APOSTASY - DISPLACED IN TIME...

February 14, 2010

The Anachronism of Apostasy
By Amil Imani

Whereas the practice of slavery enslaves the body, the dogma of apostasy ensnares the mind. Whereas slavery is a shameful practice of the past, some shameless religionists still use the doctrine of apostasy to intimidate and severely punish people who elect to choose their own belief.

Islam is extremely possessive of its subjects. It is a religion that admits anyone into its fold by the person simply uttering a one-sentence statement of faith, shahada: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah's messenger." By so saying, one becomes Muslim for life and surrenders the right to ever leave it. Anyone who leaves the Islamic fold is murtad (revert), or an apostate.

The notion of apostasy is best understood within the overall Islamic dogma. Islam forms a binding covenant with the believer. Once a person is Muslim, he and his issues are considered Muslim forever. In this covenant, Islam promises to bestow its beneficence on the faithful conditional on the person's total and unquestioned surrender to it in all matters. Some of the rewards offered by Islam to the truly obedient believer, particularly the privileged males, are of this world, as well as a great deal more promised to him in the next. If a Muslim faithful does not reap the rewards of his devotion in this world, Islam assures him of his inestimably cherished and limitless compounded rewards in the next world.

Islam demands subjugation of the individual's will to that of Allah and permeates the thinking, the actions, and the speech of Muslims by prefacing commitments they make contingent on the will of God (inshallah).

This total surrender and submission to the will and decree of Allah also absolves the individual from taking full responsibility for his conduct or honoring commitments he may make. For it is Allah who has the unquestioned authority to consummate or contravene any action or promise made by a faithful.

Within this overall framework of complete acceptance of Islam as the perfect living charter for the believer, the rules pertaining to apostasy can be better understood. Islam considers an apostate a person who unilaterally breaks the covenant he has made with the faith. An apostate is condemned as guilty of turning his back on Allah's immutable, eternal religion. Anyone who is born to Muslim parents and leaves Islam is stigmatized as murtad fitri (natural apostate) in the sense that he was born genetically Muslim and has rejected his gift of birth. And anyone who converts to Islam and later leaves it is condemned as murtad milli (a person who has turned his back to the Ummah).

The severe stricture against leaving Islam is consistent with other main principle beliefs of the religion. Islam is a faith of surrender, not one of a free will. A Muslim is to surrender his freedom of thoughts and actions to the will and dictates of Allah. The very principle of freedom is alien to the Islamic belief system.

With regard to apostasy, the two main branches of Islam, the Sunni and the Shiite, are in considerable agreement. The great majority of Muslim scholars of both major camps agree that the Quran stipulates death for the apostate.

Islam, by its very nature, is an all-encompassing belief system that proscribes and prescribes every detail of the person's and society's conduct. The Sharia law, a comprehensive code of Islamic jurisprudence, purportedly is based on the Quran and the Hadith (the reported enunciations and conduct of Muhammad).

Furthermore, Islamic societies rule by the Islamic laws of Sharia. Any new societal legislation must be harmonious with those of the Sharia, which are conclusively anti-democratic. Sharia law is in explicit contradiction with and violation of the foundation of democracy. Sharia law places the dictates and rules of Allah over the sovereignty of the people. It discriminates against non-Muslims to the extreme of disenfranchising them from their rights of citizenship, such as in the case of Baha'is being barred from jobs, higher education, worship, etc. -- not only in Iran, but also in Saudi Arabia and even Egypt. Sharia is blatantly discriminatory against women, Muslim or not. Men have greater claim to inheritance, their testimony in the court of law is worth twice that of women, and they may marry multiple women at the same time. It even stipulates different rules and privileges governing free Muslim men as opposed to slave Muslims, implicitly condoning slavery. Saudi Arabia, the flagship of Islam, was finally forced by the free world to abandon slavery, I believe, only in the late 1940s.

Apostasy is defined both in the Quran and the Sharia, and its punishment is clearly stipulated.
Those who blasphemed and back away from the ways of Allah and die as blasphemers, Allah shall not forgive them. [Qur'an 4:48]

Islamic law does not allow the freedom to choose one's religion.

Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Clearly the Right Path [i.e. Islam] is distinct from the crooked path. [Qur'an 2:256]

The Quran also specifically addresses the issue of murtad milli:

But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray. [Qur'an 3:90]

The Hadith further restates the provision of the Quran regarding punishment of the apostate.

The Sharia law stipulates that any Muslim who turns his back to Islam should be given a chance to revert to the religion. For an unrepentant male apostate, death is the punishment, whereas it is life imprisonment for a female apostate.

Kill whoever changes his religion. [Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57]

The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims. [Sahih al-Bukhari 9:83:17]

At present, apostasy is illegal in most Islamic countries. Although execution of the apostate is not common, it does take place from time to time, usually by buttressing the "crime" with additional charges. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, often adds the charge of mohareb (one who wars with God) to further legitimize its execution of apostates. A case in point pertains to the treatment of the religious minority Baha'is by the Islamic Republic. A number of Baha'is have been charged as apostates and mohareb and executed, with some of them being secretly buried in unmarked graves.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini in his Tahrir al-Wassilah adjudicates how a person's apostasy is established: "Apostasy is proven in two ways: First, the person himself confesses to his apostasy twice. Second, two just and truthful men bear witness to the person's apostasy. But women's testimonies do not prove apostasy in any case; either they bear witness individually, in a group or beside a man."

The misogynic nature of Islam is once again evident in Ayatollah Khomeini's blanket disqualification of women's testimony solely on the basis of gender.

"Apostasy -- or the formal renunciation of religion -- is already punishable in Iran with death. But now, Iran wants to make the death penalty for apostasy part of the penal code. The European Union is concerned and has asked Iran to reconsider." Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life. Islam is Ummahist. Islam doesn't recognize nationalities or national boundaries. And these Islamist zealots are very serious. They have no sense of humor. Some say they have no sense at all, and that may be right. What they certainly have is a thirst for blood -- particularly the blood of infidels and apostates.

It is noteworthy that Islam considers the world as its Ummah, which supersedes national boundaries. Hence, Islamic clerics feel free to issue fatwa and other adjudications regarding any person, groups, or nations anywhere in the world. A celebrated case of this practice was the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini against the British author Salman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses. Hence, individual Muslims anywhere in the world take it upon themselves to carry out fatwa issued by Islamic high divines. In another high-profile case, the killing of Theo van Gough, a Dutch film director, and the recent attack on the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard clearly demonstrate this primitive practice that runs counter to the civilized world's due process and has serious intimidating impact on the freedom of expression.

Free people and nations should not sacrifice their God-given liberty to please the Islamists by muzzling dissenters and even endangering their safety and their lives.

