings overseas. The State Department did send Channel Two
Action News an e-mail saying that they are fighting Islamic extremism by
building relationships with Islamic leaders.
Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish told Channel 2
Action News anchor Justin Farmer that trying to buy respect in the
Middle East only shows our weakness.
“This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is
not showing its power, it’s showing its appeasement. They are laughing
all the way to the bank,” said Darwish.
Darwish was born in Egypt and is now a former Muslim. Darwish told
Farmer that she moved to America and has written several books critical
of radical Islam. Darwish said that most of the mosques in Egypt are run
by extremists who have ordered former Muslims like herself to be
killed.
“We are rebuilding mosques to support the radicals, not to support
the moderates. We are building mosques to issue fatwas of death against
people like me,” said Darwish.
Your tax dollars also fund computers and mosques in places like
Tajikistan and Mali. At an ancient mud brick mosque in Mali, the State
Department has provided Internet service and computer equipment to local
imams.
Taxpayer watchdogs wonder how the State Department can explain paying
for Internet service while Americans struggle through the worst
recession in decades.
“To the average person who has probably seen their paycheck shrink
and not grow, this could be an insult to them,” said Pete Sepp,
President of the National Taxpayers Association.
With radical websites inciting violence and extremism worldwide,
there are concerns that the taxpayer-funded Internet service could be
misused.
“That is not the job of the U.S. because giving them Internet access
to imams and Muslim preachers who hate America,” said Darwish.
Critics say that it is time to review funding for all federal programs that do not directly benefit taxpayers.
“We are spending money we don’t have and certainly we can cut items like this,” said Thomas.
The Deficit Commission announced it would look at slowing the growth
of foreign aid. Channel 2 Action News is not aware if there will be cuts
in this particular U.S Aid program.
TORONTO - Toronto Police are calling the vandalism of a west-end war memorial “a hate crime.”
A woman walking Sunday night by the sculpture in Coronation Park — at
the foot of Strachan Ave. and Lakeshore Blvd. W. — called police after
noticing someone had taken a black marker and written “Canada will burn;
Praise Allah” on the memorial.
“This is an identifiable group,” Det. Anthony Williams told reporters
at the scene Monday. “The veterans should be respected. That’s a total
disrespect for our sworn members and military members who have made the
ultimate sacrifice.”
At the Remembrance Day ceremony at Old City Hall Sunday morning,
anti-war protesters were heard chanting during the two minutes of
silence.
Williams said he couldn’t speculate whether the vandalism was protest-related.
“I can’t speculate as to what their motivation is, but if they did
this on Nov. 10 or 11 … someone is looking for an opportunity to draw
attention to themselves,” he said.
City cleaners scrubbed the black letters off the memorial.
George Murphy, 72, whose father fought in the Battle of Monte Cassino
and in Normandy during the Second World War, teared up looking at the
monument.
“I think it’s terrible to see them destroy what these veterans have
done for us,” he said. “It’s like stepping on them. These people wanted
to protect our lives. My father would be very upset over this.”
John McEwen, 67, who built the memorial in 1995, said the monument
symbolizes the range of languages in Canada and recognizes the 50th
anniversary of the Second World War and the military contributions of
Canadians.
“Do I take it personally? No, and I don’t think the veterans should
take it personally,” he said. “Stupidity isn’t even politics. Stupidity
is ignorance and ignorance is an indulgence in a place where you don’t
know what’s going on.
“If you had any political agenda you were trying to serve, it’s just wasted.”
Mayor Rob Ford said he was sickened by the news of the war memorial being defaced.
“It really, really bothers me,” Ford said at City Hall on Monday.
“For someone to stoop to that level … people have sacrificed their lives for us to be here. It makes me absolutely sick.”
Mischief and vandalism charges could be likely, Williams said, but
there “are provisions for higher penalties when they are designated as a
hate crime.”
Officers were also investigating a sign at a lifeguard’s post near
the memorial, which had “Holy Jihad” written in black marker, to
determine if there was any connection with the vandalism found on the
memorial.
Police urge anyone with information to call 416-808-1400 or Crime Stoppers at 416-222-TIPS.
freedom of expression canadian style. extremist muslims & refugees are welcome. please more Khadrs
GlobalToronto
Thu, Oct 11: Florida Pastor Terry Jones
has been denied entry into Canada on Thursday, hours before a scheduled
debate on free speech in Toronto.
