Muslim Human Rights–A Record Incompatible with the Civilized World- Very long but Very Important

Human Rights
Eli E. Hertz

 

A Record Incompatible with the Civilized World


Palestinian children participate in lynching, parading and hanging of a ‘brother’

“Violence does not and cannot exist by itself; it is invariably intertwined with the lie.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Arab countries attack Israel on trumped-up charges of human rights violations to cover up their own systemic human rights violations. Not only does the Arab world ignore the rule of international human rights law, many of its violations – from sanctioning honor killings of women to cross-amputations for criminals – are enshrined in the legal system of most Muslim countries. Palestinian self-rule is no different.1


Arab Nations’ Actions Fail to Put Human Rights Commitments Into Practice

In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was the first document considered to hold universal principles of behavior that was agreed upon by an international body. It recognized the fundamental rights of every person to life, liberty, and security; to freedom of speech, religion, and education; and to the right of freedom from torture and degrading treatment. Forty-five years later at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, 171 countries reiterated the universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights.

Most Arab countries have constitutions that champion human rights on paper. They also have signed a number of joint declarations of high principles: The 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the Islamic Council,2 the 1994 draft of the Arab Charter on Human Rights approved by the Arab League,3 the 1999 Casablanca Declaration that purported to establish an Arab Human Rights Movement,4 and the 1999 Beirut Declaration touted as the First Arab Conference on Justice.5 Yet despite the documents’ lofty principles, the record shows the Arab world is one of the worst offenders in the field of human rights.

In its 2001 report, Amnesty International found:

“[g]ross human rights violations took place throughout much of the Middle East and North Africa. They ranged from extra judicial executions to widespread use of torture and unfair trials, harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders. Freedom of expression and association continued to be curtailed; the climate of impunity remained and the victims were still awaiting steps to bring those responsible for past human rights violations to justice.”6

In Algeria, for instance, the report cites that more than 2,500 people were killed in 2001 in “individual attacks, massacres, bomb explosions and armed confrontations, and hundreds of civilians killed by armed groups.”

In Iraq, dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process, as was a woman obstetrician who actually was silenced for being critical of corruption in the health system. Iran reported 75 executions, and Saudi Arabia recorded 34 amputations as punishment.

By contrast, most of Amnesty’s report on Israel focused on unwarranted or “excessive use of force” that led to casualties among Palestinians in response to “political violence.” It also criticized Israel for arrest, detention, and trial procedures against Palestinians.

Despite Amnesty’s criticism of Israel, what is most revealing is how the Arab world responds not to its own human rights violations, but to Israel’s. Arab leaders go out of their way to exaggerate and spread lies about Israel’s behavior, not only to demonize Israel, but also to create a smoke screen that covers up Arab nations’ own deplorable human rights record.

It is a profound irony that the Arab world, which charges Israel with “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide,” destroyed once-thriving Jewish communities in Arab lands, which today are all but void of Jews. Even in areas of the West Bank and Gaza administered by the Palestinian Authority, Israeli Jews who visit there put their lives in jeopardy.7 That picture contrasts sharply from the status of the more than one million Israeli Arabs who enjoy full citizenship and human rights, and can visit and work in Jewish cities unmolested. Nevertheless, Arab and Palestinian charges against Israel persist. Among them are claims that Israeli security procedures such as roadblocks, closures, and searches established to fight terrorism purposely humiliate Palestinians.

The purpose of the smear campaign is not only to criminalize the State of Israel and the Jewish people, but also to attract additional sympathizers from the Western world. Yet those fallacious and often rabidly antisemitic diatribes are also designed to deflect attention away from the deeds of the accusers, and serve to protect genuine abusers of human rights both in the Arab world and elsewhere. Tit-for-tat arrangements among genuinely guilty nations have turned the UN’s human rights apparatus into what one critic labeled “an abusers’ caucus.”8

In fact, independent monitoring bodies in the West say that Israel is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East with separation of powers, due process, and respect for minority rights. And it is the only country in the North Africa and West Asia region that was ranked free in a survey of religious freedom conducted by the Center for Religious Freedom.9


Arab Violations: A Daily Affair

By contrast, human rights violations throughout the Arab world are a daily affair, using any objective yardstick.

The absence of basic human rights is reflected not only in the actions of regimes, but also in their social values and attitudes, which are rife with intolerance for the Other. The Arab Middle East suffers from intolerance toward non-Muslims, suppression of ethnic minorities, gross gender bias, and discrimination and persecution of people who are different in virtually every realm of life – from political views to sexual orientation.

Incredibly, suppression of freedom of expression can extend even to the reporting of public opinion. Two Iranian pollsters were sentenced to eight – and nine – year prison terms after their survey found strong public support for contact with the United States. Authorities accused the two of selling secrets to groups linked to the CIA. Among the groups cited was the Gallup organization, which had paid for the poll to find out opinions of people in the Islamic world toward America after the September 11th attacks.10

Possibly the greatest threat from outside the Arab world, and perhaps rightly so, is the Internet. That is why many Arab nations have employed methods for restricting the flow of information from the Web.11 Proxy servers filter access to content in Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the Saudi government-controlled server banned at least 400,000 Websites, including sites about religion, politics, women, health, pop culture and more, a Harvard study found.12 Many Arab governments read their citizens’ e-mail, just as they tap phones and restrict free speech. One Bahraini spent over a year in jail for e-mailing allegedly political information to dissidents abroad. In Jordan, taxation and monthly Internet fees are priced so high – $70 a month for moderate usage – that only an estimated 20,000 Jordanians out of five million could afford access to the Web in 1999. By comparison, among Israel’s 6.4 million residents, 600,000 subscribed to Internet providers in 1999, and moderate usage ran an affordable $22 a month.13 Astoundingly, out of 880,000 subscribers in the entire Middle East in May 1999, more than 600,000 were from Israel, where no restrictions on Internet usage exist.14 Israel’s Business Arena reported in November 2001 that there were 1.93 million people with Internet access in Israel. The number of active home Internet users totaled 956,000.15

Other sharp splits over human rights divide Israel from its neighbors. One such realm centers on homosexuality, where the lives of Palestinian gays are so jeopardized that some have fled to Israel,16 where tolerance is the law of the land, where workplace discrimination is prohibited, where single-sex couples are eligible for spousal benefits and pensions in the civil service, and declared homosexuals serve in the army and participate in all aspects of public life.17


Endangered Human Rights Groups

 

Maybe it’s not so surprising given the conditions in most Arab nations, but human rights monitoring organizations in the Middle East also face tremendous danger.

If anything, the state of human rights in the Arab world is deteriorating, according to the Arab Commission for Human Rights,18 an umbrella group established in 1998 to try to unify human rights organizations in the region. The Commission reported that:

“It is a universally acknowledged fact that Arab countries are increasingly witnessing marked drawbacks in human rights and fundamental freedoms since the [1991] Gulf War. … The relationship between Arab governments and their citizens were becoming increasingly suppressive… While legal and operational situations of human rights advocates in at least eight Arab countries have certainly deteriorated during the 1990s, little or no noticeable achievements were made by other human rights advocates in many other Arab countries.”

Moreover, the report cited the “unbalanced growth of the human rights movement” in the Arab world. Some countries have a large number of organizations, some none. In fact, only two-thirds of the 15 human rights advocates on the commission’s board can afford to live in the country they represent, as many on-site organizations face harassment. In Egypt, for instance, a new law allowing the government to dissolve associations and non-governmental organizations (or NGOs) by administrative decree was used to harass the Egyptian Organization of Human Rights, and its director was subjected to legal harassment after he released a report on a massacre of 21 Copt Christians in January 2000.19

In the Palestinian Authority, the independent Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group has been harassed, and its head, Bassam Eid, arrested and threatened numerous times.20 Even the official Palestinian Commission for Human Rights, which the Palestinian Authority established, has been hounded by the very governmental body that established it. That should come as no surprise, given the status of human rights within the areas governed by the PA. Hearings in “‘moonlight courts’, as they function mostly in the night and hearings before them rarely last for more than a few minutes, while complaints of torture, [people] ‘disappearings’ for days or weeks before the families were told of the ‘disappeared’s’ whereabouts, abound and remain ignored” wrote Eugene Cotran, a member of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights and a British circuit judge, in 1996 in the Beirut-based Daily Star. Cotran described how the PA first simply ignored the findings of the human rights commission, then under the leadership of Hanan Ashrawi. When the commission’s criticism of the PA’s human rights violations continued, the PA arrested and jailed Ashrawi’s successor, Dr. Eyad El-Sarraj, in May 1996 following “highly critical remarks [about the PA] … in an interview.” El-Sarraj was tortured and kept in solitary confinement for 17 days, despite international pleas for his release. Finally, he was then brought before a court on false charges which were later dismissed for lack of evidence.21 Average Palestinians in the street, lacking a chorus of protesters, fare far worse.


Nearly 60 Years After Its Establishment, Israel Remains the Only Nation in the Middle East Whose Laws and Mainstream Social Values are Committed to Upholding Human Rights

 

Israel is not perfect. Its Supreme Court has reprimanded the government and security services for overstepping their prerogatives. Even when controversial, the Court’s rulings are honored, such as when the Bench ordered the government to free Lebanese nationals being held as hostages as a quid pro quo for the release of Israelis held in Lebanon.22

As in the rest of the free world, numerous Israeli human rights organizations operate freely and criticize their own government without fear of punishment. Among them are the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, established in 1972; B’Tselem (from the Biblical phrase “in the image [of God]”), established in 1989 to monitor Israeli human rights on the West Bank and Gaza; and Kav La-Oved (“Lifeline to the Worker”), dedicated to protecting the rights of foreign workers in Israel. A host of groups organized by Israeli Arabs are dedicated to minority rights issues, as well as specialty groups such as the Israeli chapter of Physicians for Human Rights and Rabbis for Human Rights, both of whom focus on Palestinian human rights. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other international organizations also operate freely in Israel.

Of all the human rights violations, none threaten the Middle East, and particularly Israelis, more than suicide bombings. Ironically, many Arab human rights organizations invest time and energy defending or mitigating such acts, despite numerous abuses on their own turf that deserve their attention. The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, for example, took pains to issue a special rebuttal to the 2002 report of Human Rights Watch, which labeled suicide bombings against Israelis as a “crime against humanity.” The Egyptian group instead criticized the report for what it said was a failure to put the suicide bombings into proper context (i.e., ‘the occupation’), saying that the UN had ruled on “the fundamental rights of colonized people to struggle against their occupiers, by all means at their disposal.” In the wake of a series of horrific bombings, including the Park Hotel Passover Seder massacre in 2002 and other attacks that left 60 persons dead, the head of the Palestinian Human Rights Commission, psychiatrist Dr. Eyad El Sarraj, attempted to justify such acts rather than denounce them, suggesting Israel triggered these responses by “a long history of humiliation.”23


Palestinian Breaches of Human Rights Affect Almost all Institutions and All Levels of Their Community

 

Ironically, under Israeli rule, Palestinians enjoyed more respect for their human rights than after the establishment of Palestinian self-government.24

Under Palestinian rule, for example, those who ran newspapers – once the freest in the Arab world while under Israeli administration – began to face intimidation, arrest, closure, and confiscation of editions critical of the Palestinian government. Bookstores, too, were ordered to remove critical volumes. Judges were fired for decisions that Palestinian leadership did not like, and citizens were detained for months and often tortured, without charge or the benefit of counsel. Thirty Palestinians died in custody between Arafat’s arrival in July 1994 and May 2002.25

In addition, Palestinian business owners have been subject to extortion, literally plucked off the streets, held against their will, and tortured by PA security personnel on trumped-up charges of owing back taxes, according to the Jerusalem Post in a September 1998 investigation. Thirty-six Palestinians who spoke to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) said they had paid as much as 250,000 NIS ($65,155) to win their release, the Post reported; others had been jailed for as long as two years. Yet not one cent of an estimated 7 million NIS ($1.8 million) collected under the guise of taxes was transferred to the PA Finance Ministry. Meanwhile, a network of Mafia-style ‘protection’ groups operates freely in every major Palestinian city, extorting huge fees from innocent victims. Such lawlessness should not come as a surprise, given the Palestinian Authority’s prevalent misuse of power at all levels of society, from firing, intimidating and/or arresting professionals who criticize the regime to banning a women’s protest march that called for improved safety standards following a Hebron factory fire in which 14 female employees died.26


The Abuse of Arab Women’s Rights

 

Arab abrogation of women’s rights goes further than violating their freedom to organize and protest. It is endemic not only in Palestinian society, but also in the Arab world in general, where Arab women are legally treated unequally, both in personal matters and in the workplace.

Unequal status stems from two factors: the hegemony of Islamic law and the impact of Arab paternalism.27 But regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that Arab women suffer far greater than women nearly anywhere else in the world, lagging behind other women not only in North America, Oceania, and Europe, but also in Latin America, and South and East Asia, the Arab Human Development report28 shows. The only place women are slightly worse off is sub-Saharan Africa, according to the UN’s Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM). In 2000, half of all Arab women still could not read and write, and the maternal mortality rate was double that of Latin America and the Caribbean, and four times that of East Asia.