The concept and practice of apostasy is a shameful stain on the conscience of humanity. It is despicable for any belief system to stubbornly cling to the dehumanizing anachronism of apostasy while its counterpart, slavery, is already buried in mankind's graveyard of past infamy.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_anachronism_of_apostasy.html at February 14, 2010 - 05:40:07 PM CST

RADICAL ISLAMIC GROUP AND ISRAELI-ARAB COEXISTENCE

Jerusalem Issue Brief
Institute for Contemporary Affairs
founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Vol. 8, No. 24 20 March 2009


The Role of Radical Islamic Groups in Israel:
Implications for Israeli-Arab Coexistence

Lt.-Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar

Many in the Arab world felt deep humiliation due to George W. Bush. The Islamic view is that Islam came to the world to replace Judaism and Christianity, and all of the sudden comes a religious Christian president and occupies Iraq, the capital of the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate and the beating heart of Arab history. So when Bush left office, this was viewed as a victory for Allah over the modern Crusaders.

The core question is to whom does this country belong? According to the Arab narrative, this has been an Arab Islamic state since the days of Omar, the caliph who conquered the country in the seventh century. According to Islamic tradition, he declared that the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is waqf land, meaning it belongs forever to Muslims all over the world, and no one else could ever have it.

According to Islam, land can only go one way, to become Islamic, and it can never go the other way, just like Spain, Sicily, and parts of the Balkans, which at different stages of history were lands of Islam. This is why Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood cannot even begin to consider recognizing the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state on the land of Palestine.

At the same time, Jews feel that this country belongs to them. From the Jewish perspective, this country was populated by Jews and two Jewish kingdoms were here until 1900 years ago. We Jews were expelled with no justification and we came back to our country. This is what gives justification to the Jews having our state here and not in Uganda, Argentina or Birobijan. It even appears in the Koran that this country had been given to the Jews.

In 2006 a document approved by the Committee of Arab Local Authorities in Israel - entitled: "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel and their Relations with the State" - opened with the statement: "Israel is the outcome of a colonialist action which was initiated by the Jewish-Zionist elites in Europe and in the West."

To call Israel a colonialist state means a total denial of Jewish history, and echoes the Islamic approach to Jewish history. According to this approach, since Islam came to the world in the year 622 CE with the hijra of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, all of history before that time lost any meaning or significance.

The End of the Bush Administration - A Victory for Allah

Some in the Arab world were very satisfied with the American election because to them it meant the end of the Bush administration. Many in the Arab world felt deep humiliation due to George W. Bush, above all else. The Islamic view of the world is that Islam came to the world to replace Judaism and Christianity, not to live side-by-side with them. Then, all of a sudden, comes a religious Christian president and occupies Iraq, the beating heart of Arab history, the capital of the Abbasid dynasty, which for 500 years ruled the Islamic empire. After a few days of fighting in Baghdad, this city came under American infidel rule.

Bush said right after September 11, 2001, that the Americans were on a "crusade." Immediately, his advisors told him not to use that word because it reminds Muslims of the Crusader Kingdom of 800 years ago, which the hero Saladin wiped out. But his statement was recorded and Al-Jazeera kept showing it. Muslims look at this from a religious point of view and many see what is going on in the region as some kind of test of whose god is more powerful: Allah or the Christian God. This is how too many people in the Middle East are viewing this now. So when Bush left office, this was viewed as some kind of victory for Allah.

One of the major differences between the Middle East and Western societies is the role of religion. We were brought up on the notion of a division between church and state, that the state is for everybody and religion is within your heart. This may be correct in the West, but it is not correct in the Arab world. In the Middle East, almost everything is connected to religion.

The Arab Minorities in Israel

Inside Israel, there are a number of different Arab minorities. There are Muslims, Druze, and Christians, from the religious point of view. There are Bedouins who live in the desert, which is one culture; rural peasants, which is another culture; and those who dwell in cities, either in Arab cities or in mixed cities, which is yet another kind of culture. So you cannot look at the Arab minorities in Israel as one package. You have to relate to them in different ways because they are different and they don't consider themselves as one group of people.

You can see this in the percentage of those who vote. The percentage of Arabs who vote for Arab parties in the Knesset is only 50 percent. The Arab sector in Israel altogether is about 20 percent of the population, which means in theory that Arab parties could have 24 members, or a fifth of the 120 Knesset members. However, the actual number of Arab Knesset members is around 10, and has been like this for years. Many Arabs do not even vote; they do not see the Knesset as a body that can represent them. In addition, the radical part of the Islamic movement is constantly calling on their people not to vote for the Knesset because that gives some kind of seal of approval to the Israeli state, which has no legitimacy to exist in their eyes.

The Acre Riots of October 2008: Why Didn't They Spread?

In the mixed city of Acre in October 2008, a car driven by an Arab went into a Jewish neighborhood on the night of Yom Kippur. This triggered five days of violence, demonstrations, breaking into shops, and burning apartments and houses.

At the time of the riots, Islamic Jihad and Hamas called on the Arabs in Israel to do the same thing in all the other mixed cities like Jaffa, Ramla and Lod. They tried to inflame the whole situation, but it didn't work. The calls to spread the riots to other places in Israel were not answered. Why didn't the riots spread to other cities? Because at the end of the day, both Jews and Arabs realize that coexistence is better than fighting.

To Whom Does the Country Belong?

In Jaffa, right next to Tel Aviv, there are processes that the Arabs don't like. Property is being taken by the state and given to contractors who are building new luxury housing near the sea, mainly for Jews, and this creates much resentment among the Arabs living there. This illustrates the key, bottom line question: To whom does this country belong? Every other question is derived from this.

According to the Arab narrative, this has been an Arab Islamic state since the days of Omar, the caliph who conquered the country in the second quarter of the seventh century. According to Islamic oral tradition, he declared that the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River was waqf land, meaning it belonged to Muslims all over the world, and no one else could ever have it. So how could the Jews come in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries and buy land there and establish an independent Jewish state, one that has no legitimacy to exist on Islamic soil? It was just like Spain, Sicily, and parts of the Balkans, which at different stages of history were lands of Islam. According to Islam, land can only go one way, to become Islamic, and it can never go the other way.

The wings of the Muslim Brotherhood believe that the Israeli state or the Jewish state has no right to exist to begin with. This is why Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood cannot even begin to consider recognizing the right of Israel to exist. A temporary peace of ten or twenty years can be given to infidels when Muslims are not powerful enough to conquer their lands, until Allah gives the Muslims the ability to do so.

The Muslim Brotherhood looks at the Jewish state in Israel as if the Jews occupied the country and removed it from the bosom of Islam in which it existed until 1948. When you ask to whom the country belongs, this is the basis of the Islamic perspective.

At the same time, Jews feel that this country belongs to them. From the Jewish perspective, this country was populated by Jews and two Jewish kingdoms were here until 1900 years ago. We Jews were expelled with no justification and we came back to our country. This is what gives justification to the Jews having our state here and not in Uganda or Argentina or Birobijan. It even appears in the Koran that this country had been given to the Jews.

We say today that the two narratives are fighting. The Islamic narrative says that this country is Islamic, and the Jewish narrative states that this country in its entirety belongs to the Jews. However, while we want to keep the Jewish nature of our state, most of us are not willing to kick out the Arabs who live here.