Faiz, 40, and Ghulam, 11, sit in her home prior to their wedding in the rural Damarda Village, Afghanistan on Sept. 11, 2005. Ghulam said she is sad to be getting engaged as she wanted to be a teacher.
photoblog.nbcnews.com/ By Meredith Birkett
Married at the age of 8. That fact alone is hard to fathom. It's even more difficult to stomach when you think of the resulting forced sex, physical abuse and early pregnancies that often result. But for girls in more than 50 countries around the world and in the U.S., this is their reality. The reality of child marriage. More >>
WND's report that Arabic-language and Islamic experts claim the gold
band Obama has been wearing on his wedding-ring finger for more than 30
years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith
naturally was met with skepticism in some circles, but Glenn Beck's
TheBlaze.com news service published a report citing a Duke professor who
has confirmed the WND experts' assessment.
Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has
authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama
Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"More ↓
Barack Obama's gold band
NEW YORK – As a student at Harvard Law School, then-bachelor Barack
Obama’s practice of wearing a gold band on his wedding-ring finger
puzzled his colleagues.
Now, newly published photographs of Obama from the 1980s show that
the ring Obama wore on his wedding-ring finger as an unmarried student
is the same ring Michelle Robinson put on his finger at the couple’s
wedding ceremony in 1992.
Moreover, according to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring
Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first
part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no god
except Allah.”
Inscription on Obama's ring
The Shahada is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam,
expressing the two fundamental beliefs that make a person a Muslim:
There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s prophet.
Sincere recitation of the Shahada is the sole requirement for
becoming a Muslim, as it expresses a person’s rejection of all other
gods.
Egyptian-born Islamic scholar Mark A. Gabriel, Ph.D., examined
photographs of Obama’s ring at WND’s request and concluded that the
first half of the Shahada is inscribed on it.
“There can be no doubt that someone wearing the inscription ‘There is
no god except Allah’ has a very close connection to Islamic beliefs,
the Islamic religion and Islamic society to which this statement is so
strongly attached,” Gabriel told WND. Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” carefully documents the story the establishment media still refuses to tell “Dreams from My Real Father”
producer Joel Gilbert, an Arabic speaker and an expert on the Middle
East, was the first to conclude that Obama’s ring, reportedly from
Indonesia, bore an Islamic inscription. Photographs published last week by the New Yorker
from Obama’s time at Occidental College, taken by fellows students,
indicate that the ring Obama wore three decades ago is the one he is
wearing in the White House.
Barack Obama
As WND reported in July,
previously published photos have shown Obama wearing a gold band on his
wedding-ring finger continuously from 1981 at Occidental, through
graduation at Columbia in 1983, in a visit to Africa in 1988 and during
his time at Harvard from 1988 to 1991. But none, until now, have
displayed the ring with enough detail to identify it as the one he
currently is wearing. WND reported
a satirical edition of the Harvard Law Review published by students in
1990 contains a mock Dewers Scotch profile advertisement poking fun at
Obama. Among a list of Obama’s “Latest Accomplishments” is: “Deflecting
Persistent Questioning About Ring On Left Hand.”
The comment suggests the ring was a subject of student curiosity at
the time and that Obama was not forthcoming with an explanation.
He still has not explained why he wore the band on his wedding-ring finger before he married Michelle. Declaration
Gabriel, born to Muslim parents in Upper Egypt, grew up immersed in
Islamic culture. He memorized the Quran at age of 12 and graduated in
1990 with a Masters degree from the prestigious Al-Azhar University in
Cairo, the pre-eminent Sunni Muslim institution of learning.
He explained that on Obama’s ring, the declaration “There is no god
except Allah” (La Ilaha Illallah) is inscribed in two sections, one
above the other.
On the upper section, “There is no god” is written in Arabic letters, from right to left: Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Ha.
On the lower section is “except god,” written in Arabic letters from right to left: Alif, Lam, Alif, Alif, Lam, Lam, Ha.
In the lower section, the word “Allah” is written partially on top of
the word “except,” noted Gabriel, the author of “Islam and Terrorism”
and “Journey Inside the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.”
