Islamic Madrassa. Photo courtesy of: India Tv News
by, India Tv News | h/t Trop
HYDERABAD, India: A madrassa teacher was taken into custody on yesterday for allegedly molesting a female student from Africa at Banjara Hills in Hyderabad, police said.
The 21-year-old victim, a national of the Republic of Congo, was allegedly molested by one Abdullah on Sunday night, Banjara Hills police inspector P Murali Krishna said.
“The accused apparently had an argument with the complainant, a student at a local educational institute, over the way she was dressed,” the Inspector said based on a complaint lodged by the student on Monday.
Following the complaint, police booked a case under section 354 A (sexual harassment) and 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the IPC, assistant commissioner of police, Banjara Hills (Division) M Ramesh Reddy told PTI.
“Abudullah has been taken into custody and is being interrogated. He will be produced before a court today,” the ACP said.
Further probe into the case is on.
by, The Express Tribune | h/t Trop
MULTAN, Pakistan: Police have arrested a madrassah teacher for raping a 12-year-old girl in Sahiwal on Thursday. The girl, a resident of 39/12-L Chichawatni, was admitted to Chichawatni tehsil headquarters hospital (THQ) in critical condition.
Hafeez, the father of Aiman*, said he had enrolled his son to the madrassah of Maulvi Basit* in Jahanian, a sub-district of Khanewal. He said there were more than 200 students at the seminary.
Hafeez said Basit had first met his daughter when they had gone to Jahanian to enroll his son at the madrassah.
He said Basit had been insisting since then to enroll the girl to madrassah as well. He said he had refused to send her to the madrassah because she was too young to be away from home. Hafeez said the girl had also refused to go to the madrassah saying that she wanted to study at a public school. The girl’s family were away when Basit entered the house on Thursday and raped her. The family caught Basit on their return when he was fleeing. Chichawatni THQ Medical Superintendent Dr Akhtar told the media, “We have kept her in emergency ward. We will refer her to the Sahiwal district headquarters hospital, if need be.” Saddar SHO Chaudhry Saeed Ahmed said they had registered an FIR against Basit.
*Names have been changed to protect identities
A madrasa teacher has been arrested at Aditmari Upazila in Lalmonirhat on charges of trying to rape a fifth-grade girl student.
by, BD News 24
Police detained Rafiqul Islam, 35, from Kuthibarhi mosque area under Durgapur union on Friday.
Islam, son of Abdul Awal of Uttar Gobda village under Durgapur, teaches at the madrasa adjacent to a mosque in Kuthibarhi.
Aditmari Police Station Sub-Inspector Mintu Mia told bdnews24.com the girl, student of Durgapur Government Primary School, used to go to Islam to learn Arabic.
The teacher went to the girl’s house on Thursday morning and tried to rape her as she was alone at the house at the time, he said.
Islam fled the scene when locals rushed there hearing the cry of the girl, he added.
The father of the girl filed a case with Aditmari Police Station on Friday afternoon.
Mia said Islam was detained in Lalmonirhat jail on Friday evening.
by, Radio Free Europe | h/t Trop
DUSHANBE, Tajikistan: Tajik investigators have arrested an Islamic cleric in a town near the capital, Dushanbe, for allegedly holding religious classes at his home in which students were beaten and tortured.
The Tajik State Committee for National Security said in a report on June 3 that Hakimali Nizomov had been charged with torture, polygamy, and conducting illegal religious instruction.
According to investigators, Nizomov’s students say they were beaten and tortured with electric shocks while attending his classes.
Nizomov holds a state-issued license allowing him to conduct Islamic classes. He is an imam at a local mosque and madrasah.
The parents of some 80 students between 3 and 18 years of age paid Nizomov 300 somonis ($61) each month for tuition.
Local residents acknowledged that Nizomov sometimes held classes in his home but called his arrest politically motivated and part of the government’s anti-Islamic campaign.
by, India Tv News
KANPUR, India: A heinous crime has been reported by a six-year-old girl, a resident of Kanpur’s Naubasta area, where she has accused a 14-year-old boy of raping her.