The struggle of narratives is a problem that we all have to live with. There are problems in life which cannot be solved, and the contradiction between those two narratives cannot be solved.

The Future Vision of Palestinian Arabs in Israel

In 2006 a group of forty modern Arab intellectuals, politicians, and university lecturers published a very interesting document in both Hebrew and Arabic. The document, which was approved by the Committee of Arab Local Authorities in Israel - the most significant organ of Arabs in Israel - was entitled: "The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel and their Relations with the State."

Its opening statement reads: "Israel is the outcome of a colonialist action which was initiated by the Jewish-Zionist elites in Europe and in the West, was established with the help of colonialist states, Britain and France, and was strengthened by the influx of Jews into Palestine, especially in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust." At least they recognize the fact that there was a Holocaust. In many other places Arab deny even that.

In addition, Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsour, chairman of the United Arab List, the largest Arab party in the Feb. 10, 2009, elections for the Israeli Knesset, said in a speech: "Participating in the elections to the Knesset does not abolish our ideology according to which the rule on earth, or at least on Arab and Islamic land, should be Islamic and headed by the Caliph."1 The party won 113,954 votes and 4 seats.

In the Muslim Narrative, History Only Begins in 622 CE

To call Israel a colonialist state is to undermine Israel's legitimacy as the state of the Jewish people who see themselves as the owners of this country. It means a total denial of Jewish history, and echoes the Islamic approach to Jewish history. According to this approach, since Islam came to the world in the year 622 CE with the hijra of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, all of history before that time lost any meaning or significance. Even the prophets - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Jesus - all became Muslims, according to the Islamic narrative. So since Islam denies what happened before Islam, they can say that Israel is an outcome of a colonialist action because the fact that Jews were here 1900 years ago, before Islam, has no meaning anymore since that was before Islam came into the world.

This leads us back to the way Islam as a religion looks at the State of Israel and its existence in this waqf land. The document of the Arabs in Israel, which we mentioned before, is replete with expressions of how Israel is an illegitimate entity and how the Arabs are the natives. This is the way they look at the state where they live.

What other states have to contend with the fact that a significant minority is challenging the very legitimacy of the state? Even Arabs and Muslims in Britain or France are not yet challenging the legitimacy of those states, but here, in Israel, they feel free to do it.


Are the Palestinians Really the Natives?

But are the Palestinians really the natives? Many Palestinians, even in Israel, bear names like al-Masri (referring to Egypt) or al-Iraqi or al-Tarabulsi (referring to Tripoli in northern Lebanon). The minister of refugees in the Palestinian Authority was Abdallah al-Horani, meaning that either he or his parents came from al-Horan in southern Syria. They are not originally from this place. They immigrated here and their family names reflect the name of the place they came from. Since when are they Palestinians?

What about the Palestinians who live today in Lebanon and the West Bank and are still in refugees camps sixty years after 1948? Where else in the world do you see refugee camps for sixty years? But where do they have the right to return to, those who came from Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria? To Haifa, where they worked for a few years for the British who brought them from Syria to work in the harbor, or to Syria and the other Arab countries where they originally came from? The world has bought this slogan of Palestinian refugees without checking where they came from originally.


The Only Arabs Who Live in a Democracy Live in Israel

Most Arabs today live either in Arab dictatorships or in democracies but in exile. No Arab state is a real democracy. The only significant group of Arabs who live in a democracy are the Arabs in Israel. Yet I would say the vast majority do not want to turn this state into an Arab state. Very few of them want to live in an Arab state. Everyone in Israel is free to emigrate, but there are no Arabs lining up to emigrate to other countries. They know exactly what the situation is because they see what goes on everywhere in the Arab world on Al-Jazeera, day and night: In Egypt, half of the population lives in unplanned neighborhoods with no running water, electricity, sewage, infrastructure, paved roads, or health care. Hardly anyone in the Arab sector in Israel lives in such conditions, except for some of the Bedouin in the Negev who willingly choose the culture of the desert.

The Arab sector in Israel does not want to change where they live into an Arab state. Maybe some in the Islamic movement would like to have an Islamic state here just like they want to have an Islamic state everywhere, to kick out the Arab regimes and establish a caliphate instead. But the majority of Arabs in Israel still prefer the current situation since, despite whatever discrimination they may experience, living in Israel is still far better than living in any Arab country in the Middle East.

The Arabs in Israel are much more clever than their brothers in the Palestinian Authority. The Muslims in Israel look at what happens in Gaza and do not envy those who live there. They don't envy the people of Iran under the regime of the ayatollahs either, where 95 percent of the Iranians are secular. And they don't want to live like the Shi'ites in Lebanon. Arab Israeli citizens are much wiser than that. They know exactly what the alternative is.

* * *

Note

1. See http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3216531,00.html and http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/ 0,7340,L-3217055,00.html. The issue of a caliphate is not mentioned in the party's formal platform.

* * *

Lt.-Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups, and the Syrian domestic arena. Dr. Kedar teaches in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University and is a research associate at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on November 5, 2008.

This Jerusalem Issue Brief is available online at:
http://www.jcpa.org

THE VIOLENCE OF ISLAM - HATRED IN THE KORAN

January 16, 2009

Is Islam a Violent Faith?

...Violence, Hatred and Discrimination in the Koran



















Dr. Sami Alrabaa

If you say that Islam is a violent faith, you are accused of being anti-Islam and you are propagating “Islamophobia.”

There are more than one billion Muslims around the world, and I’m one of them. We are told that the Koran is the “word of God.” When you read the Koran, however – which over 90% of all Muslims have never read, according to a survey by Bielefeld University in Germany, and if they ever do, either they do not understand its archaic language or they do not ponder on what it says – you find out that it is full of passages that incite to hatred, killing, and discriminate against women.

Below are some quotations from the Koran. We begin with what the “holy book” of Muslims says about people of other religions.

According to the Koran and many Muslims, Christians and Jews have left the true path of their religion. Therefore, they are infidels (unbelievers) like Buddhists and Hindus, for example. In other words, according to the Koran, only Muslims, i.e. 19% of the world population, are true believers. The rest are “unbelievers” and “infidels.”

Literally, the Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other “unbelievers:”

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).

“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

“And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers.” (Sura 3, verse 131)

“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101).

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123).

“Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4).

“O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).

“And their taking usury (interests on money) though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.” (Sura 4. verse 161).

“Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers (Jews, Christians and followers of other faiths) and has prepared for them a burning fire.” (Sura 33, verse 64).

“And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.” (Sura 48, verse 13).

Does Allah discriminate? The Koran says:

“You are the best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah; and if the followers of the Book had believed it would have been better for them; of them (some) are believers and most of them are transgressors.” (Sura 3, verse 110).

Therefore, what does the Koran say about those who turn their back to Islam and commit apostasy?

“They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them (the unbelievers) friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” (Sura 4, verse 89).

Now, what does the Koran say about women? Here are some quotations:

“Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34).

“And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.” (Sura 4, verse 15).

According to the Koran, a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man.

“O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other.” (Sura 2, verse 282).