It is common in Islamic art and Arabic calligraphy, especially when
expressing Quranic messages on jewelry, to artfully place letters on top
of each other to fit them into the allotted space.
The exhibit below shows how the Arabic inscription fits over the two parts of the Obama ring.
“There is no God except Allah” overlaid on Obama ring
‘First-rate accent’
In an interview during the 2008 presidential campaign, New York Times
columnist Nicholas Kristof questioned Obama about his Islamic education
in Indonesia, where he lived from 1967 to 1971.
After acknowledging that he once got in trouble for making faces
during Quran study classes in his elementary school, Obama recited for
Kristoff the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, the Adhan.
The prayer incorporates the Shahada, the expression of Islamic faith, with each line repeated twice:
Allah is supreme! Allah is supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet
Kristof noted Obama recited the prayer in Arabic “with a first-rate accent.”
“In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give
Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as
‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,’” Kristoff wrote.
Gabriel told WND that a person wearing a ring with “There is no god
except Allah” demonstrates the significance of Islam in his life.
“Christians never use the statement,” he pointed out. “By wearing the
Shahada on jewelry, a person communicates that Allah is in control of
all circumstances. Allah controls you; Allah is the one and only one.”
Obama, who attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of
Christ in Chicago for two decades, has repeatedly insisted he is a
Christian.
Obama's hand in a White House photo
‘Blessed statement in Islam’
Gabriel emphasized the importance of the Shahada in the profession of faith in Islam.
“Muslims recite the Shahada when they wake up in the morning and
before they go to sleep at night,” he said. “It is repeated five times
every day in the call to prayer in every mosque. A single honest
recitation of the Shahada in Arabic is all that is required for a person
to convert to Islam.”
Gabriel believes it would be impossible for Obama not to be aware of
what is written on the ring, calling it a “blessed statement in Islam.”
“By wearing this religious statement on one’s hand, it connects the
person to Islam,” he said. “It is worn in hopes that Allah’s protections
would be with the person, in hopes of gaining favor with Allah.”
He affirmed that Muslim men do wear gold rings, despite prohibitions in Islamic law.
“Though Islamic law prohibits the wearing of gold jewelry by men, it
is a widely accepted custom, even in strictly Muslim countries,” he
said. “The wearing of gold rings is even more acceptable when it
contains a religious message, such as ‘There is no god except Allah.’”
He noted there is also widespread acceptance of men wearing gold
jewelry in non-Arab Islamic societies such as Indonesia, Bangladesh,
Malaysia and Pakistan, where Muslims generally understand that Muslims
are subject to strong influences of local non-Arab cultures.
“Therefore, even though technically prohibited, a Muslim man wearing a
gold ring is not looked down upon, especially if the jewelry reflects a
love of Islam and a connection to Islamic society,” he said. “An even
greater level of acceptance is for businessmen who deal with infidels,
because such a person would be regarded as a person of influence.”
Obama signing legislation (White House photo)
‘I have known Islam on three continents’
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, an expert on Islamic history, noted Obama wore the ring during his high-profile speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, in the first months of his presidency.
“Now we have a new context for what Obama meant when he told the
Islamic audience in Cairo that he has ‘known Islam on three continents,”
Gilbert said. “He also told the Cairo audience that he considered it
part of his responsibility as president of the United States ‘to fight
against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ All
religious Muslims are by definition required to defend Islam.”
Gilbert’s most recent documentary films on the Middle East are
“Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and The Revolt of Islam” and “Atomic Jihad:
Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat”
Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009
Obama in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009, close-up
The Occidental ring
The photographs published last week by New Yorker magazine indicate Obama was wearing the ring at Occidental College.
One photo shows Obama sitting alongside Occidental roommate Hasan Chandoo in 1981, apparently waiting for a meal to be served.
Barack Obama and roommate Hasan Chandoo at Occidental College in 1981
Obama’s extended left hand clearly shows the ring, as seen below.
The second of the recently released photos shows Obama reaching for a book from an Occidental College library shelf.
Barack Obama in Occidental College library in 1981
A close-up of the library photo can be seen below.