The parents of the boy are teachers in a madrassa and reside on the ground floor of where the madrassa is.
On Tuesday when the girl went to the madrassa, her teacher sent her to his house for some work. the teacher’s son who was alone in the house and finding the girl alone, sexually assaulted her.
The rape survivor was too scared and the boy even threatened to kill her if she disclosed this to anybody.
But the next morning when she refused to go to the madrassa, her mother asked her the reason and then she narrated the complete story,
The girls’ parents went to the boy’s house complaining about this assault, and they were threatened by the boy’s parents.
Lastly, the victim’s parents filed their complaint in Naubasta police station after which the boy along with his parents was arrested by the police.
Police said Muhammad Abdullah, a teacher at a seminary in Mumtazabad Colony, beat up Abu Zar Ghafari with a stick for not learning his lesson.
By Our Correspondent / Shamsul Islam | The Express Tribune – Pakistan
BAHAWALPUR / FAISALABAD: A 10-year-old student at a seminary was brutally beaten up by his teacher on Thursday, Tandlianwala police said.
The boy was taken to the tehsil headquarters hospital, where doctors treating him later said that he was out of danger. A case was registered by the police with one of the boy’s relatives as the complainant.
Police said Muhammad Abdullah, a teacher at a seminary in Mumtazabad Colony, beat up Abu Zar Ghafari with a stick for not learning his lesson.
Complainant Muhammad Naveed said that Ghafari was an orphan. He said after his father’s death five years ago, he had enrolled Ghafari at the seminary. On Thursday, Naveed said, he was informed that Ghafari had fainted at the school. He said when he went there, he discovered that his teacher had beaten him up with a stick.
He said some of the boy’s class fellows told him that the teachers slapped him first. He had then dragged him by the hair to a corner and beaten him with a stick until he fainted.
He said he took the boy to the THQ hospital, where doctors treating him said that he had probably fainted from fear. They said there were bruises on his back and legs.
He said while the police had registered his complaint, they were reluctant to arrest Abdullah as an influential group in the area that funded the seminary was protecting him.
Naveed said shortly after he filed the complaint, some men had arrived at his house and threatened him with dire consequences if he did not withdraw the complaint.
The Tandlianwala station house officer said that police were looking for Abdullah. He said a police team had raided his house, but had not found him there. The SHO denied any pressure and said that the matter was being dealt with transparently.
In a separate story… A School Teacher Was Assaulted:
In Bahawalpur, a primary school teacher was beaten up by armed men on school premises. He was rescued by some neighbours when the men chained him to a motorcycle and tried to take him away.
He was taken to a hospital, from where he was discharged a few hours later.
A case has been registered by Abbas Nagar police on the complaint of the teacher’s father, Ghulam Haider.
Haider told police that four men, nominated in the FIR, had entered the school by scaling a wall. He said they were armed and beat his son Muhammad Shahid Imran with sticks. They then dragged him out of the classroom in front of the students and tied him to a motorcycle using chains. He said some residents rushed into the school on hearing the children scream. He said the assailants fled on seeing the people. Imran was taken to a hospital and later taken to his house.
Those nominated in the FIR are Peer Bakhsh, Muhammad Aashiq, Allah Bakhsh and Muhammad Ismaeel. Police said they were looking for them.
Firebrand Lebanese Sunni cleric Ahmed al-Assir has turned his mosque into a military base, exclusive Al Arabiya footage shows.
The Lebanese army took control of Abra, an area which is home to the Bilal bin Rabah mosque where Assir leads Friday prayers, after fighting on Monday that killed 17 soldiers and 50 Assir loyalists in the southern city of Sidon, a Lebanese military source said.
The footage shows the mosque was used to store weapons and ammunition, including hidden stashes discovered by the army.
Barrels filled with sand placed at the entrance of the mosque and around its circumference made it look like a military barricade.
The whereabouts of the cleric are unknown.