As far as sex is concerned, women are sex objects, according to the Koran. They must be ready for intercourse any time the husband wishes so.

“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.” (Sura 2, verse 223).

During menstruation, however, men should keep away from women; they are filthy. The Koran says:

“It (menstruation) is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.” (Sura 2, verse 222).

Women, according to the Koran, are, in general, unclean creature. After a Muslim has washed and prepared himself for prayer, he should not touch a woman. Therefore, “pious” Muslims never shake hands with women.

“O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.” (Sura 4, verse 43).

In case of inheritance, a woman inherits half of the portion a man inherits:

“They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things.” (Sura 4, verse 176).

And what kind of punishment does a thief get, according to the Koran, regardless how much they steal?

“And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (Sura 5, verse 38).

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that uses the Koran as its day-to-day law for all kinds of disputes and crimes. It is the Shari’a (Islamic law). For Islamists and conservative Muslims, Shari’a is the constitution and law that must prevail everywhere. They argue, what is better than the law of Allah which He, via the Engle Gabriel revealed to the Prophet Mohammed 1400 years ago?

King Abdullah, the absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia, said on a televised speech August 27, 2008, “We do not need democracy, we do not need political parties, we do not need Western human rights, we do not need their freedom of speech. What we need is the Koran. It regulates our life perfectly. It is the best legislation in the history of mankind, it is the word of Allah. There is nothing better than Allah’s law.”

The “Hadeeth,” a collection of statements and comments which Prophet Mohammed allegedly made during his lifetime, is also full of atrocities. Here is a sample:

“A woman came to the Prophet and admitted that she had committed adultery and thereafter became pregnant. The Prophet summoned her husband and all people of Median (in Saudi Arabia). He said, ‘This woman committed adultery. Therefore, after she delivers her innocent baby, all of you are going to stone her to death. This is Allah’s verdict.’ After she delivered her baby she was stoned to death in the center of the town.” (Narrated by Muslim, (a close contemporary follower of Mohammed), cited by Khoury, The Koran, p. 550).

Stoning women and flogging men for adultery are widely practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Hester on the scaffold in puritan Massachusetts, America of the 17th century, in the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, must have felt happy that she was not born among the “believers” in the Arabian Peninsula.

The Koran is filled with contradictions. While in sura 2, verse 256, it says “There is no compulsion in religion,” it urges Muslims to kill those Muslims who convert to other religions.

Both the Koran and the Hadeeth were collected after the death of Prophet Mohammed in 632. The second Caliph, Othman ordered collecting the Koran and the Hadeeth which had been written no where. They were memorized by Mohammed’s followers. Then Mohammed and his followers were illiterate. He disseminated Islam by the word of mouth. A committee was formed in Mecca and followers of the new faith queued up to deliver what they could remember from the Koran and Hadeeth. This campaign lasted for over 70 years.

That the vast majority of Muslims have not read or digested the Koran has two major implications. First, if rational, modern-thinking Muslims read the Koran thoroughly, they would desert Islam. They would argue that God cannot incite to hatred and violence. The Koran cannot be the “word of God.” Second, if simple-minded Muslims read the Koran and digested it, they would stick to the above “commandments” and we would have more radical and extremist Muslims around the world.

Certainly the Torah, the Bible, and other holy books have their own atrocious passages, especially those discriminatory ones against women, though with one difference: Muslim fundamentalists adhere to the above cited passages – in belief they are commanded directly by Allah – and implement them to the letter. Think of those suicide bombers in the Middle East and elsewhere and of the violent demonstrations against the “Mohammed cartoon” in some Muslim cities. But it is also true that the majority of Muslims simply ignore these dreadful passages like many Jews and Christians ignore their own.

After he received and read this piece, Henrik Clausen from Europe News asked me if I was not afraid of being declared apostate. I said, “No.” I’m fighting for a human and modern Islam. Besides, the truth must be told at all costs. I also told him, it is not my personal opinion that the Koran incites to hatred, violence, and discrimination, etc., as we have seen above – it is our “holy” book that is preaching all this. The cited passages prove that beyond any shred of doubt. I’m just citing what the Koran commands.

Further, the above quotations are intended to help critics of Islam present tangible evidence for their arguments. It is not enough to say, “I think, I believe, etc.” It is also not enough to say “I’m exerting my right of freedom of speech.”

There is no room for theological interpretations unless you handle the Koran in its own historical perspective. The religious establishment rejects any interpretation anyway. The slightest attempt to do so is rejected and its authors are persecuted as heretics. Think of the Egyptian theologian Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, who is now living in hiding in the Netherlands. Besides, for conservative Muslims and fundamentalists, the Koran, as it is, is valid for all times and for everywhere. It is the “word of God.” He is not fallible and moody like we humans are.

Reformers of Islam, and I consider myself one of them, argue that the Koran and the Hadeeth should be looked at in a historical perspective. Muslims 1,400 years ago were fighting Christians and Jews. Therefore, they hated them. The Muslims wanted to prevail at all costs, therefore these passages in the Koran. Women were discriminated against because this was natural in the Arab culture at the time, and is to some extent today. Apropos, the situation in Medieval Europe was not better.

In addition, it is one of two things: Either the Koran was concocted by the Muslim leader, Mohammed, or at least partly, or it was made up by his zealous followers after his death. Remember that hundreds or thousands of Muslims at the time contributed to compiling this work. They were promised Paradise for their contributions like suicide bombers are nowadays promised it plus 60 virgin girls.

*Note: The verse numbers may vary from one Koran translation to another.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. Before moving to Germany he taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University.

IN DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH

MOHAMMED DOING THE WALK....:)

Jihad, Islamism, and the American Free Press

Jihad, Islamism, and the American Free Press

By Jeffrey Imm

In the war with global Jihad, words and definitions matter, and in fighting anti-freedom ideologies, the free press and media should be America's greatest ally. Yet the confused and inconsistent reporting on Islamism and Islamist terrorism is another key fault line in America's struggles with global Jihad.

Without a precise definition of the enemy by American political leadership, major segments of the American free press have made their own foreign policy decisions as to who is and is not an enemy, made their own decisions on what terms like "Islamism" and "Jihad" mean (if they use such terms at all), and provided mostly "isolated incident"-style reporting on such subjects, with the exception of the largely anti-war colored reporting on Iraq.

So instead of much of the American free press being used to largely address and confront enemy anti-freedom ideologies and their adherents, such media has been manipulated by editorial managers, publishers, and Islamist groups to focus their investigative reporting on the American government's reaction to Islamist terrorism. As much of American government actions are based on a reaction without a defined enemy, there has been plenty of source material for press critiques and for press managers to gain political points against an unpopular administration.

But as made clear last week in speeches by leaders of the Washington Post and the Associated Press, the larger issue of "Islamism" itself, its role as the root of "Islamist terrorism" (as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report), and coherent news reporting on the continuing global links between political Islamism and such Islamist terrorism is not even an objective of much of the American free press. The reactive political sniping agenda by much of the American press' reporting not only misses the larger issue, but also fails to understand that anti-freedom ideologies like Islamism are a threat to a free press itself.