Few women work outside their homes, even in modern-leaning countries such as Jordan, where 78 percent of Jordanian women are housewives, a 1988 survey found.29 Saudi Arabian law limits the jobs available to women to medicine, education, and banking.30 Iranian women are forbidden to study veterinary medicine and engineering – deemed to be male occupations.31 Under the Palestinian Authority, the small number of working women stems not only from a lack of employment, but from a lethal form of harassment: Women working outside the home have been murdered after being accused of collaborating with Israel or defaming their family honor. Who are the so-called collaborators? One was a seamstress, another a cleaning woman; Others included five nurses, according to the Hebrew daily Haaretz.32 One of the nurses, Aisha Abu Shawish, the head nurse and department head at Nasr Hospital, was axed to death in her home, leading many female nurses to resign.

Marginalization and disempowerment of women in Arab countries is significant.

The UN’s Human Development Project placed the onus for the region’s backwardness largely on its treatment of women, noting “the Arab world is largely depriving itself of the creativity and productivity of half its citizens.”33

And, if anything, their status is not about to improve soon, given a conservative backlash in recent decades against gains made under colonial rule or under previous regimes that sought to Westernize their countries.34 After the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, for instance, veiling became mandatory, on risk of public flogging with 76 lashes or jail; the minimum age women could marry was reduced from 15 to 9; female judges were thrown off the bench; and separate spheres of justice for men and women were established. In Algeria since 1984, women (no matter what their age) have lost the right to marry without consent of a male family member; polygamy and oral divorce (where men need only say ‘I divorce you’ three times and avoid due process) was reinstated; and in 1989 women’s right to vote was compromised by allowing male family heads to vote for their entire families.

Women’s rights are so ignored that small changes often are perceived as progress. In Egypt, men who wanted to escape punishment for rape or kidnapping women were allowed to marry their victims until a new law adopted in 1999 banned that option.35 Another law, adopted in 2000, ended Egyptian men’s unilateral right to divorce their wives. It was considered a human rights breakthrough when the Egyptian Supreme Court upheld the new law, which was challenged as a conflict with Islamic Sharia law. And although Egyptian women now have the right to end marriages by seeking court orders, the El Khole amendment has one condition: a woman must return all money her husband has given her before a divorce is granted.36

Such conditions may explain why 8 of 21 Arab nations have neither signed nor ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,37 with most of those who signed the document appending reservations. Nations who do not sign the Convention can continue to keep Arab girls from receiving an elementary education. They can prevent women from choosing professional careers. And they can dictate their behavior in public.38

Taken to an extreme, such policies can lead to horrific consequences, as they did in Saudi Arabia on Monday, March 11 2002. A fire at a girls’ middle school in Mecca killed 15 students because the religious police, called the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice or the mutawwa’in in Arabic, blocked rescue efforts. Why? Because the fleeing students were not wearing their obligatory long black cloaks and head coverings required in public.

As offenders of human rights go, Saudi Arabia is considered one of the worst in the Arab world, not allowing women to obtain drivers’ licenses and requiring consent of one’s father, brother or uncle before getting married. Moreover, Saudi women have no legal redress for sexual harassment or abuse.39

In 1990, when a group of 47 highly educated Saudi women took to the roads in a one-time protest drive to challenge the law forbidding women to drive, the religious police branded them as “whores.” They received death threats, were fired from their jobs and had their passports revoked, and their husbands’ jobs were put in jeopardy.40

Human rights violations stem not only from the absence of rule of law in the Arab world; many violations result from laws themselves that call for cruel forms of corporal punishment and tolerance for those who murder women.

The most widespread breach of human rights anchored in Arabic law are so-called honor killings. It is a practice endemic to both liberal and conservative societies in the Middle East, where murderers, motivated by desire to protect their families’ honor, enjoy special legal status in all Arab countries. In most – Syria, Kuwait, Egypt, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Lebanon, Jordan, and in the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority – the laws that exempt perpetrators and/or mitigate punishment for honor crimes are part of each government’s civil code. In Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the laws are based directly on Sharia, or Islamic law.41

Critics charge that honor killings “are sanctioned by the educated elite, who pass laws that enable murderers to get off with little or no punishment.”42

How widespread are honor killings? At least several thousand Arab women a year are victims of honor killings, according to estimates. Countless cases of honor killings are reported as suicides or accidents. “Women are executed in their homes, in open fields, and occasionally in public, sometimes before crowds of cheering onlookers,” writes anthropologist and investigative journalist James Emery in the May 2003 edition of The World & I magazine, in an article devoted to honor killings among Palestinians on the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan.43 Sparked not only by the discovery of extramarital relations or out-of-wedlock pregnancies, honor killings are committed for even minor infringements of modesty such as flirting.44 Perhaps the most tragic case concerned a four-year-old Palestinian girl raped by a man in his mid-twenties; the preschooler’s family abandoned her, hoping she would bleed to death because they believed she had sullied their honor.45

Even when male relatives kill their sisters, nieces, wives, mothers, or daughters to protect their family honor, the laws protect the perpetrators.46 Jordan, for instance, records at least 25 such murders a year, although those numbers are believed to be only the tip of the iceberg.47

Arab leaders who have attempted to end such legal sanctions have met with staunch opposition. After King Hussein spoke out against the practice in 1997 – the first Arab leader to do so – his successor, King Abdullah II, followed through with a proposal in 1999 that would have officially abolished honor killings. In response, 5,000 Islamic activists took to the streets in protest, including the King’s own brother, Ali. Claiming the King’s plan was tantamount to “legalizing obscenity and encouraging women to act immorally,”48 the Jordanian parliament rejected the legislation in 2000 after three minutes of debate.49 A year later the Jordanian law was amended to treat honor killings as other murders, yet a loophole remains.50 The Jordanian penal code – which perpetrators of such crimes really rely on51 – guarantees lighter sentences of no more than a year in jail for male killers of close female relatives who have committed “an act which is illicit in the eyes of the perpetrator.” Jordanian judges of such cases also remain sympathetic to those found guilty, especially since 75 percent of the cases involve brothers, often teenagers, who are treated as minors.52 In Egypt, honor killings committed by husbands whose wives commit adultery are deemed misdemeanors; however, when the reverse takes place, women are severely punished.53

The Palestinian Authority, like Jordan, also treats honor killings leniently, and the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group reports widespread incidents throughout Palestinian society.54 Although Palestinian police recorded only 38 cases between 1996 and 1999, anthropologist Emery’s informants told him “a woman beaten, burned, strangled, shot or stabbed to death is often ruled a suicide even when there are multiple wounds,” and officials are often bribed to go along. One UN-funded study (by the Palestinian-based Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling) found that 75 percent of female deaths from 1996-1998 were suspiciously ascribed to ‘fate.’55 “As a whole, the [Palestinian] judicial system conspires against victims,” including indications that families pressure forensic experts to alter their findings, the group charged.

Beyond the laws which recognize honor killings as part of Arab culture, Arab women accused of staining their families’ honor are frequently jailed to protect them from their families. At least 50 women a year are imprisoned in Jordan on honor-related cases, detention ranging from several months to several years. Arab laws that ignore human rights, however, are not limited to women. Legally sanctioned forms of cruel and unusual punishment under the aegis of extreme Islamic Sharia law include stoning individuals to death for adultery, beheading criminals with a sword, and amputation for theft, including cross-amputations of a right arm and a left leg that leave offenders horribly disabled for life.56 Saudi Arabia has one of the highest execution rates in the world at two a week, according to Amnesty International. In 1999, half the executions were of foreign nationals from developing countries,57 whose governments, unlike Western nations, rarely possess the interest or clout to intervene with Saudi authorities.


Regimes in the Middle East Not Only Intimidate Their Citizenry; They Use Terror Tactics Against Dissidents and Rivals

 

After American and British troops in April 2003 removed Iraq’s Ba’ath regime by force, 3,000 skeletons were uncovered in a mass grave in central Iraq, believed to be the victims of a 1991 Shi’ite revolt against Saddam Hussein’s regime. An estimated 200,000 Iraqis disappeared in the course of Hussein’s 24-year rule, according to Human Rights Watch.58 In 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war, 5,000 men, women, and children were killed when Iraq bombed its own Kurdish citizens with mustard gas and nerve agents in the village of Halabja. The attack was just “one event in a deliberate large-scale campaign to kill and displace the predominantly Kurdish inhabitants of northern Iraq … resulting in the deaths of between 50,000-100,000 persons, many of them women and children,” according to the U.S. State Department.59

In Lebanon’s 16-year civil war (1975-1991), more than 100,000 Lebanese, many of them civilians, lost their lives.60 The late Syrian leader Hafez Assad dealt swiftly to quell his opponents following several assassination attempts, some of which originated in the town of Hama. Consequently, Assad and his brother Rifat surrounded the town, leveled it with artillery and tank fire, and to ensure no survivors remained, employed poison gas leaving an estimated 20,000 Syrians dead.61

The first use of chemical weapons in the Middle East came between 1963 and 1967 when Egypt used phosgene and mustard aerial bombs in a civil war in Yemen, killing an estimated 1,400 persons.62

The Palestinian Authority uses the machinery of government to oppress its people.

Palestinians are plagued by a special brand of terrorism and fratricide: vigilante rule. Such has been the pattern over a dozen security organizations established by the PA. Vigilantism characterized the Intifada in 1987-93 and before that, the 1936-39 Arab revolt.63

When a Palestinian police force was first envisioned, Israeli officials expected the force would number 3,000-4,000. At Oslo, a force of 12,000 was agreed upon. Then, believing a larger force would fight terrorism, it increased to 30,000 after the September 1995 interim agreement (“Oslo II”) was signed. In the end, under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the PA has built a police state with over 40,000 armed security personnel for a population of 2.5 million inhabitants. That is a ratio of 16 police to 1,000 civilians inside the Palestinian Authority, compared to the ratio in Europe of 4-6 police to 1,000 civilians and a ratio of 2.4 to 1,000 in the United States.64

In terms of human rights, however, the PA’s security wings have not just turned into a small army with weapons poised against Israelis, but have become a menace to their own people. Rather than taking advantage of self-rule to establish and maintain law and order, the PA simply used the machinery of self-government to terrorize Palestinians, and at times, literally, get away with highway robbery, aggravated assault, and even murder.

As a result, honor killings of Palestinian women have risen under the PA, paralleling other forms of vigilante justice carried out against a backdrop of general lawlessness.

The three-year Arab Revolt (1936-39) directed against British rule and Zionist aspirations, marked the first time Arabs in Palestine were largely free of the control of a central Western-style administration and able to organize on their own. Local rebel bands formed along family, clan, and village lines, yet coordination never rose to a regional or national scope. Instead, the revolt was “spontaneous … unsystematic, undisciplined, and [an] unstable insurgency, often prone to anarchic lapses,”65 writes Kenneth Stein, a scholar of the Mandate period. Marked by guerrilla warfare directed at British and Jewish interests, the revolt was also rife with abductions and killings of village heads who had sold land to Jews, and other so-called collaborators who refused to honor an economic boycott against Jews and the British. Ultimately, the Arab Revolt turned into a series of retributions against Arabs considered to be traitors. In other cases, collaboration charges served as a cover for settling old personal vendettas,66 says Arizona University Historian Professor Charles Smith. In all, fellow Arabs killed 494 Arabs, making up approximately 16 percent of all Palestinians killed during the Arab Revolt.67 They included mayors, affiliated officials, sheikhs, village heads (mukhtars), rival notables, and even prominent Muslim religious figures.68

“… As in Ireland in the worse days after the War or in Bengal, intimidation at the point of a revolver has become a not infrequent feature of Arab politics. Attacks by Arabs on Jews unhappily, are no new thing. The novelty in the present situation is attacks by Arabs on Arabs. For an Arab to be suspected of a lukewarm adherence to the nationalist cause is to invite a visit from a body of ‘gunmen.’”
From the Palestine Royal Commission report presented by the [British] Secretary of State for the Colonies to Parliament by Command of His Majesty in July, 1937.

The revolt which began in 1936 included demonstrations, a general strike, and a boycott which decimated the local Arab economy, with scores of Arab businesses shut down and 40,000 middle and upper-class Palestinians fleeing to neighboring countries.69 Some 50 years later, a similar pattern of fratricide repeated itself, notwithstanding quantum leaps forward in terms of urbanization and social organization, improvements in standard of living, health, education and development of a collective sense of peoplehood or political awareness that embraced all levels of Palestinian society. Despite the tightly organized nature of the 1987 Intifada, whose local and national leadership enjoyed a modern communications network, Palestinians again failed the test of statesmanship. They had built a network of local committees that managed local affairs and local resistance that transcended deep cleavages of class, clan, and geography. Yet a shared Palestinian identity based on a common enemy did not last. Self-government again regressed to a state of street-gang rule and fratricide.

“With the beginning of the Uprising, the whole system of law and order collapsed … and much of Palestinian society experienced vigilante justice,” wrote Bassam Eid of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group.70 Palestinian street gangs of masked men punished women suspected of immodest behavior, drug dealers, informers who collaborated with Israel, and property owners who sold land to Jews, Eid wrote.