“The battle has ended after the army took full control over the area and after the escape of” Assir, a military source told Al Arabiya.
Meanwhile, military sources told Al Arabiya on Tuesday that about 110 Assir loyalists were arrested. The military is also combing areas that his followers are known to frequent.
editorial footnote: The word “mosque” means fortress. Historically speaking, mosques and majids have been utilized as storage facilities for everything from, small arms and ammunitions to missiles, chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Mosques are often used as bases of operations for Islamic Jihadists to attack surrounding communities when the order comes down from above. Traditionally, mosques have been used for this purpose for many reasons although in Western nations such as the U.K., Canada, the U.S. and Australia there is an added element. Utilizing the mosque as an armory for weapons storage allows the Islamic community a method of circumventing host nation laws and provides a degree of separation and autonomy between the muslims in the community and the weapons being stored.
Additionally, mosques, majids and Islamic centers in recent history have fabricated a notion that “non-muslims” are not to come on the property of a mosque. That somehow, this is considered a desecration and show of disrespect. That is a complete false-hood that was created simply to keep Western military personnel from entering and seizing their weapon stockpiles. There is absolutely no mention in al-qur’an of any such rule. Western governments tend to make many mistakes in their efforts to cater to the Islamic communities in their Western nations. One of the gravest mistakes they are making is affording mosques, madrassas, majids and Islamic centers a form of “Diplomatic Immunity.” This will one day come back to haunt the citizen’s of Western nations.
Furthermore, mosques are currently reinforcing their structures and upgrading their security systems in the West today. They are using the excuse that they fear vandalism in order to carry out this fortification process. In reality it is a preparation for future defensive security for their offensive operations. So, it should be known ahead of time that governments and politicians are placing their citizens in a position of grave danger. And, for what reason? They do not want to offend the muslims. They do not want to hurt their feelings. They do not want to appear as intolerant. They do not want to damage their public image because this could negatively impact their future political aspirations. Instead, they choose to sacrifice public safety and security. s/m
The Muslims are coming… the Muslims are coming!
One if by land and two if by sea.
Okay.. it probably won’t be by land.. but, they are coming!
by, Sharona Schwartz
The Obama administration is considering resettling some refugees who have escaped war-torn Syria in the United States, a development first reported by the Los Angeles Times on Sunday and later confirmed by the State Department.
According to the Times, the resettlement of the refugees would be “part of an international effort that could bring thousands of Syrians to American cities and towns.”
The Times reports [emphasis added]:
A resettlement plan under discussion in Washington and other capitals is aimed at relieving pressure on Middle Eastern countries straining to support 1.6 million refugees, as well as assisting hard-hit Syrian families.
The State Department is “ready to consider the idea,” an official from the department said, if the administration receives a formal request from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which is the usual procedure.
The United States usually accepts about half the refugees that the U.N. agency proposes for resettlement. California has historically taken the largest share, but Illinois, Florida,Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are also popular destinations.
UN, government and non-governmental representatives are meeting this week in Geneva to discuss the resettlement options, according to the Times.
State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked for details about the resettlement plan at the department’s Monday briefing.
“Well, let me first say the preferred solution for the vast majority of refugees is to return home once it is safe. We are in close contact with the UN on the need for resettlement of refugees from countries of first asylum throughout the world,” Psaki said.
“The United States accepts more UN-referred refugees than all other countries combined, and we are aware, and we would – and the UN is aware that the U.S. would consider any individuals referred to us to have been determined to be in need of resettlement. So we are prepared to respond if asked, and will encourage other resettlement countries to do the same,” she added.
While she wouldn’t specify the number of Syrian refugees the U.S. would be willing to resettle, she explained that Congress caps the number of refugees at 70,000 in total.
“So the way it would work would be if a specific country is added to the list of refugees where we would accept their refugees, which the U.S. is certainly open to – but let me just reiterate that the preferred solution for the vast majority is to return to their country once it’s safe,” Psaki said.
The UN’s refugee agency UNHCR on Tuesday said it was talking to Germany about resettling up to 10,000 Syrian refugees.