Therefore, even when the threat of Islamism to a free press is unquestionable -- such as imprisoned Afghan journalist Sayed Pervez Kambakhsh on death row for "blasphemy" per Islamists in the Afghanistan government -- Islamism is not a concern to such media leaders as Washington Post's Philip Bennett or AP's Tom Curley. These American free press/media leaders' apparent obliviousness to Islamism is symptomatic of the larger problem with much of the American free press when facing Jihad -- as shown in such media shaping of terms, providing a platform for Jihadists, confusing the public on the identity of the enemy, providing opportunities for enemy infiltration, and allowing news reporting tainted by gullibility about Islamism.

Islamism and Jihad - Not Acceptable Terms for American Media?

On March 3, Philip Bennett, the Washington Post's managing editor, gave a speech at the University of California Irvine (UCI) on Journalism and Islam, where it was reported that he believes the media is responsible for confusion about Islam, which is due to the lack of Muslims in American newsrooms (in his opinion). The Daily Pilot, a local newspaper, also reported that Washington Post's Philip Bennett stated that the term "Islamist" is something that the Washington Post editors still have not decided whether to add it to their style book. In Mr. Bennett's speech, he didn't even consider to qualify the need to have greater numbers of anti-Islamist Muslims represented in American newsrooms, because he and his Washington Post editors have not even decided whether to recognize political Islamism as a term they can use, let alone an anti-freedom ideology to be confronted.

Apparently, the Washington Post editors have not yet read the 2004-released 9/11 Commission Report where "Islamist Terrorism" is defined as a component of "Islamism". In 2008, nearly four years later, the Washington Post is still considering whether the very term "Islamist" is acceptable. Even Al Jazeera uses the term "Islamism", but over six years after the 9/11 attacks, the Washington Post is still thinking about it. Rather than being embarrassed by such mental paralysis in news reporting, the Washington Post's managing editor is proud of this failure and discusses this failure in speeches to universities. Moreover, when real investigative groups such as The Investigative Project challenge Islamist individuals and groups, the Washington Post's response is exemplified by its reporting on Esam Omeish, reporting the accusations of known Stalinists accusing IPT reports on Omeish as those of "right-wing anti-Muslim bigots".

Such deliberate unwillingness among American media to address the ideology of Islamism and its links to Islamist terrorism or Jihad is not limited to the Washington Post. As early as October 2001, the Society of Professional Journalists provided guidelines to the American free press that jihad was to be defined as "to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself".

This desire by "mainstream media" managers to "filter" and "shape" the news by deliberate ignorance of ideologies, language, and connections between events continues to be an ongoing threat to our free press - one that has largely necessitated the explosion of Internet blogs to simply provide a vehicle to report the news.

American Free Press - Why Provide a Platform for Jihadists and Islamists?

The logic of the American free press should be that it would investigate and reveal anti-freedom ideologies and their adherents. It would be logical that the American free press would certainly identify an anti-freedom ideological group like Hamas that uses antisemitic propaganda referenced in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf as part of their Hamas charter (Article 32).

Unfortunately, in much of today's American media, this is not the case. So it is, as previously reported, that the Washington Post and the New York Times has provided an editorial platform for organizations such as the Hamas Islamist terror group to spread propaganda. Similarly, the Washington Post and Newsweek have done the same for the Hezbollah Islamist terrorist group.
Washington Post managing editor Philip Bennett's recent speech points out that Hamas and Hezbollah are not even considered "Islamist" by the Washington Post. Mr. Bennett is reported by the Daily Pilot as telling UCI students that"[s]ome argue the word is a useful distinction for movements like Hamas and Hezbollah, but others at the Post argue that it is too vague and should be omitted in favor of a more specific description."

Since "Islamist", "Jihadist", and "terrorist" are not the Washington Post's definition of the Hamas and Hezbollah groups, perhaps Mr. Bennett could explain an appropriate definition of such groups. Moreover, perhaps Mr. Bennett could explain why the Post editorial policy allows propaganda statements by terrorist groups as Hamas - the same Hamas terrorist group that lauds the "heroic" attack on innocent Israeli schoolchildren.

American Free Press - Who is the enemy?

Ultimately the fundamental disconnect within the American free press comes back to the American political leadership's failure to clearly and unequivocally define the enemy in the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), or in subsequent documents. The singular exception is buried in the 9/11 Commission Report (Notes, Part 12, Note 3, page 562) in the definition of "Islamist Terrorism", that states "Islamist terrorism is an immediate derivative of Islamism." Of course, when portions of the American news media refuse to acknowledge the very existence of "Islamism", they can hardly report on such an ideology, let alone report in a way that provides coherent context between Islamist terrorism and Islamism.
In a speech on March 6, Associated Press President and CEO Tom Curley made it clear that he was focused on a different enemy: the actions of the American government (effective or not) in attempting to protect the American public. This is the enemy that AP's Tom Curley is truly concerned about: "[w]hat has become clear in the aftermath of 9/11 is how much expediency trumps safeguards. Congress steps back from its constitutional role of executive oversight. Civilian oversight of the military wanes. A Justice Department interprets laws in ways that extend police powers. More drastically, prisons are established in places where government or military operatives circumvent due process or control trials."

AP's Tom Curley seems to believe that the only important lesson in the aftermath of 9/11 is how much the American media needs to be a watchdog to monitor the actions of the American government in attempting to protect Americans from terrorists. But what about the actual enemy, Mr. Curley? How about the use of the free press to identify and coherently report on Islamist terrorism (as defined by the 9/11 Commission Report) and its links to Islamism? When will the AP and much of the rest of the American media address such Islamist terror group actions as more than merely a series of isolated incidents in the U.S. and around the world? When will AP coherently and consistently report on the larger anti-freedom ideology that Islamist terrorism represents?

Surely, as Mr. Curley states: "It's at moments like these when a free press matters most."
American Free Press Infiltration?

AP's Tom Curley could have used his recent speech to address a much more worrisome threat to the American free press - the infiltration of Jihadist sympathizers within their ranks. Such war-time infiltration is the singular gravest threat to American freedom of the press. This includes the reports by the U.S. military that AP photographer Bilal Hussein "had been named by 'sources' as having 'possessed foreknowledge of an improvised explosive device (IED) attack' on American and Iraqi forces, 'that he was standing next to the IED triggerman at the time of the attempted attack, and that he conspired with the IED triggerman to synchronize his photograph with the explosion.' " Surely Mr. Curley should be explaining how the AP prevents such infiltration of Jihadist sympathizers within their ranks of news media in Iraq and other battlefield combat areas, as a fundamental defense of the free press from being hijacked and manipulated.

As in the case of the Photoshop manipulated images by Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj, there is a known problem with Jihadist sympathizer infiltration within the media. Surely, while railing at the U.S. government actions to protect Americans, the free press could find some time for introspection at the dangerous threats of infiltration of enemies within its ranks, and how to protect the integrity of American journalism.