The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group reported:

“In the course of pursuing collaborators, suspects caught by masked men were invariably tortured and killed. In the midst of this vigilantism, many innocent people – both women and men – were mutilated or killed as well, merely upon the suspicion or rumor of collaboration or as a result of a personal grudge or vendetta. This was a time of terror in the occupied territories, where the most basic guarantees of the rule of law were completely ignored.”

Palestinian radicals killed at least 800 of their own brethren suspect of providing Israel with intelligence,71 according to Professor Bard O’Neill of the National War College and an expert on terrorism. The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group says that the number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians was equal to the number killed by Israelis.72

Motivations were mixed. ‘Palestinian collaborators’ killed included those who dared to work in Israel or maintain commercial or social ties with Israelis, not just intelligence gatherers. In 1992 alone, intra-Palestinian violence resulted in 200 deaths, most tied to rivalry between Fatah and Hamas; such killings waned in 1993 after the Oslo Accords were signed and a tacit truce, or hudna, was reached between the sides. That year, intra-Palestinian killings dropped to 83. Like the Arab Revolt that preceded it, the 1987 Intifada also devastated the local Arab economy, wiping out most standard-of-living gains Palestinians had enjoyed in the first decade of Israeli rule. From 1988-1991, the standard of living dropped 10 percent per year, according to Tel Aviv University economist Assaf Razin. The economy took another hit when 400,000 Palestinian guest workers in Kuwait were expelled after the 1991 Gulf War for siding with Saddam Hussein. That brought a sharp drop in money being sent home to families in the West Bank and Gaza, and it also cut funding to the PLO.73 In the end, the pattern remains the same, despite differences in conditions among the Arab Revolt, the 1987 Intifada and Palestinian violence today.74 Instead of fighting with chains, iron bars, clubs, and Molotov cocktails,75 today’s fratricide among Palestinians is being played out with the machinery of government, firearms, and sending children into battle, which began in the 1987 Intifada. The local bands of the 1930s and gangs of the late 1980s have been replaced by municipal and regional warlords, and organized terror and guerrilla tactics.76

As in the past revolts, the number of intra-Palestinian killings has again risen sharply, mostly due to executions in the streets. Those include assassinations of political rivals, extra judicial killings by security forces and unidentified or masked assailants, and blood feuds. In 1995, only two such killings were reported. The next year, ten were killed in such executions; 18 in 1999, 26 in 2000 and 36 in 2001. In the first seven months of 2002, 36 Palestinians were killed by fellow Palestinians, almost all in gang war-style executions, felled by a rain of bullets in the back, or a single bullet to the head by masked gunmen or members of PA security services,77 according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. The list of such murders does not include countless other Palestinians killed with knives, short hoses, and clubs.

The arrival of Arafat and his wing of the PLO from Tunis only worsened tribal blood feuds, with thousands of members of the security forces newly armed and prepared to use their weapons in private vendettas tied to tribal loyalty.

In one landmark case, members of the Abu Sultan clan murdered two members of the Khalidi clan. That led the Palestinian Authority to hastily execute two brothers from the Abu Sultan clan after a quick trial intended to restore law and order and prevent a blood feud. All four fatalities were members of the PA security forces.78

“There is always someone killing someone else, in the process of taking revenge for a previous killing, seemingly without end,” wrote Gaza psychiatrist and human rights activist Eyad El Sarraj in the Jerusalem Report in 1998.79 “Even more troubling is the fact that since the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority in 1994, the number of killings has multiplied.” Among the cases cited: a teacher shot in the head as a suspected spy in front of his pupils.

El Sarraj’s observation points to the belief that Palestinian peoplehood lacks true substance, and that it only surfaces when non-Muslim administrations are in charge. Yet left to self-rule, Palestinian peoplehood quickly dissipates, digressing into deep cleavages and violent tribal rivalries). Writes El Sarraj:

“In Palestinian society today, tribal identity seems to be reemerging, as opposed to the latter years of the occupation when we defined ourselves first and foremost as Palestinians. As the internal political map is redrawn, people are regrouping into their tribal affiliations. And even political groups like Fatah are behaving today like tribes.”

With a sense of despair, he notes:

“… our tradition of revenge and our culture of violence are deep-rooted.”

The same pattern of economic self-destruction is repeating itself in the wake of self-rule under the Palestinian Authority, only it is coupled by corruption and misuse of public funds along with unemployment. And again, as during the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 (and 1948 when Arabs responded with violence after the State of Israel was declared), educated and well-to-do Palestinians are quietly packing their bags and emigrating to escape renewed political violence and economic stagnation.

With combatants using residential neighborhoods as a haven to attack Israelis and build bombs, many fear becoming victims of collateral damage during Israeli incursions. Moreover, Muslim parents fear that their children will be tempted or enticed to become suicide bombers.

Despite self-rule, Palestinians also fear the damaging effects of a PA-controlled economy.

After two years of self-rule in 1996, Palestinians in PA-run areas suffered a 30 percent decline in their standard of living, Israeli experts estimate. By early 2002, after Palestinian leaders opted for more violence, the Palestinians’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) plummeted by 70 percent, and the PA’s collective net worth dropped by an estimated 60 percent due to corruption, loss of productivity, and a loss of foreign aid.

Before the 1987 Intifada, 200,000 Palestinians worked in Israel; in 1992, after four years of disturbances, that number dropped to 120,000.80 “The [1987] Intifada … had a depressing effect on the Palestinian economy,” Eliyahu Kanovsky, an economist at Bar-Ilan University testified at a 1997 joint U.S. Congressional Economic Committee hearing on the lack of a peace dividend.

“The frequent closures following terrorist attacks disrupted trade and other economic relations between Israelis and Palestinians and accelerated Israel’s replacement of Palestinians by laborers from a number of Eastern European, Asian and African countries.”81

The chilling effect was not only due to disruptions in Palestinian work attendance, but also because employers grew concerned for their personal safety: 105 Israelis and 11 foreign nationals82 were killed between 1987-1993 during the Intifada, with many Jewish employers being killed by their Palestinian employees. Other Jewish employers spotted their workers in TV footage among celebrants of terrorist attacks. One employer identified his former Palestinian employee as one of the prime perpetrators of the Ramallah lynching of two Israeli reservists who merely took a wrong turn.83 By September 2000 before the outbreak of Arafat’s war, 60,000 Palestinians worked in Israel.84 By December 2001, only 39,000 still worked there.85 That drop stemmed from growing terrorist attacks on both sides of the Green Line. In response, the Israeli government invalidated all work permits for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and the issuance of new permits were weighed on an individual basis and by demand. One of the most unforgettable cases86 that soured Israelis on hiring Palestinians came when a 34-year old Palestinian from Gaza, employed by an Israeli bus company, plowed the bus he was driving into a crowd on a main thoroughfare leading into Tel Aviv, killing eight Israelis and injuring 23 in February 2001. He did so after dropping off a busload of Gaza workers on their way to their day jobs in Israel. Today only about 20,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza have permits to enter Israel to hold day jobs.87

Palestinians blame Israel for their economic shambles. They see nothing illogical in their demands to work in Israel while attacks on Israelis continue, attacks which enjoy broad Palestinian support.88 Instead, they consider the fact that few Israelis will hire them as another form of oppression and what they term “Zionist racism.”


Emigration

 

One of the least discussed results of Palestinian human rights violations is the growing exodus of Palestinians themselves from the territories, fed up with the violence and corruption. Although no Palestinian statisticians published data on this subject, and the Palestinian media has imposed a voluntary blackout on the phenomenon, more than a quarter of Palestinians say they are considering permanent emigration, according to the Hebrew daily Haaretz.89 Even six years into Palestinian self-rule, and a year before the Terror War (‘al-Aqsa Intifada,’) a 1999 public opinion survey revealed deep dissatisfaction: 60 percent of Palestinians criticized the lack of freedom of expression; 62 percent believed that Arafat’s administration was corrupt; and 27 percent said they were considering emigration. The number of young, educated people considering emigrating was double the average, said Dr. Khalil Shikaki, adding: “People wanted a democratic society, they wanted work and they didn’t get what they wanted.” A 2001 survey of Palestinian Christians from Beir Sahour, a Christian village just outside Jerusalem (which has been used by terrorists as a base for attacking Jewish Jerusalemites), indicated that more than half of them were also considering emigration. The survey was conducted by the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Visa requests also have increased at numerous Western embassies, although obtaining such visas has become more difficult since September 11th. The Australian embassy – an untraditional destination for Arabs – was inundated by 2,004 immigrant visa requests between July 2000 and July 2001, compared to an average of 130 in previous years. Those leaving, according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, are young and educated, and unwilling to put up with human rights violations under Palestinians self-rule. Similarly, 90 percent of the Palestinians applying for visas to Canada are engineers and pharmacists. As in times past, Palestinian society’s penchant for self-destructive behavior is boomeranging, motivating the best and the brightest to leave, while Palestinians as a whole blame Israel (again) for the collapse of their society and their economy.

Jonathan Schanzer wrote in the Middle East Quarterly, about the lesson of three Palestinian uprisings:

“Like the Arab Revolt and the first Intifada … the current Intifada also has the odor of a defeat.… The violence has again destroyed the Palestinian economy, while radicalism, fratricide and internal squabbles continue to erode society at an alarming rate…. As a direct result of the intra-Palestinian violence that accompanies these uprisings, the Palestinians are arguably no more prepared for statehood today than they were in 1936. They are simply more destitute, more fragmented, and more radical.”90


The PA Cynically and Consciously Violates the Most Basic Human Right – the ‘Right to Life and Security of Person’ in Regard to Its Own Children – in Violation of a May 2000 Amendment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

 

During the 1987 Intifada, Palestinians “sent mere children to fight grown-up struggles … in a ‘small-arms war.’”91 It may have proved a successful tactic as military strategies go, but on a human scale, it left Palestinian children as victims by their elders for political gain. Such victimization has escalated in the PA’s guerrilla war with Israel that was launched in September 2000. Children are purposefully and strategically positioned between Palestinian combatants and their Israeli targets, used as human shields at the front of violent clashes, exploited as couriers for explosives, and openly encouraged to forfeit their lives as direct combatants and suicide bombers. Political pedophiles literally entice children to kill themselves,92 a tactic the Palestinians have opted for despite the UN’s specific ban on such measures as a clear human rights violation.

The UN General Assembly added that ban to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in May 2000 which went into effect in 2002.93 The protocol absolutely and unconditionally prohibits the involvement of children in armed conflict. It specifically forbids the recruitment of children into regular armed forces – an all-too-widespread global phenomenon94 – but also extends the prohibition in Article 4 of the protocol, stating unequivocally that “armed groups … should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of eighteen years.” Moreover, the preamble defines as a war crime the use of children under the age of 18 who “participate actively in hostilities.95

It also “condemns the targeting of children in situations of armed conflict and direct attacks on objects protected under international law … including places that generally have a significant presence of children, including schools and hospitals.” Although the protocol does not specifically cite cafes, discos, and fast-food eateries, such establishments, frequented by Israeli youth and targeted by Palestinian suicide bombers, clearly fall under the prohibition as a violation of Israeli children’s human rights, even by UN standards.

Further, the 2002 Human Rights Watch World Report charges that the Palestinian Authority has done “little to exercise its responsibility to take all possible measures to prevent and punish armed attacks by Palestinian Arabs against Israeli civilians, including suicide bombings.”96

Despite the strongly worded UN ban, the world body has failed to condemn Palestinians for victimizing children – their own or Israeli children.

The opposite has actually been the case, as the UN has served as the platform of choice for Israel bashing. One of the most blatant cases was the 2001 UN-sponsored conference on racism held in Durban, South Africa. The gathering was devoted solely to painting Israel as a human rights violator by means of a parade of fliers, bumper stickers, and posters declaring Israel racist, criminal, illegal, and an “apartheid state.”97 In many ways Durban stood as a recap of a 1975 UN General Assembly resolution, which defined Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination.” That resolution was repealed in 1991, but the terminology continues to reverberate throughout the UN halls and other UN resolutions.

Lastly, within the Arab world, those whose human rights are violated include more than Arabs who belong to the ‘wrong’ ethnic group, religion, or political association, who engage in forbidden activities, who dare to speak out or show too much personal or institutional autonomy. By focusing on staying in power, many Arab regimes by definition simply impoverish the lives of their citizens, shortchanging them of their most basic human rights – to life and the realization of one’s full potential through decent health and education.

Article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family.” It stresses that “[m]otherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.” Article 26 states: “Everyone has the right to education … and that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality, and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”98

Despite Arab and European accusations that Israel oppresses and discriminates against its Arab minority and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, objective yardsticks show a different reality. In fact, Arab children in Israel have a much better chance of staying alive and getting a good education than Muslim children in countries in Europe.99 The infant mortality rate (a key component of the UN’s Human Development Index) for Arabs in Israel ranks equal or better than the rate of members of the majority in Europe and the United States. The rate among Arabs in Israel is 7.8 deaths per 1,000, the same as for native British citizens; but the infant mortality rate among native French citizens is 8 deaths per 1,000; for native Swiss 8.2, and for white Americans 8.5.