Though the refugee problem is a serious humanitarian issue – with most having fled to neighboring Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey – moving some of them to the U.S. would create challenges. First, how to vet applicants from a country where so many jihadi and al Qaeda activists are present. Secondly, would the lure of possible entry to the U.S. encourage other Syrians to leave their country, further straining their neighbors’ generosity and resources?
As the L.A. Times reports, “Two resettled Iraqis were convicted of trying to send arms to Al Qaeda from their home in Bowling Green, Ky.”
The paper describes political challenges as well:
Congress strongly resisted accepting Iraqi refugees, including interpreters who had worked with U.S. forces, after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Most lawmakers share White House caution about getting more engaged in Syria and may have little appetite for a major influx.
But Susan Rice, President Obama’s new national security advisor, and Samantha Power, Obama’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to the U.N., both have been strong advocates for refugees. They may make the White House more receptive to at least a partial opening.
The L.A. Times points out that the Department of Homeland Security requires “careful vetting of refugees, with multiple interviews and background checks before they are allowed to enter the country.” That process, “under normal circumstances,” can take a year or more.
editorial footnote: If you are thinking to yourself.. “hmm.. I wonder if this will happen?” ..allow me to put your mind to rest.. YES! It is going to happen. This has been part of Obama’s plan from the beginning and if you doubt that for a second.. than please read and watch all of the videos in the articles at the two links above this message. Obama was “ushered in” for this purpose. That being, the goal of making America a muslim nation by 2016. Do you really think he would take a chance on leaving office at the end of his last term and not leaving behind a Muslim America?
Futhermore, just in case you have not put all of the pieces together yet.. Do you realize that Obama initiated the war in Syria and has been the primary financial contributor to the war that created the situation of bringing a large number of muslim refugees here? Do you believe that is just a coincidence? Be prepared for Turkey, Egypt and the Palestinian Region to follow the same path, in the not so distant future, yielding the same results.
source (‘s): http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/11/obama-admin-considering-resettling-syrian-refugees-in-u-s-and-these-are-the-states-where-they-may-go/comment-page-11/?corder
By Tufail Ahmad
Islamism is a cultural and political movement aimed at eradicating secular and democratic ethos of a society in a bid to pave the way for Islamic ascendancy. It introduces exhibitionist religiosity in people’s lives: there is no issue if a woman wears a burqa, but the problem is a body of religious and political ideas that makes her choose such a dress code. Subsequently, these ideas begin to strike at the roots of individual liberty, women’s freedom, rights of non-Muslims and a free press. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines Islamism as an “Islamic revivalist movement, often characterised by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life”. It is pertinent here to look at recent examples of how Islamism unfolds in everyday life.
In 2010, Islamists in Kerala chopped off the hand of college lecturer T J Joseph for setting a question paper which they deemed as disrespecting Prophet Muhammad. In 2011, Islamists led by Syed Ahmed Bukhari forced an exhibition on the “Koran in 53 languages”, organised by Ahmadiyya Jamaat in Delhi, to be shut. Not long ago, actor-producer Kamal Hassan was compelled by Islamists in Tamil Nadu to edit his movie Vishwaroopam for showing that jihadists recited Koranic verses before launching attacks. In May, tens of thousands of Bangladeshis led by Islamist group Hefajat-e-Islam marched through Dhaka, demanding stricter blasphemy laws. Pakistani media is full of reports of Hindu girls being converted to Islam forcibly, Christians being accused of blasphemy, homes and mosques of Ahmadi Muslims being vandalised, Shias being declared infidels and murdered.