Such media integrity, as shown by the Washington Post, New York Times, and other media publication of terrorist editorials, is hardly above reproach - and is a key issue that the American free press and media must come to terms with as the war against Islamist terrorism continues.
Last August, the New York Times demonstrated such lack of integrity in publishing an article "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?" by Dr. Steven Levitt soliciting suggestions for Jihadists on how to attack the United States. Can anyone imagine the American free press during any wartime era, actively soliciting ideas on how the enemy could attack the United States? Surely the issues on media integrity and infiltration must be addressed by the free press as part of effective reporting on Islamist terrorism.

American Free Press Gullibility?

Then there is the issue of the American media gullibility in reporting on Islamic figures. An example of this is the March 6, 2008 report by U.S. News and World Report "Egypt's Grand Mufti Counters the Tide of Islamic Extremism" written by U.S. News' religion writer Jay Tolson. As the topic of "Islamism" is untouchable by some journalists, we are left with meaningless phrases such as "Islamic extremism" to debate in Mr. Tolson's article.

In U.S. News's article about alleged "moderate" Egyptian Grand Mufti Sheik Ali Gomaa (also spelled "Ali Gum'a"), Mr. Tolson does not challenge Sheik Ali Gum'a on any of his previous comments (translated by MEMRI) in articles such as: "The New Egyptian Mufti - Dr. Sheikh 'Ali Gum'a: Opinions About Jihad, Supporting Suicide Bombings, and Forbidding Muslims in the U.S. Military From Fighting Other Muslims", "In Interview, Egyptian Mufti Ali Gum'a Questioned On Treatment of Women in Islam, Blames ‘Secularists' For Terrorism Worldwide", or "The Mufti of Egypt: The True Face of the Blood-Sucking Hebrew Entity has Been Exposed". This is hardly due to lack of information. U.S. News' reporter Jay Tolson (like anyone) could have found this information easily with a quick web browser search. But there is no challenge to Sheikh Ali Gum'a on such views, no challenge to the Sheikh Ali Gum'a's beliefs that his version of Sharia can somehow fight "Islamic extremism", simply a nodding gullibility that is found too often in American journalism today when it comes to interviewing any so-called "Islamic leader".

Mr. Tolson reports without challenge that Sheikh Ali Gum'a states how misunderstood his views on Islam are and quotes Sheikh Ali Gum'a as stating that "Maybe we just need to buy CNN" - an idea that is not even questioned as troubling. Mr. Tolson also reports "[a]fter taking more than an hour to explain to yet another western journalist why a traditional conception of sharia law—along with knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence—is the best antidote to Islamic extremism'." The role of Sharia within political Islamism is not even addressed once.

But as long as the American free press and media is not challenged to address the ideology of Islamism itself, and its use of Sharia, there is the ongoing media gullibility to accept whomever sounds "reasonable" at that moment as representing something other than "Islamic extremism" (whatever "extremism" means).

The root of this gullibility remains the failure of the American political leadership to define the enemy, to define the role of Islamism within Islamist terrorism, and develop a coherent global strategy for these. That failure remains the fundamental fault line that keeps our ability to fight Jihad from succeeding in the long term.

However, in the short term, surely it is not too much to ask the American free press and media - in the course of their news reporting - to ask the hard questions as to who the enemy is, what the role of Islamism is within Islamist terrorism, and how Islamism is reflected throughout the world.

After all, "It's at moments like these when a free press matters most."

Sources and Related Documents:

Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill), September 18, 2001
September 18, 2001 - U.S. Authorization for Use of Military Force
February 26, 2008 - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty: Afghanistan: Journalist On Death Row Gives First Interview
March 3, 2008 - The Daily Pilot: Media to blame for Islamic misconceptions University of California - Chancellor's Distinguished Fellows Series
September 29, 2007 - Washington Post - Va. Muslim Activist Denies Urging Violence
September 29, 2007 - Fault Line on Jihad: Why the Omeish Reaction is Important - The Counterterrorism Blog - Jeffrey Imm
Society of Professional Journalist Guidelines on Terms Such as "Jihad" March 6, 2008 - AP: 9/11 attacks response harm First Amendment -- Associated Press President and CEO Tom Curley
December 17, 2007 - International Herald Tribune: Case Lays Bare the Media's Reliance on Iraqi Journalists
August 7, 2006 - Associated Press: Altered images prompt photographer's firing
March 6, 2008 - U.S. News and World Report: Egypt's Grand Mufti Counters the Tide of Islamic Extremism -- by Jay Tolson
February 19, 2008 - U.S. News and World Report: Faith Matters: Meeting Egypt's Grand Mufti
October 31, 2007 - MEMRI: In Interview, Egyptian Mufti Ali Gum'a Questioned On Treatment of Women in Islam, Blames 'Secularists' For Terrorism Worldwide
September 13, 2007 - MEMRI Video: Mufti of Egypt Ali Gum'a Confronted with Questions about the Treatment of Women in Islam and Blames "Secularists" for Terrorism Worldwide
August 18, 2006 - MEMRI: The Mufti of Egypt: The True Face of the Blood-Sucking Hebrew Entity has Been Exposed
October 1, 2003 - MEMRI: The New Egyptian Mufti - Dr. Sheikh 'Ali Gum'a: Opinions About Jihad, Supporting Suicide Bombings, and Forbidding Muslims in the U.S. Military From Fighting Other Muslims
August 10, 2007 - Why The New York Times Can Legally Help The Enemy in The War on Terror - The Counterterrorism Blog - Jeffrey Imm
July 24, 2007 - U.S. News Media and Terror Group Figure Editorials - The Counterterrorism Blog - Jeffrey Imm
August 8, 2007 - The New York Times: "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?", by Steven D. Levitt
August 9, 2007 - The New York Times: "Terrorism, Part II", by Steven D. Levitt
July 24, 2007: Washington Post: Lebanese Cleric Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah - Jihad is Self-Defense Against Aggression
June 20, 2007 - Washington Post: Engage With Hamas - We Earned Our Support - Ahmed Yousef
June 20, 2007 - New York Times: What Hamas Wants - Ahmed Yousef November 1, 2006 - New York Times Editorial: "Pause for Peace" - by Ahmed Yousef
March 7, 2008 - The Australian: Hamas hails 'heroic' attack
May 12, 2004 - Newsweek: "From Mistake to Mistake" A leading Shiite cleric discusses Iraq, suicide bombers, U.S. elections -- and why he thinks George W. Bush should see a psychiatrist - interview with Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah
April 7, 2003 - Newsweek: War in Iraq - "'We Don't Trust America" - interview with Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah
September 9, 2006 - 9/11 and News Reporting on Jihadist Terrorism - The Counterterrorism Blog - Jeffrey Imm
August 1, 2006 - CNN Promotion of Islamic Relief Worldwide Group Linked to Jihadist Organizations - The Counterterrorism Blog - Jeffrey Imm
July 18, 2007 - Family Security Matters: "Preventing the West from Understanding Jihad" - Dr. Walid Phares
Islamism - Definition - Wikipedia
U.S. Final Report of the 9/11 Commission - Notes, Part 12, Note 3: "Islamism" (page 562) -- Adobe Acrobat PDF format
U.S. Department of State Foreign Terrorist Organization Listing - April 30, 2007
October 15, 2007 - The Dangerous Denial of Jihad's Threat - The Counterterrorism Blog - Jeffrey Imm
October 26, 2007 - Jihad, Islamism, and the Challenge of Anti-Freedom Ideologies - The Counterterrorism Blog - Jeffrey Imm
September 11, 2007 - 9/11 and the Inconvenient Truths about Jihad and Islamism - Jeffrey Imm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America P.O. Box 6884 Virginia Beach, VA 23456 www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

What is wrong with today's Jews?