Comparison of the infant mortality rates of Israel’s Arab minority with the minorities in the above nations also proves the fallacy of Arab and European accusations about Israel’s treatment of minorities. The infant mortality rate of minority Turks in Switzerland, for example, is 12.3 deaths per 1,000; 12 per 1,000 for minority Arabs in France; and in England 11.4 death per 1,000 for babies of mothers born in Pakistan.100

Furthermore, Israel’s overall infant mortality ratio of 7.5 deaths per 1,000 births stands in sharp contrast to the infant mortality rates in the Arab world: Kuwait (10.9), Jordan (19.6), Lebanon (27.4), Egypt (58.6), Saudi Arabia (49.6), and Yemen (66.8). Ironically, Arab newborns in the West Bank (with infant mortality of 21 per 1,000 birth) and Gaza (with infant mortality of 24 per 1,000 birth) have a better chance of surviving the first year of life than Arab infants in Lebanon, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia.101 An August 2000 report of the World Bank cited 15 deaths per 1,000 births in the West Bank and Gaza,102 data that would rank Palestinians second only to Kuwait in the entire Arab world. That data was released just before the outbreak of the Terror War (second ‘Intifada,’) which has led to disintegration of public infrastructure, including public health standards that seven years ago were the highest in the Arab world.103 “The disastrous self-destructive terrorist war against Israel … has reduced Palestinians to the most desperate conditions they have seen since the creation of Israel in 1948,” wrote Tom Rose, publisher of the Jerusalem Post.104

Beside health, the other basic human right is education. But intellectual empowerment through literacy and education pose one of the greatest threats to autocratic regimes.

Consider the 95 percent literacy rate in democratic Israel, which absorbed one million immigrants from more than 100 countries. Yet in the Arab world, where the overwhelming majority speaks a common language – Arabic – illiteracy remains high. Although Jordan (with a 93.4 percent literacy rate), Bahrain (88.5), Lebanon (86.4 percent), and Syria (85.7 percent) lead the Arab world in literacy, one of every two Egyptians does not know how to read, and at least one of every five in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Iraq cannot read either, according to the CIA’s World Fact book 2002.105 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, under Israeli rule for more than three decades, have one of the highest levels of literacy among Arabs; 85 percent.106 Throughout the Arab world as a whole illiteracy has dropped from 60 percent in 1980 to 43 percent in the mid-1990s, but even with this impressive decline, 60 million illiterate adults – mostly women, remain – according to the UN’s 2002 Arab Human Development Report.


From the very day it became an independent state on May 14, 1948, Israel has stood as a beacon of liberty

 

Israel has always perceived itself as responsible for providing a safe haven for any Jew in distress, regardless of the circumstances – displaced European Jews who survived the Holocaust, Jews from Arab countries whose communities became a target for discrimination and attacked, Jews from behind the Iron Curtain and black Jews from Ethiopia, and more recently, immigrants from Argentina and France – this is what Israel has stood for. In addition to serving as a haven for Jews, Israel has undertaken number of humanitarian gestures over the years. In the late 1970s, Israel took in 250 Vietnamese boat people, giving them asylum after an Israeli Zim Line vessel saved their lives while ships from Panama, Japan, Norway, and then-East Germany passed them by. Similar sentiments prompted Israel to give refuge to 84 Muslims from Bosnia in 1993 and 110 Albanians from Kosovo in 1999.107

Yet despite those humanitarian acts, Israel remains a victim of crimes against humanity, as Palestinian terrorist attacks specifically target Jews. In an ironic twist, Palestinians who accuse Israel of being racist and an apartheid state choose their victims solely by ethnic and racial origin, attacking places frequented by Israeli Jews. Handlers disguise their terrorist protégés to look like Jews (donning skullcaps, army uniforms, dyed hair or ‘cool’ haircuts, choosing candidates who specifically do not look Arabic). By the same token, peaceful Arabs will take steps to ensure they do not look like Jews when in predominantly Arab areas, leaving a kafiyah on the dashboard or worry beads hung from the rearview mirror. When possible, terrorists avoid harming Arabs, killing only Jews. In one case, a suicide bomber whispered a warning to a young female passenger talking in Arabic with a friend – “Something terrible is going to happen – get off the bus.” The passenger – a nursing student studying at a Jewish college in Safed – grabbed the arm of the other Arab student and quickly got off the bus at the next stop, not bothering to call police on her cell phone after the bus drove away.108 Twenty minutes later, the suicide bomber blew himself up in the packed bus, killing nine and injuring 50. In another case, a woman student who blew herself up in a Jerusalem supermarket told two women in traditional Arab dress to get out before approaching a group of other female shoppers with children whom she killed and maimed after detonating a suicide belt she was hiding under her clothes.109

Israel is accused of gross violations of Palestinian human rights based on simple ‘body counts’ – Israeli fatalities vs. Palestinian fatalities. This is misleading. An examination of circumstances surrounding many Palestinian deaths shows most were combatants, and there were countless, needless casualties among Palestinians that stemmed from reckless death-defying behavior.

The asymmetrical number of casualties among Israelis and Palestinians has incensed many observers, raising charges that Israel uses excessive force. In fact, Palestinians misread the results of a decade of self-restraint on the part of the Israeli army, whose rules of engagement permitted soldiers to fire only if their lives were clearly in danger.110 In retrospect, that policy – coupled with a similar misreading of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon – bolstered a false sense of invincibility among Palestinians in the face of armed IDF soldiers.

Many of the initial Israeli casualties resulted from a failure to fully grasp that the rules of battle had changed and soldiers should be allowed to fire back. Thus, Palestinians were killed attempting to dismantle a border fence near Kibbutz Nirim adjacent to the Gaza strip, having expected to simply walk into Israel proper. Others were injured and killed in the early months of the Terror War (‘al-Aqsa Intifada’) when mobs stormed isolated positions manned by Israeli soldiers and police in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem. Some literally climbing up onto the walls of army compounds, shimmying up flagpoles and climbing chain link parameter fences in an attempt to overrun such positions, assuming Israelis would pull back rather than shoot back. The often-fatal consequences of such irrational behavior, a complete disregard for one’s own personal safety, emanated from a lethal naiveté – the assumption that under no circumstances would Israelis use their weapons, coupled with a growing cultural chasm where Palestinians began to encourage such behavior as long as the fatalities could be pinned on Israel. The most bizarre use of the body count is that Palestinians blame the IDF for causing the deaths of homicide bombers and Palestinians killed while preparing bombs to be used against Israelis. Under such conditions, looking for symmetry in body counts becomes irrelevant.

A statistical analysis which examined the age, gender, and combatant status of all fatalities since the beginning of the September 2000 Terror War found 54 percent of Palestinian fatalities were among combatants while 80% of Israeli fatalities were among non-combatants, thus painting an entirely different picture of whose human rights are under attack.

The study111 by the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism also revealed that straightforward body counts – 1,900 Palestinians vs. 700 Israelis – create a warped picture because they lump together all Palestinian fatalities, including suicide bombers, those killed preparing bombs, and innocent bystanders. When fatalities were analyzed (based on open source material in Arabic and Hebrew) by age, gender, and combatant status (full combatants, probable combatants, uniformed non-combatants, suspected collaborators, violent protesters, unknown protestors, non-combatants, health-related, and unknown), an entirely different picture emerged: 54% of Palestinian losses were actively involved in fighting (not including stone throwers or unknowns); 80% of the Israelis killed were non-combatants with women and girls accounting for 31% of the Israeli casualties, compared to 5% of Palestinian females. Palestinian fatalities are concentrated among teens and young adult males, while Israeli casualties range from infants to senior citizens caught in crowded civilian targets, including 174 fatalities of people over age 45. Lastly, among Palestinians, at least 253 of their own 800 fatalities were deaths in which Palestinians were directly responsible for Palestinian deaths such as the murder of collaborators and bomb preparation accidents.

In fact, Palestinians have killed Israelis simply for the “crime of being Israeli,” the report charged. It also contradicts accusations that Israel has indiscriminately targeted women and children, as Palestinians often claim. Instead, the statistics show that the vast majority of Palestinians killed were Palestinian men and boys engaged in behavior that they knew placed them in danger. Their reckless, death-defying behavior reflected a culture of death purposefully and cynically championed by Palestinian political and religious leaders for political gain.

IN A NUTSHELL

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 champions the right to “life, liberty and security of person”; “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”; “freedom of opinion and expression”; “equal protection of the law”; freedom from “arbitrary arrest”; and “inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment.”
  • Despite rhetoric which paints Israel as a human rights oppressor, the facts and even the testimony of Palestinian human rights activists demonstrate that the Arab world flagrantly and systematically violates the human rights of its own people.
  • For Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, genuine respect for one’s person, privacy, property, gender, beliefs, right of expression; protection from arbitrary arrest, and from cruel and unusual punishment exist only in Israel. Many regimes in the Arab world have no qualms about terrorizing their own citizenry, using cruel and unusual punishments and engaging in murderous attacks on opponents to keep their citizenry in line.
  • Discrimination against women in the Arab world is widespread. It ranges from restrictions on their autonomy to laws that legitimize honor killings for breaching modesty customs.
  • The Palestinian Authority has not only turned the machinery of government into a police state in two opportunities for self-rule – the 1987 Intifada, and a decade of self-rule under the Palestinian Authority – but is responsible for the disintegration of Palestinian society into a lawless reign of terror which threatens Palestinians as well as Israelis.
  • Palestinian leaders think nothing about victimizing both their own children and Jewish Israeli children for political gain.
 