In Egypt, Islamists are targeting Christians through lawsuits, accusing them of blaspheming Islam, and liberal Muslims are quitting government jobs. In Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Islamists killed a man for selling alcohol recently. In Tunisia, Islamists desecrated Jewish cemeteries, and attacked art galleries and cinemas. In Turkey, Islamists stabbed couples who kissed in an Ankara metro station recently to protest against moral policing by Turkish authorities. To make a point, Turkey is building a $100-million mega mosque in America. Jordan is witnessing public demonstrations by Islamists. In a British prison, an Islamist inmate recruited two others to beat up guards in May. In all these cases, there is a single binding factor: Islam. The jihadists of Al-Qaeda variety and Islamists share the same ideological objectives, with the only distinction being that the former are armed and consider themselves fighting on a battlefield against infidels. Their goal is: establishing Sharia rule. Islamism is a softer face of jihadists, sometimes masquerading as liberal Islam in our midst.
Driven by an ideological longing to revive the glory of Islamic caliphate, Islamists are open to using Western tools of election, constitution and the rule of law in introducing Islam in a country’s politics, governance, literature, culture and architecture. Their tactic is to win an election, re-write a country’s constitution to make it compliant with Islam and begin Islamising. Inspired by the success of Islamists in the Arab Spring, even the Taliban are open to using referendums and elections as a tactic.
Last March, Mullah Agha Jan Mutasim, an aide to Mullah Omar, indicated that the Taliban might form a party, noting: “We must launch a political movement to achieve the goals for which we have made so many sacrifices.” Tempted by the rise of Egyptian Islamists, Barelvi scholar Tahirul Qadri returned to Pakistan last December from his self-exile in Canada to engineer a Cairo-like mass uprising in Islamabad, unsuccessfully though, to grab power. “Far from rendering Islamism unnecessary,” writes US academic John M Owen IV, “the Arab Spring has increased its credibility.”
In the past, Islamists have tried to revive the glory of Islam in the political sphere. Such efforts were dubbed as revivalism, fundamentalism, political Islam, extremist Islam, radical Islam and likewise. In the modern democratic era, Islamism is emerging as a distinct attempt to comprehend the meanings of power in all its industrial, corporate and military complexities, as signified by the West.
On the danger of Islamism in post-9/11 years, noted Islamic affairs expert Francis Robinson warns: “[Islamists] understood the issue of power, but in engaging with the West they were deemed to be willing to sacrifice too much that was essential to Islam and Muslim culture. Islamists saw the real danger as Western civilisation itself. Their real enemies were the secular or modernist elites in Muslim societies who collaborated with Western political, economic and cultural forces.”
Commenting on the phenomenon of Islamism, Mehdi Mozaffari of the University Aarhus observes: “Prior to the Islamist revolution in Iran in 1978–79, the terms ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islamists’ are… practically absent from the vocabulary of newspaper reporters.” Now, Islamism is becoming vigorous. For the Islamist parties that rose to power amid the Arab Spring, a policy prototype was readily available from Iran in policies implemented after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, from Turkey where the Islamist Justice and Development Party won 2002 elections and is removing liberal influences from public life, and from Gaza where Hamas captured power through elections to impose Sharia.
In its new avatar, Islamism is also a legal attempt to redefine the relationship between Islam and the state, and between the state and citizens. In 2011, former Islamist Maajid Nawaz observed: “Islamism is the idea that seeks to implement one interpretation of Islam over the rest of society by law. Some Islamists seek to do this through politicking and others through violence.”
In the wake of Arab Spring, Cairo-based journalist Heba Saleh wrote that Islamism does not represent a “broad range of opinion” of people to evolve consensus on government policy-making. In the conception of Islamists, non-Muslim citizens are not permitted to govern or head an Islamic state. Kevin B Anderson, an expert on the Iranian Revolution, sums up: Islamism has “many features and faces, everywhere it is anti-feminist, everywhere it is authoritarian, and everywhere it is intolerant of other religions.”
Tufail Ahmad is director of South Asia Studies Project at the Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington
Lahore, Pakistan: A Christian family in Kasur is accusing a landlord and 12 of his family members of beating up three of their women and ransacking their house over one of them being slapped.
The police are not registering an FIR against the men even though medico-legal reports have established injuries suffered by the women, says the family. The police told The Express Tribune that the landlord’s family were “innocent”. The Christian family, they said, was being “used” by the landlord’s rivals.