What is wrong with today's Jews?

A perspective of a moderate Muslim.

When Muslims criticize Jews chances are it's Islamists. You rarely see moderate (an I do mean real moderate, not Islamists like CAIR who claim to be moderate) Muslims saying unflattering things about the Jews. So, normally, when I see the Jews do dumb things i.e., supporting an Islamist congressional candidate because of partisanship (American Jewish World's support for Keith Ellison) or providing utilities to a terrorist enclave (Gaza), I try to keep my mouth shut. For obvious reasons. But not this time.I thought I've seen everything: Cuban missile crisis, fall of Berlin wall, 9/11. Until recently, I thought that the father of modern terrorism getting awarded a Nobel Peace Prize was the most peculiar event in my lifetime. But a recent, largely unnoticed event, could take the cake in peculiarity contest.On December 15, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism (one of the largest Jewish organizations in America), gave a sermon in San Diego in front 5,000 Jews in which he announced URJ's alliance with Islamic Society of North America (ISNA - one of the largest Muslim organizations in America). As a part of the sermon, Rabbi Yoffie stated that "[ISNA] has issued a strong and unequivocal condemnation of terror, including a specific condemnation of Hizbollah and Hamas terror against Jews and Israelis. It has also recognized Israel as a Jewish state and supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." But has it really? The statement Rabbi Yoffie refers to reads: "ISNA rejects all acts of terrorism, including those perpetrated by Hamas, Hizbullah and any other group that claims Islam as their inspiration." While there appears to be forward progress in this statement, there are several problems with it:- ISNA does not say it condemns but says it "rejects" acts of terrorism. What does reject mean? Why not say "condemn"? Rejection is not synonymous with condemnation. - Yes, ISNA seems to be acknowledging that Hamas and Hizballah carry out acts of terrorism but nowhere do they say come out and say that Hamas and Hizballah are terrorist groups. Only the other day we saw witnesses on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas claim that Hamas can be divisible by its "military (terrorist) wing" and its "social-humanitarian wing." The failure to unequivocally condemn Hamas or Hizballah as a terrorist group is like me saying that I reject the tactics used by anti-abortion doctors who "claim to be inspired by Christianity." The use of the term "claim Islam as their inspiration" is another attempt by ISNA to deny the unequivocal fundamental Islamic basis for groups that carry out acts of terrorism. This is in line with ISNA's statement which claims the use of the term "Islamic terrorist" is racist. Now, how can one be said to condemn Hamas or Hizballah while simultaneously denying the existence of "Islamic terrorism"? ISNA's statement "condemning terrorism" from http://balancedIslam.org quotes approvingly the European Council of Ifta and Research. This is a council that has justified suicide bombings by Hamas. One of its leaders is Yousef Al-Qardawi who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of Jews (not Israelis) and Americans in Iraq. We all remember bogus fatwa issued by Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA). The same FCNA whose chairman, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Gihad (PIG). Is ISNA's rejection of terrorism any different?Prior to his praise for ISNA, Rabbi Yoffie stated the following: "Islamic extremists constitute a profound threat. For some, this is a reason to flee from dialogue, but in fact the opposite is true." I am a bit confused. Does this mean that the Rabbi realizes that ISNA is an extremist organization? And if he does, why does he go on to praise it. And regardless whether or not he realizes that ISNA is an extremist organization, who in their right mind would propose to have a dialog with extremists while acknowledging that they constitute a profound threat? Why don't we sit down with bin Laden and see if we can make him stop murdering the sons of monkeys and pigs? Haven't we learned anything from recent history, i.e., providing a forum for Ahmadinejad? Doesn't the Rabbi understand that legitimizing extremists is the dumbest possible strategy (which also has a side effect of marginalizing moderates)?On January 2, 2008, several prominent moderate Muslims published a column in the Jewish Week titled "Attention Rabbi Yoffie: Please Speak To Moderate Muslims" in which they expressed their dismay with the URJ's decision. These moderate Muslims explained why ISNA is anything, but moderate, and appealed to Rabbi Yoffie to reconsider URJ's association with ISNA. On behalf of Muslims Against Sharia, I also wrote a letter to Rabbi Yoffie, which was ignored by the URJ. So, let's examine what ISNA really is. Is it really an extremist organization or is it just a delusional rant of crazy moderate Muslims?On its website ISNA claims that it "was founded by Muslims in North America for the purpose of establishing ... outreach programs and fostering good relations with other religious communities", but North American Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum states that its purpose is to wage Gihad until "God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions." It claims that "ISNA is not now nor has it ever been subject to the control of any other domestic or international organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood", yet the aforementioned Memorandum lists ISNA is #1 on the list of creators of North American Muslim Brotherhood.According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the world's foremost anti-terrorism NGO, The Islamic Society of North America was founded in 1981 and is the largest Muslim organization in the U.S. Incidentally, Sami al-Arian of the PIG helped established ISNA. "ISNA serves as an umbrella group for hundreds of Islamic organizations in North America, some of which promote the Islamic fundamentalist doctrines of Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Gihad. ISNA publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, which often champions militant Islamist doctrine, and it convenes annual conferences where Islamic militants have been given platform to incite violence and promote hatred. ... The president of Board of Directors of ISNA until 200 was Muzammil Siddiqui. ... He remains on the ISNA board of directors in addition to serving as chairman of he ISNA affiliated North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). ... In his public role, Siddiqi has built a colorful history of doublespeak - expressing seemingly welcome statements about terrorism yet praising the violent jihad waged in Israel and elsewhere. ... Siddiqui has made statements supporting the violent ideology of radical Islam and shunning the West. In glorifying the jihad in Afghanistan and its spread to other places in the world, Siddiqui wrote, "I can see there is already some impact of jihad in Afghanistan, in the intifadah movement in Palestine ... insha'allah, you will see, in a few years, we will be celebrating, insha'allah, the coming victory of Islam in Palestine. ... We will be celebrating, insha'allah, the coming of Jerusalem and whole land of Palestine, insha'allah, and the establishment of the Islamic state throughout that area. (Muzammil Siddiqui, "The establishment of the Islamic Government in Afghanistan") ISNA has assisted in the formation of a number of troubling organizations within the United States. One such was the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Before it was incorporated under the name "The Occupied Land Fund" in 1989, HLF had been a subsidiary of ISNA, using the same mailing address in Plainfield, Indiana. ISNA's Islamic Horizons, which often contains anti-Israel, anti-American, and anti-Semitic sentiments; in has voiced support for fundamentalism in Sudan, Turkey, and Algeria. The editor is Omer bin Abdullah. ISNA and Islamic Horizons have been outspoken in their support for the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Sudan. ... ISNA's annual conferences are usually held in the Midwest. According to figures reported by ISNA, about 10,000 people participated in its September 1997 conference in Chicago, Illinois. These conferences provide