Detail of Barack Obama ring in Occidental College library in 1981
In the above photo, the ring’s design can be seen, including a series of parallel bars that distinguish its outer circumference. The Obama wedding ring
The ring was mentioned in a New York Times article in 2009 recounting the Obamas’ wedding.
In the story, Jodi Kantor described its “intricate gold design,”
noting it came from Barack Obama’s boyhood home of Indonesia and was not
traditional, like Michelle’s.
Kantor wrote:
Just before the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. pronounced
Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson man and wife on the evening of Oct.
3, 1992, he held their wedding rings – signifying their new, enduring
bonds – before the guests at Trinity United Church of Christ. Michelle’s
was traditional, but Barack’s was an intricate gold design from
Indonesia, where he had lived as a boy.
There was no mention in the article that Obama already had been wearing the ring for more than a decade.
The photos of the ring from the 1980s can be compared with more recent photos, such as the ones published by the Huffington Post in 2010 in an article by Anya Strzemien, “Obama’s ‘Intricate’ Indonesian Wedding Band: A CLOSE-UP,” seen here.
Obama wedding ring, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010
Obama wedding ring, Huffington Post, March 18, 2010
¨Saturno jugando con sus hijos¨/ Pedro Pablo Oliva
Seguidores
Carta desde la carcel de Fidel Castro Ruz
“…después de todo, para mí la cárcel es un buen descanso, que sólo tiene de malo el que es obligatorio. Leo mucho y estudio mucho. Parece increíble, las horas pasan como si fuesen minutos y yo, que soy de temperamento intranquilo, me paso el día leyendo, apenas sin moverme para nada. La correspondencia llega normalmente…”
“…Como soy cocinero, de vez en cuando me entretengo preparando algún pisto. Hace poco me mandó mi hermana desde Oriente un pequeño jamón y preparé un bisté con jalea de guayaba. También preparo spaghettis de vez en cuando, de distintas formas, inventadas todas por mí; o bien tortilla de queso. ¡Ah! ¡Qué bien me quedan! por supuesto, que el repertorio no se queda ahí. Cuelo también café que me queda muy sabroso”. “…En cuanto a fumar, en estos días pasados he estado rico: una caja de tabacos H. Upman del doctor Miró Cardona, dos cajas muy buenas de mi hermano Ramón….”. “Me voy a cenar: spaghettis con calamares, bombones italianos de postre, café acabadito de colar y después un H. Upman #4. ¿No me envidias?”. “…Me cuidan, me cuidan un poquito entre todos. No le hacen caso a uno, siempre estoy peleando para que no me manden nada. Cuando cojo el sol por la mañana en shorts y siento el aire de mar, me parece que estoy en una playa… ¡Me van a hacer creer que estoy de vacaciones! ¿Qué diría Carlos Marx de semejantes revolucionarios?”.
Quotes
¨La patria es dicha de todos, y dolor de todos, y cielo para todos, y no feudo ni capellanía de nadie¨ - Marti
"No temas ni a la prision, ni a la pobreza, ni a la muerte. Teme al miedo" - Giacomo Leopardi
¨Por eso es muy importante, Vicky, hijo mío, que recuerdes siempre para qué sirve la cabeza: para atravesar paredes¨– Halvar de Flake[El vikingo]
"Como no me he preocupado de nacer, no me preocupo de morir"- Lorca
"Al final, no os preguntarán qué habéis sabido, sino qué habéis hecho" - Jean de Gerson
"Si queremos que todo siga como está, es necesario que todo cambie" - Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa
"Todo hombre paga su grandeza con muchas pequeñeces, su victoria con muchas derrotas, su riqueza con múltiples quiebras" - Giovanni Papini
"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans" - John Lennon
"Habla bajo, lleva siempre un gran palo y llegarás lejos" - Proverbio Africano
"No hay medicina para el miedo"-Proverbio escoces "El supremo arte de la guerra es doblegar al enemigo sin luchar" -Sun Tzu
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"It is inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office" - H. L. Menken
"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented" -Elie Wiesel
"Stay hungry, stay foolish" - Steve Jobs
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years ther'ed be a shortage of sand" - Milton Friedman
"The tragedy of modern man is not that he knows less and less about the meaning of his own life, but that it bothers him less and less" - Vaclav Havel
"No se puede controlar el resultado, pero si lo que uno haga para alcanzarlo" - Vitor Belfort [MMA Fighter]
Liborio
A la puerta de la gloria está San Pedro sentado y ve llegar a su lado a un hombre de cierta historia. No consigue hacer memoria y le pregunta con celo: ¿Quién eras allá en el suelo? Era Liborio mi nombre. Has sufrido mucho, hombre, entra, te has ganado el cielo.