Bibi Rani, the mother-in-law of the injured women (aged 19, 26 and 35), told The Express Tribune that they were woken from sleep in the middle of the night on June 3 when Muhammad Ibrahim, Muhammad Rafique, their seven sons and four other men entered their house after scaling the boundary wall.
She said they were looking for her sons. Finding none of them home, she said, they had started abusing her daughters-in-law and beating them up. Their shirts were torn in the process, she said. The men had then dragged them out and beaten them up before they left.
It all started with a herd of goats, owned by the Christian family, entering Ibrahim’s nursery and damaging about a hundred saplings, says Shaukat Masih, the husband of one of the women. He said he had had an argument with Muhammad Munir, Ibrahim’s son, when he locked his goats in a cattle shed and refused to return them.
“We (the three brothers and his sister-in-law) went to them again to request them to release our goats,” Shaukat Masih told The Express Tribune. He said he had told Munir off when he “misbehaved” with his sister-in-law and pushed her. “Munir slapped me and then I slapped him. He was furious, saying how dare a Christian slap him,” Masih said. Elders of the area intervened then and persuaded Munir to return the goats.
Munir, however, filed an application at Pattoki Saddar police station against them. Learning about the complaint against them, said Masih, the men of the house decided to ‘disappear’ to avoid arrest.
The medico-legal certificates “establish torture”, said Masih, “My mother has filed an application but the police are reluctant to register an FIR.”
Pattoki Saddar SHO Haji Abdul Aziz said, “The Christians are accusing innocent people.” He said that the ‘goat incident’ did take place but added that “there was no truth to the allegation that Ibrahim and others had entered their house and humiliated the women”.
Aziz said the doctor who examined the women had recommended action under Section 337-F(1) (Punishment of ghayr-jaifah) of the Pakistan Penal Code “which is not a cognisable offence”. “That is why FIR can be registered”. The PPC section deals with punishment for injuries in which the skin is ruptured and bleeding has occurred (damiyah). According to the section, a court can decide a compensation that is to paid by the offender to the victim for causing such hurt. The offender can also be punished with imprisonment up to a year.
Advocate Tipu Salman Makhdoom, a lawyer The Express Tribune talked to, said that the police “must still register an FIR” for trespass and humiliation of the women.
Note: U.S. Attorney Bill Killian is introduced at the 36:00 min. mark
An event sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee after a local govt official posted something on Facebook that offended local Muslims. Context for the meeting is that the U.S. federal prosecutor for the eastern district of Tennessee, Bill Killian, issued a statement that seemed to imply that some speech published on social media could be prosecuted as a hate crime. Killian’s implied threat to prosecute people who publish things on social media that insult Muslims generated a wave of push-back on talk radio and conservative websites, and resulted in an overflow crowd of more than 600 people at this event on June 4, 2013, at a public conference center in Manchester, TN.
by Ben Benton
An unidentified man shouts to U.S. Attorney Bill Killian as he speaks in the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center during a meeting Tuesday called “Public Discourse in a Diverse Society.” Photo by Doug Strickland /Chattanooga Times Free Press.
MANCHESTER, Tenn. — U.S. Attorney Bill Killian was greeted with shouts of “traitor,” “serpent,” and calls to “resign” or “go home” Tuesday night at an event aimed at improving relations between local residents and their Muslim neighbors.
Killian and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville office, were featured speakers before a hostile crowd of well over 300 at the “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” event at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center.
Despite the noisy crowd, Killian began a dry delivery of information about hate crimes, civil rights and the federal laws that prescribe violations and penalties.
The event was sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee, which was formed two years ago when state lawmakers were considering legislation that would ban Sharia, the law followed by devout Muslims. Killian initially pitched the event as an effort at improving understanding and tolerance of Muslims and their religious beliefs.
Attorney Bill Killian, left, talks with FBI Special Agent in Charge Kenneth Moore in the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center Tuesday before the start of a meeting called “Public Discourse in a Diverse Society” in Manchester, Tenn.