1 See Sharia – Islamic Law at:
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4726&search=arlandson. (11559)
2 For the text of the document, see:
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/international/hr1981.htm#Foreword. (11582)
3 “Re-drafting the Arab Charter on Human Rights: Building for a better future” See:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE010022004?open&of=ENG-375. (11561)
4 The Casablanca Declaration of the Arab Human Rights Movement See:
http://www.hri.ca/doccentre/docs/casa-dec.shtml. (11562)
5 For the texts of these documents, see:
http://www.undp-pogar.org/activities/justice/beirut.pdf. (11563)
6 “Middle East and North Africa,” Amnesty International, April 2001. See:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/regMDE/regMDE?OpenDocument. (10462)
7 For two examples, see the case of two Israeli restaurateurs invited by an Arab colleague to an eatery in Tul Karm at:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0j7n0. (10463) and a 16-year-old boy who went to visit a girl he met on the Internet who lured the youth to his death near Ramallah at:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0j1n0. (10464)
8 See David Matas’ critique of the behavior of the UN Commission on Human Rights See:
http://www.bnaibrith.ca/briefs/unchr/unchr-14b.html. (11180)
9 “Figure 1: Religious Freedom by Area” in Freedom House – Center for Religious Freedom. See:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/rfiw/fig1.htm. (11181)
10 Jim Muir, “Iran tries pollsters on spying charges,” BBC, December 3, 2002. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2539605.stm. (11179)
11 “The Internet in the Middle East and North Africa: Free Expression and Censorship,” Human Rights Watch, June 1999. See:
http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/internet/mena/summary.htm. (11182)
On Jordan, see: http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/internet/mena/jordan.htm. (11183)
12 “Saudi Arabia Blocks Religious Websites,” Christianity Today, August 7, 2002. See:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/130/31.0.html. (11184)
Also see: “Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia in 2004” at:
http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/saudi/. (11564)
13 “Israeli Internet penetration rate on the rise,” e-Marketer, November 2002. See:
http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905358572&rel=true. (11185)
14 For a comparison of usage in Israel and its Arab neighbors in 1999. See chart at:
http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/internet/mena/appendix-a.htm. (11186)
15 See Israel’s Business Arena: Almost 2 million online in Israel at:
http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905357429&rel=true. (11187)
16 Yossi Klein Halevi, “Refugee Status,” New Republic, August 19, 2002, at:
http://www.jpef.net/sep02/Refugee%20status.pdf. (10465)
“Death threat to Palestinian gays,” BBC, March 6, 2003 at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2826963.stm. (11565)
17 Chris McGreal, “Gay Israeli MP faces new battle in Knesset,” Guardian, November 5, 2002, at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,836330,00.html. (10467)
18 Arab Commission for Human Rights at:
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-79939/wiae.htm. (11566)
19 Cited in The Egyptian Organization for Human Right’s (EOHR) annual report at:
http://www.eohr.org/annual/2000/s4.htm. (10468)
In the pogrom on Christians (there are virtually no Jews left in Egypt) in the southern Egyptian village of Al Kosheh in January 2000, 100 Christian-owned businesses and homes were destroyed by a mob of 3,000 Muslims. Many of the 21 Copts murdered were told to renounce their faith, and when they refused they were executed on the spot. The Egyptian government wanted to hush up the embarrassing affair. For details, see the Center for Religious Freedom report at:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2000/bn-2000-01-03.htm. (10469)
20 Kenneth C. W. Leiter, “Life under the Palestinian Authority,” Middle East Quarterly (September 1998) at:
http://www.meforum.org/pf.php?id=406. (11190)
21 Eugene Cotran, “The Evolution of the Rule of Law in Palestine,” Daily Star, December 19, 1996, at:
http://www.soas.ac.uk/Centres/IslamicLaw/DS19-12-96RoLPalestine.html. (11191)
22 “High Court of Justice Ruling on Lebanese Detainees,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, 12 April 2000, at:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0h810. (11644)
23 See “Comments On The Human Rights Watch Report,” EOHR, November 2002, at:
http://www.eohr.org/press/2002/11-7.htm. (11642)
Eyad El Sarraj, “Why We’ve Become Suicide Bombers,” Peace Work (May 2002) at:
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0205/020506a.htm. (11194)
24 For an overview of human rights abridgements, see section on human rights by sociologist Kenneth Leiter, “Life under the Palestinian Authority,” Middle East Quarterly (September 1998) at:
http://www.meforum.org/pf.php/?id=406. (11190)
25 For 2005 details, see the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, “Brothers Against Brothers” at:
http://www.phrmg.org/pressrelease/2005/December%2030%20Brothers%20Against%20Brothers.htm. (11646)
26 For a look inside the Palestinian Authority and for case studies of its misuse of power against critical journalists, protesting workers, and others – from false arrest to use of torture in order to silence criticism and prevention of peaceful assembly, see the Palestinian Center for Human Rights report: “The Right to Free Expression and the Right to Peaceful Assembly – The Case of the West Bank and Gaza, January 1, 1999 – April 30, 2000” at:
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/S&r/English/pdf/Series Study 23.pdf. (11647)
27 For an overview of progress and regression in the status of women, see Homa Hoodfar, “Muslim Women on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century,” Dossier 21 (1998
http://wluml.org/english/pubsfulltxt.shtml?cmd[87]=i-87-f226d81549de18253f9cce3ff4045df2&cmd[190]=i-190-f226d81549de18253f9cce3ff4045df2. ( 11648)
28 For an overview of the status of women conducted by the UN Development Program, based on the UN’s Arab Human Development Report 2000, see “Arab Women Moving Fast, but Still Far to Go” at:
http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr/press_kits2002/EnglishPressKit.pdf. (11649)
29 “Jordanian Women: Past and Future,” Princess Basma Resource Centre, 1998, p. 9 (draft document), cited in Fadia Faqir, “Interfamily Femicide in Defense of Honor: The Case of Jordan,” Third World Quarterly 22, no. 1 (2001): 65-82 at:
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/femicide.htm.
30 U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus: Human Rights in Saudi Arabia: The Role of Women, Testimony of Amal Al-Qahtani, Ph.D., citizen of Saudi Arabia and head of the Saudi Institute – a U.S.-based human rights advocacy group, June 4, 2002.
31 For an overview of progress and regression in the status of women, see Homa Hoodfar, “Muslim Women on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century” at:
http://wluml.org/english/pubsfulltxt.shtml?cmd[87]=i-87-f226d81549de18253f9cce3ff4045df2&cmd[190]=i-190-f226d81549de18253f9cce3ff4045df2. (11648)
32 “Abuse of Women Under Arafat’s Palestinian Authority Regime,” December 27,2001, quoting Haaretz, June 16, 1994, at:
http://www.zoa.org/pressrel/20011227a.htm. (11202)
33 “Arab Women Moving Fast, but Still Far to Go,” UN Development Program, at:
http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr/press_kits2002/PR4.pdf. (11677)
34 Interview with Azar Nafisi, author of “Reading Lolita in Tehran” in The Atlantic, May 7, 2003 at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2003-05-07.htm. (11678)
35 “The Human Rights Situation in Egypt: Introduction” in “Annual Report 1999-2000,” Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, at:
http://www.eohr.org/annual/2000/intro.htm. (11204)
36 “Arab Women Moving Fast, But Still Far to Go,” at:
http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr/press_kits2002/PR4.pdf. (11677)
and “Victory for women’s rights: The Supreme Constitutional Court rejects constitutional challenge to Al Khol Law,” Egyptian Organization for Human Rights Press, December 16, 2002 at:
http://www.eohr.org/press/2002/12-16A.HTM. (11205)
37 Ibid.
38 Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia: Religious Police Role In School Fire Criticized,” See:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/saudischool.htm. (11650)
39 U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus: Human Rights in Saudi Arabia: The Role of Women, Testimony of Amal Al-Qahtani, Ph.D., citizen of Saudi Arabia and head of the Saudi Institute – a U.S.-based human rights advocacy group, June 4, 2002.
40 Maureen Dowd, “Driving While Female,” New York Times, November 17, 2002.
41Fadia Faqir, “Interfamily Femicide in Defense of Honor: The Case of Jordan,” Third World Quarterly 22, no. 1 (2001): 65-82 at:
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/femicide.htm. (11201)
42 James Emery, “Reputation is Everything: Honor Killings Among the Palestinians,” Worldandi (May 2003, at:
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2003/may/clpub.asp. (11679)
43 Ibid.
44 See Palestine, in “Case study: Honor Killings and Blood Feuds” at:
http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html. (11208)
45 Suzanne Ruggi, “Honor Killings in Palestine,” Jerusalem Times, 1998 at:
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/ruggi.htm. (11209)
46 For an overview of the problem, see Ilene R. Prusher, “One woman tackles ‘honor’ crimes in Jordan” Christian Science Monitor, August 10, 2000, at:
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/08/10/p13s1.htm. (11680) and Gendercide Watch, “Case Study: ‘Honor’ Killings and Blood Feuds,” at:
http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html. (11208)
47 Fadia Faqir, “Interfamily Femicide in Defense of Honor: The Case of Jordan,” Third World Quarterly 22, no. 1 (2001): 65-82.
48 Ibid.
49 For case studies and sources, see Jordan, in “Case study: Honor Killings and Blood Feuds” at:
http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html. (11208)
50 “Arab Women Moving Fast, But Still Far to Go,” at:
http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr/press_kits2002/PR4.pdf. (11677)
51 Roundtable on Strategies to Address “Crimes of Honor,” Center for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, London University, p. 4 at:
http://www.soas.ac.uk/honourcrimes/Meet_RoundtableReport.pdf. (11419)
52 Ibid.
53 Cited in “Commentary of Egypt’s Third and Fourth Periodic Reports to the Committee On Human Rights,” Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, at:
http://www.eohr.org/report/2002/un2.htm. (11213)
54 “Killing of Women on the Basis of Family Honor,” Monitor, August 2002, at:
http://www.phrmg.org/monitor2002/Aug2002.htm. (11685)
55 Roundtable on Strategies to Address “Crimes of Honor,” Center for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, London University, p. 7 at:
http://www.soas.ac.uk/honourcrimes/Meet_RoundtableReport.pdf. (11419)
56 “Amnesty demands Saudi probe,” BBC News, March 17, 2000 at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/681597.stm. (11166)
Testimony on religious persecution in Saudi Arabia before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, see:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/newsletters/2000/March-April/newsletter_2000-mar04.htm. (11167)
57 “Amnesty demands Saudi probe,” BBC News, March 17, 2000 at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/681597.stm. (11166)
and “Saudi Arabia ‘buys silence’ on abuse,” March 28, 2000 at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/693729.stm. (11686)
58 Scott Wilson, “Iraqis Break Silence About Secret Graves,” Washington Post, May 5, 2003.
59 “The Lessons of Halabja: An Ominous Warning,” U.S. State Department at:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm. (11217)
60 “Background Note: Lebanon,” U.S. State Department at:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35833.htm. (11218)
61 Emanuel A. Winston, “Arab Nations’ Solutions To Terror and Insurgency,” see:
http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/docs/winston/aug20-01.htm. (11219)
62 “Egypt: Chemical Weapons Program,” Federation of American Scientists at:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/egypt/cw/. (11220)
63 Jonathan Schanzer, “Palestinian Uprisings Compared,” Middle East Quarterly (Summer 2002) at:
http://www.meforum.org/pf.php?id=206.
64 Kenneth Leiter, “Life Under the Palestinian Authority,” Middle East Quarterly at:
http://www.meforum.org/pf.php?id=406. (11687)
65 Kenneth W. Stein, “The Intifada and the Uprising of 1936-1939: A Comparison of the Palestinian Arab Communities” in The Intifada: Its Impact on Israel, the Arab World, and the Superpowers, ed. by Robert O. Freedman (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1991), pp. 3-36.
66 Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1992), p. 94.
67 Kenneth Stein, “The Intifada and the Uprising of 1936-1939,” pp. 3-36.
68 For data and examples – including 11 mukhtars slain along with family members between February 1937-November 1938, see The 1938 and 2001 proposed partitions of western Palestine in “Policy of Appeasement” quoting Arab v. Arab (pamphlet) (Rydal Press, UK, 1939), Esco Foundation for Palestine (1937) and other sources, at:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/appeasement.html. (11225)
69 Jonathan Schanzer, “Palestinian Uprising Compared,” Middle East Quarterly (Summer 2002) at:
http://www.meforum.org/article/206. (11689)
70 Human Rights and Legal Position of Palestinian ‘Collaborators,’ PHRM, July 2001, at:
http://www.phrmg.org/monitor2001/jul2001.htm. (11226)
71 Bard E. O’Neill, “The Intifada in the Context of Armed Struggle,” in Freedman, The Intifada, pp. 57-58.
72 See Gershom Gorenberg, “The Collaborators,” Times News, August 18, 2002, quoting PHRMG, at:
http://www.phrmg.org/articles/18August2002.htm. (11227)
At the end of the Gulf War Kuwait expelled some 400,000 Palestinians. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus_from_Kuwait. (11690)
73 At the end of the Gulf War Kuwait expelled some 400,000 Palestinians. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus_from_Kuwait. (11690)
74 Both divergences and similarities are discussed in Kenneth Stein’s work cited above.
75 Don Peretz, Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990), quoted in Jonathan Schanzer “Palestinian Uprisings Compared,” Middle East Quarterly at:
http://www.meforum.org/article/206. (11689)
76 Ibid.
77 “Deaths as a result of gunfire,” Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, at:
http://www.phrmg.org/PHRMG%20Documents/Gunfire%20tables/Tables/gunfire_english.htm. (11691)
78 Lamia Lahoud, “License to kill,” Jerusalem Post, September 8, 1998.
79 Dr. Eyad El Sarraj “Kill Your Neighbor!” This article was published in The Jerusalem Report on October 26 1998 under the title “Spare thy neighbor.” See:
http://www.gcmhp.net/eyad/kill_your_neighbor.htm. ( 11692)
80 “West Bank and Gaza in Brief,” World Bank, August 2000. See also Country Brief at:
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/mna/mena.nsf/Countries/West+Bank/8830DA075FD4A1EC85256CC9006F9B7F?OpenDocument.
81 Eliyahu Kanovsky, “Has the Peace Process Reaped Economic Dividends?” Testimony before the U.S. Congress – Joint Economic Committee, October 21, 1997, at:
http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/israel/kanovsky.htm. (11236)
82 B’tzelem; “Israelis killed in the Occupied Territories (including East Jerusalem) since the Beginning of the 1987 Intifada until the end of Nov. 2002,”
83 Alan Philips, “Lynch mob suspects held by Israelis,” Telegraph, June 26, 2001 at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/06/26/wisr26.xml. (10596)
84 Albert Robinson, “Fence May be Final Blow to Palestinian Economy,” Reuters, July 1, 2002, at:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0701-03.htm. (11240)
85 Ibid.
86 “Eight killed in Palestinian bus attack,” Israel Insider, February 15, 2001, at:
http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/security/articles/sec_0001.htm. (11241)
87 Israel Seals Off West Bank, Gaza,” CBS News, February 10, 2003 at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/11/world/main540203.shtml. (11242)
88 For the results of public opinion polls, see the chapter on “Rejectionism.”
89 Ari Shavit and Jalal Bana, “The Secret Exodus – Palestinian Emigration,” October 5, 2001 at:
http://www.emigrations.net/pr01.htm. (11243)
See also CAMERA: “AP Article on Palestinian Emigration Blames Only Israel” at:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=644&x_context=2. (11244)
90 Jonathan Schanzer, “Palestinian Uprising Compared,” Middle East Quarterly (Summer 2002) at:
http://www.meforum.org/article/206. (11689)
91 On the goals of this strategy – encouraging children to lead violent demonstrations and teenage youth to become combatants in order to gain sympathy and points for their cause in the international arena, and delegitimize Israel and cast Israelis as heartless victimizers, see Daniella Ashkenazy, “Small-Arms Warfare,” Jerusalem Post, January 31, 1990.
92 Musa Ziyada: In the spring of 1995 in Gaza City, I met Musa Ziyada, a 15-year-old boy with huge almond eyes. He had apparently been recruited by Hamas, the radical Islamist group, to carry out a suicide bombing in Israel. See Isabel Kershner, Washingtontpost.com, May 7 2006 “Rise of the Zealots,” at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401620.html.(11693)
93 “Wars and civil conflicts are taking a massive toll on children,” UNICEF at:
http://www.unicef.org/children-in-war/. (11694)
Text of the protocol can be accessed at:
http://www.unicef.org/crc/annex1.htm. (11695)
94 “Child Soldiers,” BBC World Service. See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/childrensrights/childrenofconflict/soldier.shtml. (10425)
95 See UNICEF, “The Convention on the Rights of the Child” at:
http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm. (11695)
96 Human Rights Watch World Report, 2002: Middle East and North Africa Overview.
97 Irwin Cotler, “Beyond Durban: The conference against racism that became a racist conference against Jews,” 2001, see:
http://www.jafi.org.il/agenda/2001/english/wk3-22/6.asp. (11248)
98 For full text, see: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. (11249)
99 Amnon Rubinstein, “More equality than in Europe,” Haaretz, October 9, 2002 at:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=217633&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y. (10470)
100 See statistics at:
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/resources/researchpublications/documents/MDarticl_1.pdf. (10249)
and the National Statistics Online – home of official UK statistic:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp. (11251)
101 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Document: Infant Mortality Ratios at:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2091.html. (10472) and World Health Organization at:
http://www.who.int/whr2001/2001/archives/1999/en/pdf/StatisticalAnnex.pdf
102 “West Bank and Gaza in Brief,” World Bank (August 2000), at:
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/mna/mena.nsf/All/F192A5DA7D266F048525694700278825?OpenDocument. (11001)
103 See Tom Rose, Weekly Standard, January 21, 2002, at:
http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Jan-02/140102.html. (11234)
104 Tom Rose, at: http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Jan-02/140102.html.
105 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Document: Literacy Rates at:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2103.html.(11696)
106 “West Bank and Gaza in Brief,” World Bank, August 2000, at:
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/mna/mena.nsf/All/F192A5DA7D266F048525694700278825?OpenDocument. (11001)
107 Helen Schary Motro, “Israel’s forgotten lesson,” by Helen Schary Motro, Christian Science Monitor, April 19, 2001.
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2001/04/19/p11s1.htm. (11254)
108 “Israeli Arab nursing student charged for failure to warn of bus bombing,” Jerusalem Post, August 7, 2002.
109 Cited in Herbert Adam and Simon Fraser, “Political Travel through the Holy Land” Global Review of Ethno-Politics, January 2003.
110 In one classic section of TV footage, an armed Israeli soldier was seen ducking behind his tank rather than facing a Palestinian youth fearlessly ‘closing the gap’ between them, armed with a huge rock.
111 For a summary of the study see Don Radlauer, “The al-Aqsa Intifada – An Engineered Tragedy,” January 7, 2003 at:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440. (11259)
For the full study, see:
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439. (11260)