Para Raul Castro
Cuba ocupa el penultimo lugar en el mundo en libertad economica solo superada por Corea del Norte.
Cuba ocupa el lugar 147 entre 153 paises evaluados en "Democracia, Mercado y Transparencia 2007"
Cuando vinieron a buscar a los comunistas, Callé: yo no soy comunista. Cuando vinieron a buscar a los sindicalistas, Callé: yo no soy sindicalista. Cuando vinieron a buscar a los judíos, Callé: yo no soy judío. Cuando vinieron a buscar a los católicos, Callé: yo no soy “tan católico”. Cuando vinieron a buscarme a mí, Callé: no había quien me escuchara.
Un sitio donde los hechos y sus huellas nos conmueven o cautivan
CUBA LLORA Y EL MUNDO Y NOSOTROS NO ESCUCHAMOS
Donde esta el Mundo, donde los Democratas, donde los Liberales? El pueblo de Cuba llora y nadie escucha. Donde estan los Green, los Socialdemocratas, los Ricos y los Pobres, los Con Voz y Sin Voz? Cuba llora y nadie escucha. Donde estan el Jet Set, los Reyes y Principes, Patricios y Plebeyos? Cuba desesperada clama por solidaridad. Donde Bob Dylan, donde Martin Luther King, donde Hollywood y sus estrellas? Donde la Middle Class democrata y conservadora, o acaso tambien liberal a ratos? Y Gandhi? Y el Dios de Todos? Donde los Santos y Virgenes; los Dioses de Cristianos, Protestantes, Musulmanes, Budistas, Testigos de Jehova y Adventistas del Septimo Dia. Donde estan Ochun y todas las deidades del Panteon Yoruba que no acuden a nuestro llanto? Donde Juan Pablo II que no exige mas que Cuba se abra al Mundo y que el Mundo se abra a Cuba? Que hacen ahora mismo Alberto de Monaco y el Principe Felipe que no los escuchamos? Donde Madonna, donde Angelina Jolie y sus adoptados around de world; o nos hara falta un Brando erguido en un Oscar por Cuba? Donde Sean Penn? Donde esta la Aristocracia Obrera y los Obreros menos Aristocraticos, donde los Working Class que no estan junto a un pueblo que lanquidece, sufre y llora por la ignominia? Que hacen ahora mismo Zapatero y Rajoy que no los escuchamos, y Harper y Dion, e Hillary y Obama; donde McCain que no los escuchamos? Y los muertos? Y los que estan muriendo? Y los que van a morir? Y los que se lanzan desesperados al mar? Donde estan el minero cantabrico o el pescador de percebes gijonese? Los Canarios donde estan? A los africanos no los oimos, y a los australianos con su acento de hombres duros tampoco. Y aquellos chinos milenarios de Canton que fundaron raices eternas en la Isla? Y que de la Queen Elizabeth y los Lords y Gentlemen? Que hace ahora mismo el combativo Principe Harry que no lo escuchamos? Donde los Rockefellers? Donde los Duponts? Donde Kate Moss? Donde el Presidente de la ONU? Y Solana donde esta? Y los Generales y Doctores? Y los Lam y los Fabelo, y los Sivio y los Fito Paez? Y que de Canseco y Miñoso? Y de los veteranos de Bahia de Cochinos y de los balseros y de los recien llegados? Y Carlos Otero y Susana Perez? Y el Bola, y Pancho Cespedes? Y YO y TU? Y todos nosotros que estamos aqui y alla rumiando frustaciones y resquemores, envidias y sinsabores; autoelogios y nostalgias, en tanto Louis Michel comulga con Perez Roque mientras Biscet y una NACION lanquidecen? Donde Maceo, donde Marti; donde aquel Villena con su carga para matar bribones? Cuba llora y clama y el Mundo NO ESCUCHA!!!