fund-raising platform for radical Islamic groups. The Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), and the Marzook Legal Defense Fund all have substantial ties to Hamas and have been among the groups allowed to participate in an active capacity in ISNA conferences. These conferences feature speakers ranging from moderate to radical. ISNA has brought in speakers such as Murad Hofmann, a convert to Islam and a former ambassador from Germany to Algeria and Morocco. In the September/October 1997 edition of Islamic Horizons, Hofmann denied that both Hamas and the Lebanese Hizballah are terrorist organizations: "Perceptions of 'terrorism' are just as warped when countries consider responsible for harboring, training, and financing 'terrorists' are listed, always several supposedly 'antiwestern' Muslim countries are on the list, as are such movements as Hamas or Hizballah. (Now synonyms for 'terrorism'). ... [I]n the letter published in 1997 by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook thanked ISNA for supporting him while he was in prison in the United States awaiting extradition to Israel. ISNA has defended an array of terrorists and terrorist charities. When HLF was shut down in December 2001, ISNA issued a joint statement with seven other Islamic groups: "American Muslims support President Bush's effort to cut off funding for terrorism and we call for a peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict. These goals will not be achieved by taking food out of the mouths of Palestinian orphans or by succumbing to politically-motivated smear campaigns by those who would perpetuate Israel's brutal occupation. ... We ask that President Bush reconsidered what we believe is unjust and counterproductive move that can only damage America's credibility with Muslims in this country and around the world and could create the impression that there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam. ... Confounded by Sami al-Arian, ISNA has employed an array of individuals who have been indicted on terrorism-related charges, such as former HLF head Shukri Abu Bakr, and even a terrorist operative - Abdulrahman Alamoudi. ISNA's funding is highly suspect. ISNA provided $170,000 in start-up capital to the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), which the US government shut down in October 2004 for funding Hamas and al Qaeda."(Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, 2002; Steven Emerson, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US, 2006; IPT Profile: Muzammil Siddiqi.On August 28, 2007, just a few months prior to Rabbi Yoffie's announcement, members of Congress Pete Hoekstra, a former chairman of House Intelligence Committee and Sue Myrick, a founder of Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus sent a letter to DOJ about ISNA. They wrote: "[W]e believe it is a grave mistake to provide legitimacy to an organization with extremist origins, leadership and a radical agenda. Establishing a partnership with ISNA is exactly the wrong approach at this critical juncture in history, setting a precedent that radical Jihadists should be the conduit between the U.S. government and the American Muslim population". Justice Department officially labeled ISNA "as a branch of Muslim Brotherhood in the United States ... Almost every single Sunni terrorist organization, including Al Qaeda and Hamas, is derived from the Muslim Brotherhood. The evidence naming ISNA as a leading branch of the American Muslim Brotherhood is overwhelming and its links to U.S. fundraising efforts on behalf of Hamas are equally strong." According to Stephen Coughlin (the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, who was recently fired for refusing to succumb to pressure from Hasham Islam, a Pentagon official who demanded that Mr. Coughlin softened his position on Islamist extremism), Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to subvert the United States using front groups. One of the identified front groups is ISNA, the same ISNA which URJ is so eager to embrace.Evidence submitted in HLF trial shows the connection between ISNA and American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. "An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group (that includes ISNA, ISNA Fiqh Committee, ISNA Political Awareness Committee, and 26 other Islamist groups, some of them shout down on terrorism charges) In North America" reads: "Establishment of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state [caliphate] wherever it is." Paragraph 4 of the Strategic Goal is the most revealing: "Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The Process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."If this is not the plan for Islamic takeover, than I don't know what is."Mary Jacoby and Graham Brink, writing in the St. Petersburg Times, describe ISNA as "subsidized by the Saudi government" and the "main clearinghouse for Wahhabism in the U.S." ... ISNA previously invited Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to speak at its conferences, even though he is well-known for having created the "theological" justification for suicide bombing that appears on the Hamas website. That justification is titled "Hamas Operations Are Jihad and Those Who [Carry it Out and] Are Killed are Considered Martyrs." Al-Qaradawi has issued numerous justifications of suicide bombings as well as a fatwa directing the "faithful" to kill American soldiers and civilians in Iraq (except for the very few who may have lived there before the war.) ISNA has also sponsored Rashid Ghanushi, the exiled leader of the Islamic Tendency Movement in Tunisia, as a speaker. Ghanushi has referred to Jews as a "cancer" and "Satans." ISNA sells his books on their "ISNA Media Store page." On this web page, al-Qaradawi is described as an "outstanding scholar." Al-Qaradawi-penned books for sale by ISNA are:-Fiqh az-Zakat: A Comparative Study, a 600-page book -Priorities of Islamic Movement -Islamic Awakening Between Rejection and Extremism, published by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) described as "extraordinary work of analysis and advice is highly recommended for students of Islam and activists." -The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam which "presents the wisdom of Islamic rulings behind everyday issues faced by the contemporary Muslim" -The Scholar and the Tyrant." (Sherrie Gosstett, American Daily)I could go on for another twenty pages providing evidence of ISNA's ties to terrorism and extremism or describing ISNA's plans for Islamic takeover. The Investigative Project's website, among other places, contains tons of it, but I don't want to bore the reader.So, the aforementioned column written to URJ's president doesn't look like a delusional rant of paranoid moderate Muslims, does it? Then I want to repeat my initial question; "What's wrong with today's Jews?" How is it even possible that a major Jewish organization would support Islamic extremists?Does this mean that every single Muslims who belongs to the ISNA mosque supports terrorism or rejects it because the use of Taqiyya is more effective than the use of violence? No. Just as not every single Jew who belongs to the URJ synagogue supports alliance with ISNA. Muslims Against Sharia urge every Reform Jew to contact Rabbi Yoffie (Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, Union for Reform Judaism, 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6778, P. 212.650.4150, F. 212.650.4159, PresURJ@urj.org, http://urj.org/) and to ask him to sever all ties with Islamic radicals of ISNA. And if Rabbi Yoffie wants to have a dialogue with Muslims, there are moderate Muslim organizations to choose from. And if Rabbi Yoffie has difficulties determining which organizations are moderate, we compiled a handy guide that would make his task a lot easier.(See link to original story for graph.)

Now I would like to personally thank Steven Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism staff who gathered majority of the evidence used in this article.K.M.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie & the Union for Reform JudaismLatest recipients of The Dhimmi AwardUpdate: 'Kill the Jews' statements from ISNA website. H/T: Americans Against HateMore on the subject: Sleepwalking into enslavement (Spectator, January 7, 2008)
Posted by Muslims Against Sharia at 11:59 PM