This document uses extensive links via the Internet. If you experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number (xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at www.MEfacts.com

 

 

Posted in B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, democrat muslim, Hussein Obama, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam ideology, Islam stupidity, Islam sympathizers, Islam Threat, Islam unrest, islam violating treaties, Islam's Founder, islamc illegal immigration, ISLAMIC ASSEMBLY OF NORTH AMERICA, Islamic Banking, Islamic centers, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic cowards, Islamic cult, islamic death threats, Islamic denial, Islamic doctors, Islamic Extremists, Islamic Fifth Column, Islamic history, Islamic immigration, Islamic Imperialism, Islamic Jihad, Islamic law, Islamic lies, Islamic Multiculturalism, Islamic myths, Islamic Nukes, Islamic perversion, Islamic prison recruiting, Islamic Propaganda, islamic recruiting, Islamic Schools, Islamic Slavery, Islamic Society of Boston, Islamic Society of North America, islamic taxi drivers, Islamic terrorism, Islamic torture, Islamic Women Rights, Islamic-mein-kampf, Islamism, Islamist Terror, Islamist Web, Islamists, Islamo-fascists, muslim, Muslim Albanians, Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Muslim Brotherhood, muslim charities, Muslim Civil Liberties Union, muslim clerics, muslim democrats, Muslim doctors, muslim extremist, Muslim Fundamentalism, muslim ghettos, Muslim immigration, Muslim integration, Muslim lies, Muslim Mafia, Muslim Propaganda, Muslim Rape, muslim schools, Muslim soldiers, Muslim Student Union, Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada, muslim sympathizers, Muslim Violence, Muslim vote, Muslims go home, Obama. Leave a Comment »

Sexual Abuse Widespread Among Muslims

Sexual Abuse Widespread Among Muslims

HRS 5 February 2010 By Nicolai Sennels (hat tip Lisa)

Here we will dive into a dark and closed universe; a universe where women are forced to commit to lifelong sexual relationships with close family members, where abuse of women is seemingly extremely widespread, where girls and women are forced to hide their female beauty behind veils, long unflattering coats, burkas etc., where men are free to rape women, because women are often automatically seen as the ones at fault.

Rape and forced sexual relations
In the article ‘A Question of Honor’ in The Independent on February 10th 2009, British police were quoted estimating that nearly 17,000 women in Great Britain fall victim to honor related assaults, including rape and forced marriage, every year.

Vibe Klarup Voetmann, director of the Copenhagen women’s refuge ‘Dannerhuset’, said to the Danish newspaper Kristligt Dagblad on the 11th of June 2008 that 70 percent of the nearly 1.400 women who contact the centre each year come from a Middle-Eastern background. As ‘Dannerhuset’ is just one of 40 women’s refuges in Denmark, there is reason to fear that the number of Muslim women who seek shelter or counseling due to forced marriages, domestic violence or sexual abuse, is actually much higher. It is also worth taking into consideration the fact that many Muslim women keep quiet about assaults out of fear of retaliation from the family. Thus, in Denmark alone, the number of Muslim women who are abused each year is likely to exceed several thousand.

Where is the honor in raping a woman or forcing her to marry a man she does not love?

A forced marriage is a sexual assault
When it comes to forced marriages, journalists and media still fail to understand that it is not just an assault on the woman’s basic human rights, but also, and especially, on her sexuality. In a forced marriage, the fact is that the woman is forced to engage in sexual relations with a man she has not chosen herself. Furthermore, this sexual relationship often lasts a lifetime, as is divorce rarely an option for the women.

The many forced marriages are only made more detestable by the fact that the women are often forced to marry members of their extended family: “In Pakistan it is estimated that close to 70 percent of all marriages are inter-familial marriages and in Turkey the figure is between 25-30 percent.”

How would you like it if you were forced to have sex with your own cousin?

Forced sexual relations between close family members is not only psychologically traumatizing, but also biologically unnatural. According to the article “The inbreeding of immigrants costs millions” in the Danish newspaper BT on the 10th of November 2003, the consequences are often physical and mental handicaps:

“When two cousins have children, the risk of having a handicapped child is doubled – and that costs the municipalities,” and further, “Already in year 2000 it was calculated that while 13 percent of all children in Copenhagen were immigrants, they also made up 24 percent of severely handicapped children.”

Unfortunately, in many forced marriages in Muslim culture, the bride is very young. As the young girls are without any realistic possibility of resisting the marriage, it is not too much to consider these marriages institutionalized sexual abuse. Swedish researcher, Pernilla Ouis, herself a Muslim, has on behalf of “Red Barnet” done a research of the so-called honor-related violence. The research took place in the Middle-East and Ouis’ conclusion is that: “early marriage can be seen as sexual abuse, as the girls involved are very young.”

Muslim culture is a paradise for horny men
According to the Quran, Muslim men who die for Islam in battle will be rewarded 72 virgins, who are seemingly restored to virginity every time a martyr has penetrated her. Seen from the perspective of Western psychology, it is quite embarrassing and immature that a world religion promises sex – fair and square – and this, in addition, with sexually un-experienced women, as the highest prize. Most people who have already grown out of the hormonal waves of the teenage years, and have gained just a pinch of human maturity, will probably agree that such a goal is built on, and directed at, a very crude type of man.

This is not to say that the Islamic paradise is first and foremost meant for horny and callous men, who are too insecure to deal with experienced women’s free view on sexuality. However, the widespread glorification of this paradise within the Islamic environment indicates that the Muslim culture has succeeded in producing not so few of this type of man.

This sexual paradise, where one can just take a woman and do with her what one wants without asking, is unfortunately also existent among living Muslim men who have not martyred themselves for their religion. In many cases, Muslim men can rape Muslim women without consequences, because the women do not dare tell the family or the police. In fact, the view on women in the Muslim culture is often that it is the women themselves, who are to blame for the rape.

On the 3rd of August, the Danish TV-station, “Danmarks Radio”, reported how organized gang rape is a widespread phenomenon in immigrant circles: “Young men with a different ethnic background than Danish are responsible for organized rapes of girls from their own environment and background. The young men are well aware that the girls are so frightened of the reactions from their family that they keep quiet about the rapes.”

Kristina Aamand, a nurse who, herself, comes from a Muslim family, has worked with immigrant girls, who have been sexually abused, at the “Centre for Rape Victims in Denmark”. Today, Aamand is the manager of the counseling offer “New Virginity”, which is contacted every month by one or more immigrant girls who have been sexually abused by immigrant boys or men. Aamand comments on the phenomenon:

As a Muslim immigrant girl you are raised to believe that if you have pre-marital sex, you are punished by Allah. Pre-marital sex is, according to Islam, the most shameful act you can do. Some of the boys use this concept of honor against the girls, because it is the girls who bare the shame and will be punished accordingly.

It is the more fervently religious families who consider the unfortunate girls guilty of their own rape. The same kind of family will often not allow female family members to be alone with men who are not members of the family. Furthermore, girls and women must always be accompanied by male family members whenever they leave the family home. Therefore, there is reason to suspect that the rapist is often a member of the family, such as uncle, brother, cousin, father, grandfather etc.

The Islamic paradise for horny and perverted Muslim men received its own legal paragraph in the spring 2009 in Afghanistan. Here the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, signed a law which actually granted men the right to rape their wives if more than four days had passed without sex. Luckily, the law was withdrawn due to international pressure. Unfortunately, the media and biographical literature is filled with accounts of Muslim men’s sexual abuse and violation of girls.

The beautiful, intelligent and brave Somali woman Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes this in moving detail in her books about life in Muslim society. The media can often provide more absurd examples. One of many recent examples is that of a 16-year-old Jordanian girl who was killed by her uncle with eight bullets at different places in her body – all because she had been raped. The only act of mercy, if it is even reasonable to talk about it as such, was that the uncle waited to kill his niece until after she had given birth to her rapist’s child.

Earlier in the summer, a girl, only eight years old, was abandoned by her Muslim parents because they wanted to save the family honor after their daughter had been raped by four boys. The Organization for Women’s Refuges in Denmark has experienced a fourfold increase in the number of children and young people who seek protection from domestic abuse. Manager of the secretariat, Lene Johannesson says:

Although efforts for integration has been persistent for quite a few years, young girls especially are still subjected to honor-related assaults.

Muslim men’s view on women is perhaps the reason that 100 percent of all rapes (of the kind where perpetrator and victim do not know each other beforehand) in Oslo in both 2006, 2007 and 2008 were committed by immigrants with a so-called non-Western background. A particularly malicious version of this phenomenon was revealed in February 2009: An Iraqi woman had arranged the rape of no less than 80 other women. The purpose was to give the victims the impression that now that they no longer had anything to live for, becoming suicide-bombers was the only way to save their own and their family’s honor.

Furthermore, according to Islam, women must provide at least two male witnesses if they are to take any case to court. Should a woman in the Muslim countries which judge according to Sharia thus have the guts to report a rape, it would be impossible to win the case, as any possible male witnesses to the rape would most likely have been involved in the assault themselves.

In reality, a large part of the world’s almost 700 million Muslim women are thus without any real source of protection against sexual assaults by family members or other men in the surrounding environment. Only too often, this is exploited by Muslim men. When it comes to considering the actual wishes and desires of the women, the fact that a woman has any desire at all is frowned upon in many Muslim countries, even to the point of cutting off the erogenous parts of the female genitals preferably before puberty is reached. The New York Times thus related in the article ‘A cutting Tradition’ on the 20th of January, that 96 percent of all girls in the world’s most heavily populated Muslim country, Indonesia, are circumcised before they turn 14. Disgusting!

Islam perverts its followers’ sexuality
Why are women, and women’s right to decide over their own body and sexuality, worth less than men in Islam and Muslim culture? Why are Muslim women beaten, raped and mutilated so much more often than women of other cultures? There are many possible answers, of which the Quran is the most concrete: According to Allah and his prophet Muhammad, women are simply inferior to men (The Quran, chap. 4, 34th stanza).

Apart from the Quran, as a psychologist I will also point to the psychological fact that what we are afraid of, we do not like. After treating more than 100 Muslim men, it is my clear impression that Muslim men feel scared and insecure that women’s sexuality is in many ways stronger than men’s. Women can make love for a longer time than men, and men often feel ashamed if they cannot control their ejaculation and are thus not able to satisfy the woman. By disregarding women and their needs, these men try to handle the fact that women are stronger than men in this basic area of life.

Of course it must be mentioned that this psychological mechanism is also a factor among male-chauvinists in other cultures. However, no religion or culture has succeeded in creating as pronounced a cult around female sexuality as Islam – a cult that is centered on the suppression and concealment of female sexuality and female desire.

Kristina Aamand said in my interview with her, “Project New Virginity – Interview with Kristina Abu-Khader Aamand” from the 21st of September 2009: “Social control of women serves the purpose of preserving the core of the Muslim culture. For, a larger part of the core of the Muslim culture is about the female sexuality.” And here, it does not matter whether the women themselves claim to have chosen to wear a scarf, a veil or a burka. The fact that the women share Islam’s condescending view on women does not make things better, rather the contrary.

As a professional psychologist, I thus argue that the Muslim view on women is not only harmful to Muslim women. The condescending view on women and the mass-neurotic control of their sexuality is also harmful to the psychological development of the men. The sexuality of Muslim men is perverted because they are not able to experience a relaxed and loving relationship with women, and thus miss out on the deep emotional joy and development that loving, tender and respectful love between man and woman brings.

Muslim men are becoming callous, and their sexual performance becomes insensitive and without consideration for the needs and desires of the woman. And according to the women, among whom two experienced prostitutes that I have interviewed, the result is that Muslim men last a shorter time in bed and give less joy than other men.

When venturing into depth-psychology, which was first explored by the Swiss Psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung, we find the same psychological analysis. If one suppresses the female in the outer world, one correspondingly represses one’s own female qualities (so-called “anima”), and one thus becomes less sensitive, creative, calm, intuitive, self-secure, social and peaceful.

he rest of us, all us men who love women, and who worship the things we learn by opening up to them, and wish that women are free to chose their partners, wardrobe and lifestyle, feel that it is our duty to protect them if they are being attacked or suppressed, and can only shrug at the men who do not let their women live the way they want, and who do not have eyes for the many qualities of women. Men who do not have a relaxed relationship to women are often male-chauvinists and emotionally immature – a sign of lack of openness and real life-experience with the beautiful sex. In therapy, this type of man often shows himself to have a distorted image of his own attractiveness and sexual performance.

Unhealthy sexuality
This perversion of sexuality and lacking experience of equal and mutual love might be the reason why many fervent Muslim believers also have been shown to have a great interest in child porn. In the article “Link Between Child Porn and Muslim Terrorists Discovered in Police Raids” from 17th of October 2008, Times Online could thus report how British police have found lots of child porn during investigations of assumed terrorists’ computers. The police was surprised to find a clear connection “between people who were followers of theocracy and Islamic fundamentalism, and their use of child porn.” The pedophile terrorists’ behavior is not far from that of their prophet: Muhammad married a six-year-old girl and had sex with her first time when she was nine. And yes, he terrorized his surroundings with scores of wars and gave his followers permission to rape non-Muslim women.

The fact that more than half of all brides in Afghanistan are under fifteen years old is also far from the biologically and mentally more responsible Western practice, which is based on the idea that girls should not have sex before they are sexually mature. One of the more grotesque examples is an eight-year-old girl in Saudi-Arabia, who was forced to marry a 47-year-old man. With the help of her mother, the girl filed for divorce, but according to Saudi-Arabian law, which is based on the Quran, she had to stay with her husband, who was six times her age.

One of Islam’s highest leaders, the now deceased Ayatollah Khomeni, who lead the Islamic revolution in 1979 in Iran and who, until his death in 1989, was the highest authority of the country, both politically and religiously, also wrote the book Tahrirolvasyleh, which is a collection of Islamic rules of conduct for Muslims. Here he is said to have written that: “

A man can quench his sexual thirst by use of a baby. The only condition is that he does not penetrate the vagina, but anal sex is okay.

Elsewhere, he writes that:

It is better if a girl marries so early that she gets her first period in the home of her husband rather than in the home of the father. Every father who gives his daughter away in marriage at such an early age will have obtained a place in heaven.

And further:

A man can have anal sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels, etc. However, he should kill the animal after ejaculating.

And some words on the rights of women:

A woman who has entered into a true state of matrimony does not have the right to leave the house without her husband’s permission – she must be available to him and fulfill his every need and must not refuse to give herself to him unless there is a valid religious reason.

Khomeni also does not think that a husband having anal sex with his own son is a valid reason for divorce: “If a man has anal sex with his son, brother or father after he is married, the marriage is to continue.”

Prophets, religious leaders, the Quran and culture or not, seen from a psychological perspective, sexual relationships between grown men and adolescent girls, or women who are not participating voluntarily, is an expression of a perverted sexual life and culture. It is a sign of some thoroughly depressing and dysfunctional character-traits – these character-traits are, in far too many cases, the result of growing up in the Muslim culture. Thus, many signs suggest that Islam and Muslim culture perverts men’s sexual drive and desire. This is, presumably, the reason why sexual assaults on girls and women are so frequent and widespread among Muslims.

The largest search-engine on the internet, Google, seems to confirm that the interest in the most perverted and traumatizing kinds of sex is largest in the Muslim world. Google Trends is a program, which can show in what countries and languages a certain word is most frequently searched for. If you write “children sex” in Google Trends, Muslim countries take up four out of five places on the top-five.

The languages, in which “children sex” is most often searched for are Indonesian and Arabic. If you search for “rape sex”, Muslim countries take up three out of four on the top-four. And again Indonesian and Arabic are the languages in which this type of sex is most frequently searched for. Just for fun, I tried searching for “donkey sex” and again it turned out that Muslim countries take up four out of five places on the top-five.

However, this time the languages in which the search for donkey sex is most frequently executed were Turkish and Arabic. Ayatollah Khomeni would not have raised an eyebrow. Of course there can be different explanations as to why the interest in searching for these kinds of sex is so great in many of the largest Muslim countries, but it is, nevertheless, thought-provoking seen in the light of Islam and the Muslim culture’s view on free sexuality and love as sick and wrong. You can try searching yourself on www.google.com/trends.

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.

 

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student’s Association.

The e-mail was in response to the students’ protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

The group had complained the cartoons were ‘hate speech’

============

Enter Professor Wichman.

==========================================

In his e-mail, he said the following:

===============================

Dear Muslim Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called ‘whores’ in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues..I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile ‘protests.’

If you do not like the values of the West – see the 1st Amendment – you are free to leave. I hope for God’s sake that most of you choose that option.

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S. Wichman

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

  

=============================

As you can imagine,

the Muslim group at the university didn’t like this too well.

They’re demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty. 

And mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen..

Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray .

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn’t believe that the good professor

had the right to express his opinion..

==========

For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,

saying the e-mail was private, and they don’t intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

============================================================

Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.

Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.

We are in a war.

This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.

==================

If you agree with this,

Please send it to all your friends,

If not simply delete it.

  

  

YEAH MICHIGAN STATE !

 

Holding fast does not mean never failing. It means never giving up.

This is a must watch and very scary

This is the most important email I’ve ever posted WATCH ALL OF IT
then forward it to all those that need to know the truth
 
Bud

Subject: This is a must watch and very scary

This is not a joke. Must watch!!! and forward!!! 

I wish that I could look at this and NOT believe it.

 

 

 

Posted in B Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, democrat muslim, Hussein Obama, Imams, Imams and Terrorism, Immigration, In The News, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam ideology, Islam stupidity, Islam sympathizers, Islam Threat, Islam unrest, islam violating treaties, Islam's Founder, Islamabad, Islamberg, islamc illegal immigration, ISLAMIC ASSEMBLY OF NORTH AMERICA, Islamic Banking, Islamic centers, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic cult, islamic death threats, Islamic denial, Islamic doctors, Islamic Extremists, Islamic Fifth Column, Islamic history, Islamic immigration, Islamic Imperialism, Islamic Jihad, Islamic law, Islamic lies, Islamic Multiculturalism, Islamic myths, Islamic Nukes, Islamic perversion, Islamic prison recruiting, Islamic Propaganda, islamic recruiting, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Schools, Islamic Slavery, islamic taxi drivers, Islamic terrorism, Islamic torture, Islamic Women Rights, Islamism, Islamist Terror, Islamists, Islamo-fascists, muslim, Muslim Albanians, Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Muslim Brotherhood, muslim charities, Muslim Civil Liberties Union, muslim clerics, muslim democrats, Muslim doctors, muslim extremist, Muslim Fundamentalism, muslim ghettos, Muslim immigration, Muslim integration, Muslim lies, Muslim Mafia, Muslim Propaganda, Muslim Rape, muslim schools, Muslim Student Union, Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada, muslim sympathizers, Muslim Violence, Muslim vote, Myths of Islam, Obama. Leave a Comment »

LONG BUT VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE: An Anatomy of Surrender: Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.

Bruce Bawer
An Anatomy of Surrender
Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.
Spring 2008

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho­meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito want to understand islam? start here.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Little Mosque on the Prairie and CW’s Aliens in America. Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis—but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors. Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

More recently, high-profile Europe experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced “accommodation,” which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britain’s best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K., what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, “a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.” Gratifyingly, his proposal, short on specifics and long on academic doublespeak (“I don’t think,” he told the BBC, “that we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights, simply because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it”) was greeted with public outrage.

Another prominent accommodationist is humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University, author of an August 2007 essay in the New York Times Magazine so long and languorous, and written with such perfect academic dispassion, that many readers may have finished it without realizing that it charted a path leading straight to sharia. Muslims’ “full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected,” Lilla wrote. For the West, “coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle.”

Revealing in this light is Buruma’s and Garton Ash’s treatment of author Ayaan Hirsi Ali—perhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihad—and of the Europe-based Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a “simplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalist”—thus implicitly equating her with the Muslim fundamentalists who have threatened to kill her—while Buruma, in several New York Times pieces, has portrayed her as a petulant naif. (Both men have lately backed off somewhat.) On the other hand, the professors have rhapsodized over Ramadan’s supposed brilliance. They aren’t alone: though he’s clearly not the Westernized, urbane intellectual he seems to be—he refuses to condemn the stoning of adulteresses and clearly looks forward to a Europe under sharia—this grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and protégé of Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi regularly wins praise in bien-pensant circles as representing the best hope for long-term concord between Western Muslims and non-Muslims.

This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described “the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law” as “bold and noble.”

With the press, the entertainment industry, and prominent liberal thinkers all refusing to defend basic Western liberties, it’s not surprising that our political leaders have been pusillanimous, too. After a tiny Oslo newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the Danish cartoons in early 2006, jihadists burned Norwegian flags and set fire to Norway’s embassy in Syria. Instead of standing up to the vandals, Norwegian leaders turned on Magazinet’s editor, Vebjørn Selbekk, partially blaming him for the embassy burning and pressing him to apologize. He finally gave way at a government-sponsored press conference, groveling before an assemblage of imams whose leader publicly forgave him and placed him under his protection. On that terrible day, Selbekk later acknowledged, “Norway went a long way toward allowing freedom of speech to become the Islamists’ hostage.” As if that capitulation weren’t disgrace enough, an official Norwegian delegation then traveled to Qatar and implored Qaradawi—a defender of suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish children—to accept Selbekk’s apology. “To meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances,” Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi protested, was “tantamount to granting extreme Islamists . . . a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed.”

The UN’s position on the question of speech versus “respect” for Islam was clear—and utterly at odds with its founding value of promoting human rights. “You don’t joke about other people’s religion,” Kofi Annan lectured soon after the Magazinet incident, echoing the sermons of innumerable imams, “and you must respect what is holy for other people.” In October 2006, at a UN panel discussion called “Cartooning for Peace,” Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor proposed drawing “a very thin blue UN line . . . between freedom and responsibility.” (Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether that line would strike through the First Amendment.) And in 2007, the UN’s Human Rights Council passed a Pakistani motion prohibiting defamation of religion.

Other Western government leaders have promoted the expansion of the Dar al-Islam. In September 2006, when philosophy teacher Robert Redeker went into hiding after receiving death threats over a Le Figaro op-ed on Islam, France’s then–prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, commented that “everyone has the right to express their opinions freely—at the same time that they respect others, of course.” The lesson of the Redeker affair, he said, was “how vigilant we must be to ensure that people fully respect one another in our society.” Villepin got a run for his money last year from his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who, after meeting with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the Vilks cartoons, won praise from one of them, Algeria’s Merzak Bedjaoui, for his “spirit of appeasement.”

When, years after September 11, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged publicly that the West was at war with Islamic fascism, Muslims’ and multiculturalists’ furious reaction made him retreat to the empty term “war on terror.” Britain’s Foreign Office has since deemed even that phrase offensive and banned its use by cabinet members (along with “Islamic extremism”). In January, the Home Office decided that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be described as “anti-Islamic activity.”

Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway’s parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country’s most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it’s arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society’s norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.

Those who dare to defy the West’s new sharia-based strictures and speak their minds now risk prosecution in some countries. In 2006, legendary author Oriana Fallaci, dying of cancer, went on trial in Italy for slurring Islam; three years earlier, she had defended herself in a French court against a similar charge. (Fallaci was ultimately found not guilty in both cases.) More recently, Canadian provinces ordered publisher Ezra Levant and journalist Mark Steyn to face human rights tribunals, the former for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the latter for writing critically about Islam in Maclean’s.

Even as Western authorities have hassled Islam’s critics, they’ve honored jihadists and their supporters. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth knighted Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, a man who had called for the death of Salman Rushdie. Also that year, London mayor Ken Livingstone ludicrously praised Qaradawi as “progressive”—and, in response to gay activists who pointed out that Qaradawi had defended the death penalty for homosexuals, issued a dissertation-length dossier whitewashing the Sunni scholar and trying to blacken the activists’ reputations. Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”

If you don’t find the dhimmification of politicians shocking, consider the degree to which law enforcement officers have yielded to Islamist pressure. Last year, when “Undercover Mosque,” an unusually frank exposé on Britain’s Channel 4, showed “moderate” Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into action—reporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, “revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.” Only days after the “Undercover Mosque” broadcast—in a colossal mark of indifference to the reality that it exposed—Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair announced plans to share antiterrorist intelligence with Muslim community leaders. These plans, fortunately, were later shelved.

Canadian Muslim reformist Irshad Manji has noted that in 2006, when 17 terrorists were arrested in Toronto on the verge of giving Canada “its own 9/11,” “the police did not mention that it had anything to do with Islam or Muslims, not a word.” When, after van Gogh’s murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction). In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid “racist backlash.” And in August, the Times of London reported that “Asian” men (British code for “Muslims”) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of “white girls as young as twelve”—but that authorities wouldn’t take action for fear of “upsetting race relations.” Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the “Asian” men’s contempt for the “white” girls was a matter not of race but of religion.

Even military leaders aren’t immune. In 2005, columnist Diana West noted that America’s Iraq commander, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, was educating his staff in Islam by giving them a reading list that “whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito”; two years later, West noted the unwillingness of a counterinsurgency advisor, Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, to mention jihad. In January 2008, the Pentagon fired Stephen Coughlin, its resident expert on sharia and jihad; reportedly, his acknowledgment that terrorism was motivated by jihad had antagonized an influential Muslim aide. “That Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered ‘controversial,’ ” wrote Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, “is pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global terrorism.” (Perhaps owing to public outcry, officials announced in February that Coughlin would not be dismissed after all, but instead moved to another Department of Defense position.)

Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.

Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at BruceBawer.com.

 

 

 

National Intelligence Officer Mary O. McCarthy: First Traitor Nabbed

Islam does not preach coexistence

St. Cloud Times | WWW.SCTIMES.COM

Times Writers Group: Islam does not preach coexistence
By Dick Andzenge

September 12, 2007
The sixth anniversary of Sept. 11 is not only a reminder of that infamous day, but of the need to understand our changing societies and how to address fear of terrorism.

In the weeks leading to this anniversary, German police arrested three Islamic youths and were looking for seven more on suspicion of plotting massive bombings against American and German targets. Just a few days earlier, Danish police arrested several people in the Copenhagen area for planning acts of terrorism.

What these arrests and many others in the world have in common is not the ethnic or national origin of the suspects. The common attribute of the suspects is that they are Muslims.

As we reflect on the events of Sept. 11 during this anniversary, I wish to discuss the central issue — that the suspects are young Muslims. The question to ask is this: Why would young Muslims in Denmark, Germany or other countries plot terrorist activities against countries that give them a relatively comfortable living?

For years many have blamed American foreign policy for terrorist activities. But the spread and threat of terrorism to countries whose foreign policies differ from our own force us to ponder.

Bin Laden’s tapes

The most recent videotaped messages by Osama bin Laden give us some answers. In his advanced message to the release of the last tape, bin Laden calls on Americans to convert to Islam. In the released tape he urged supporters to join the caravan of martyrs.

These calls for conversion are not extreme nor unique to the Islamic faith.

It is the nature of all religions to seek converts. Many religions that preach the doctrine of hereafter also see martyrdom as a measure of faith that would be rewarded. Christendom is replete with the history of sainted martyrs.

The uniqueness of Islam through its history is the concept of jihad, which is used internally and externally to achieve salvation in the hereafter.

Islam, the faith that means surrender, requires a total surrendering of one’s entire life and being. That is different from other faiths, which call on believers to have faith through internal transformation and the search for meaning as well as coexistence with nonbelievers. The Islamic faith does little to address coexistence either in its doctrines or practices.

So as impressionable young people convert to Islam or as devoted Muslims migrate to other societies, the reality of living with nonbelievers can easily become unbearable. Their response is to demand or expect that everyone convert to the faith or not question their expressions and lifestyle.

The expectation that there would be peace if everyone converts to Islam, though not supported by fact, continues to be central in the minds of many Islamic believers.

If simple conversion was enough to create peace, Islamic nations would be the most peaceful nations. This is not the case. Those who followed the Holy Prophet Muhammad resorted to violent conflicts soon after his death. Islam is therefore not monolithic.

Recent efforts to educate the international community about the peaceful nature of Islam are misdirected. If new Islamic converts in many countries see violence as a means of asserting their faith or hate, public attitudes of fear and suspicion would not change due to public appeals.

The focus should be to educate Islamic converts on the inevitability in modern societies of living and accommodating people of different faiths.

It is particularly important to Muslim immigrants to accept and be willing to adapt to the laws and customs of the new societies to which they migrate. This is a very difficult task as the faith gives little room to separate one’s faith from the rest of his or her life. Indeed, this may require modernization of some Islamic tenets.

Many of us who are Christians believe that our faith covers all aspects of our lives and should show in all that we do. Unfortunately, the separation of church and state in the United States demands that the practice of our faith not impose on other people’s faith or lack of it. It is our immigrant and Muslims converts who need to be educated about life in multicultural societies.

This is the opinion of Dick Andzenge, a criminal justice professor at St. Cloud State University. His column is published the second Wednesday of the month.

It’s the Ideology, Stupid !!!

It’s the Ideology, Stupid !!!

by Warner MacKenzie
Islam-watch.orgThe West’s propensity for ignorance is nothing short of astounding when one considers that, in this first decade of the 21st century, a veritable gold mine of information, on any topic, is available at one’s fingertips via the internet. Never before have books on the subject of Islamic history and terrorism been so prolific, yet the same old dangerously erroneous opinions on the causes of Islamic violence remain as popular, uninformed and widespread as ever.

Seemingly unwilling to make the effort to research the true causes of modern Islamist violence, many in the West, including the media, are ever ready to proffer an autoethnophobic (cultural self-loathing) root-cause as to how “We Westerners must have, somehow, caused the problem and therefore deserve what we are getting”. The apologists, propagandists and appeasers continue to confidently promote the view that Islamic terrorism is born of, and nurtured by, poverty, social marginalisation, and Islamophobic bigotry. A raft of other exculpatory justifications for the current global violence is put forward with the one common theme that, in one way or another, the West is to blame and its chickens are simply coming home to roost. So when the recent revelation emerged that a number of medical professionals were involved in two failed terrorist attacks in Britain, the naively deluded went into a confused tailspin, scratching their, cognitively dissonant heads. Their beloved paradigm of the disempowered, impoverished and alienated Muslim now had more holes than a lace tablecloth. No doubt they are busily readjusting their theories to explain how these privileged, intelligent, middle-class professionals could be driven to their wits-end, and forced to lash out with such blind destructive fury at the “evil” West.

The number of medicos involved indicates that the Hippocratic Oath appears to be held in the same contempt as oaths of citizenship or, for that matter, any other. Of course, as emulators of their Prophet Muhammad’s example– an obligation incumbent on all Muslims– it’s little wonder that the dishonouring of one’s sworn oath is regarded so carelessly “By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath” Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427.

True patriots and loyal citizens they can never be, as no sworn undertaking, irrespective of how solemn or binding, is capable of trumping a Muslim’s primary loyalty and overriding obligation to the “cause” of Islam. Nor is there anything novel in the involvement of medically trained jihadis in radical Islam.

A few prominent extremist doctors include:

  • Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri–Al-Qaeda mastermind and number two man, a surgeon.
  • Dr. Mohammad Rabi Al-Zawahiri–Ayman’s father and a Muslim Brotherhood enthusiast, pharmacologist and professor.
  • Dr. “Abu Hafiza”– Moroccan psychiatrist andAl-Qaeda master planner.
  • Dr. Abdel Aziz Al-Rantisi–Late HAMAS leader, pediatrician;
  • Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar–HAMAS co-founder and leader, surgeon and lecturer at the Islamic University in Gaza;
  • Dr. Fathi Abd Al-Aziz Shiqaqi- physician -Late founder of Islamic Jihad and active in Fatah.

Another widely accepted myth is that Islamic radicalism is merely an understandable and predictable response to post WW II Western foreign policy, particularly that of the United States due to its support for Israel and involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. This simplistic explanation totally disregards the inflammatory effect of the radical Islamic ideologues of the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s, before America had any involvement with the Middle East and well before Israel even existed. The inescapable historical truth is that influential thinkers such as Hassan al Banna, Sayeed Qutb and Mualana Sayeed Abul Ala Maududi were the modern revivalists of an ideology as old as Islam itself ; an ideology founded on the belief of Islamic superiority with its dream of world domination. It was the later Saudi and Iranian windfall oil wealth that allowed those countries to promote, finance and export radical Wahabbi and Khomeinist armed jihad to countries both within and outside the Middle East, Hizbollah being a prime example. Hassan al Banna’s al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (Muslim Brotherhood) is indisputably the progenitor of all modern radical Islamist groups.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan sought to restore the Islamic theocratic ideal, namely the union of religion and state, whilst conveniently blaming the decline of Muslim societies on the contrary secular Western idea of the separation of church and state. Qutb and Maududi inspired a whole generation of Islamists, including Ayatollah Khomeini, who developed an Iranian version of their works in the 1970s.

Despite the gullible Westerner’s certitude that terrorist attacks are “all to do with Iraq and Afghanistan”, they are, in fact, all about Islam’s desire to rule the world as a borderless Caliphate. Whenever the willfully deluded Westerner or duplicitous Muslim seeks to explain away these terrorists attacks as reactions to U.S or British foreign policy, simply ask them what it was that precipitated the first world trade centre attack in 1993 – ten years before Iraq and eight years before the U.S. became involved in Afghanistan!

What was it in Khomeini ‘s revolution , if not expansionist ideology, that refused to be satisfied with their stated objective of ridding Iran of the Shah and Western influence, but then, going on to spread Islamic revolution to the rest of the world ?

Khomeini tells us that:

“Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

“Islam grew with blood . . . . The great prophet of Islam in one hand carried the Koran and in the other a sword . . . . Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels but a religion of guidance for other people.”

—Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

But of all the ideologues whose works were a source of radical inspiration to tens, if not hundreds, of millions, Maududi is the most direct and unambiguous in his description of Islam’s ultimate aspirations:

“Islam is not a normal religion like the other religions in the world and Muslim nations are not like normal nations. Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to be over every nation in the world.”

“Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.”

“Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn’t look for a nation to be in a better condition than another nation. Islam doesn’t care about the land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfill that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is Jihad.”

—Sayeed Abdul A’la Maududi, ‘Jihad in Islam’

The following comments, by other prominent Muslims, leave us in no doubt how widely these views are held.

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
—Former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne’s prophetic warning to Europe in a speech at the U.N. In 1974. Thirty three years later, his prediction is in the process of unfolding.

“Soon we will take power in this country. Those who criticize us now, will regret it. They will have to serve us. Prepare, for the hour is near.”
— Belgium-based imam in 1994. “De Morgen”, Oct. 5, 1994. Cited in Koenraad Elst, “The Rushdie Rules”, Middle East Quarterly, June 1998.

“The Quran should be America’s highest authority”. “Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.”
— Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s (Council on American-Islamic Relations) chairman of the board.

“I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,”
— Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, (former leader of the extremist Al-Muhajiroun movement in Britain) in an interview with Reuters.

“I want to see the U.S become an Islamic nation.”
—-Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR.

“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”
—Hussein Massawi, the former Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago.

“Jihad and the rifle alone. NO negotiations, NO conferences and NO dialogue.”
—Sheikh Abdullah Azzam— (Osama bin Laden’s late mentor.)

“Allah revealed Islam in order that humanity could be governed according to it. Unbelief is darkness and disorder. So the unbelievers, if they are not suppressed, create disorder. That is why the Muslims are responsible for the implementation of Allah’s Law on the planet, that humanity may be governed by it, as opposed to corrupt man-made laws. The Muslims must make all efforts to establish the religion of Allah on the earth”
—Muhammad ‘Abdus Salam Faraj, “Jihad: The Absent Obligation”, p43

And finally, Anjem Choudary, Omar Bakri Mohammed’s successor, claim Islam’s sovereignty in the U.K. and U.S.A.

What is it in these clear statements of intent that Western people find so hard to comprehend and come to terms with?

——————————————————————————————-

American Congress for Truth
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
member@americancongressfortruth.org
http://www.americancongressfortruth.org


Every day, American Congress for Truth (ACT) a 501c3 non-profit organization is on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of Islamofascism. To maintain and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.

Do not respond to this e-mail for any reason. To discontinue your membership automatically please, follow the link below. You are registered to receive email as Bud Simmons at the following e-mail address: budsimmons@cox.net. You must use the correct e-mail address to discontinue your membership.


HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.


HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Make a secure online credit card donation.

Warning: Holy Month of Ramadan Trains Muslims to do What?

Warning: Holy Month of Ramadan Trains Muslims

 to do What?

By Carl Goldberg

The Muslim holy month of Ramadan has begun. In addition to fasting from dawn to dusk, Muslims are obligated to read the entire Koran during this month. Non-Muslims should be aware of some of the things their Muslim neighbors will be reading in the Koran:

  • The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (98.6).
  • Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)
  • The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
  • Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
  • It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
  • Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
  • Make war on them [non-Muslims] until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
  • Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
  • The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (4:76)
  • We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:150)
  • I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)
  • When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (9:5)
  • Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, … until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. (9:29)
  • Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 and 66:9)
  • Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. (9:123)
  • When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads. (47:4)
  • These and other passages in the Koran, which are considered Allah’s literal word, will be important to non-Muslims until the imams preach to their congregations that these passages are no longer valid. So far, it has not happened.

    Carl Goldberg writes from Tempe, Arizona


     

    The Myths of Islam Eye opening must read

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 55 other followers