He told the audience that despite 50 prosecutions and convictions of hate crimes in his district, “far too many people are still repeating the same vicious acts against the Arab-Muslim … “
But he was cut off by shouts from the crowd.
State Sen. Mike Bell, R-Riceville, said he attended the event because “I had concerns when I read Bill Killian’s statement [announcing it].”
After the event, Bell said he still was not certain of Killian’s position on free speech.
Outside, about an hour before the planned event, more than 200 protesters braved the 90-degree heat outside the conference center to hold up signs and sing patriotic songs. Some called it a “pre-rally” to gather those opposed to any encroachments on free speech.
Remziya Suleyman, left, and Drost Kokoye listen to a Muslim guest speak in the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center Tuesday during a meeting called “Public Discourse in a Diverse Society” in Manchester, Tenn.
Some people at the impromptu rally were handing out anti-Islamic literature, other patriotic materials and some Christian materials as several speakers were using a megaphone to work up the crowd.
One man’s sign read: “In America, you are free to practice your religion, and I am free to insult it.”
Bell Buckle, Tenn., resident John Anderson, the sign’s author, said he wanted to know “why two federal employees are not looking into [Attorney General] Eric Holder” rather than holding the night’s event.
Residents inside at the meeting had similar feelings.
“Let me be clear, in this country, hateful speech is allowed,” Killian said. “It is protected by the freedom of speech part of the first amendment.
“But if someone makes threats of violence, that is not protected speech and they will be prosecuted,” he said. “Likewise, if someone commits acts of violence under the guise of religious or other speech, they will be prosecuted for their violent acts.”
Killian said the same behaviors that lead to bullying in schools also lead to hate crimes and other acts of hate and violence.
Controversy arose earlier this year in the community over a Facebook post by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West, who drew fire for posting an illustration showing a man in a cowboy hat pointing a double-barreled shotgun at the viewer with the caption: “How To wink at a Muslim.”
West since has apologized.
Protesters gather outside of the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center Tuesday before the start of a meeting called “Public Discourse in a Diverse Society” in Manchester, Tenn.
“I wish to issue a heartfelt sincere apology to anyone I have offended or hurt in my sharing of the Facebook picture,” he is quoted as saying in the May 8 edition of the Manchester Times.
First Amendment Center president and executive director Gene Policinski said before the Manchester meeting on Tuesday that the details of the threat and the specificity of its target are significant in determining how federal law applies to comments made in a public forum.
The threat “has to be likely, imminent and directed at a specific person,” Policinski said.
He said remarks such as those made by West are protected speech.
Killian didn’t address West’s post, except to acknowledge that it created a stir in the community.
“While [West's] cartoon might be tasteless and crass and juvenile and even hateful, I think the founders of this nation provided for people to be able to express those views,” Policinski said. “When it comes to a public official, I think the market place idea is protected under the First Amendment, where voters can decide if this is the kind of person whose opinion and whose judgment they trust to hold public office.”
In all instances, the First Amendment “requires government to really demonstrate that it’s a true threat before they can restrict our speech,” he said.
Obama meets with members of his national security team following the Boston Marathon bombings investigation. Pictured, from left, are: FBI Director Robert Mueller; Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; Attorney General Eric Holder; Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken; and Vice President Joe Biden.
BY PATRICK S. POOLE
Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.
The aftermath of the April 15, 2013 bombings in Boston, Massachusetts, has focused attention on the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to carry out an adequate investigation of the suspected bombers despite warnings from Russian authorities. This failure has partially been attributed to a full scale campaign of political correctness waged inside the bureau and throughout the U.S. government under the Obama administration against any attempt to link jihadi terrorism with anything remotely connected to Islam of any variety (the most radical versions included). This has extended into other segments of the government as well, particularly the Department of Defense.
One of the primary contributors to this widespread political correctness campaign has been the U.S. government’s disastrous Muslim outreach policies extending back to the Clinton administration and the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. The U.S. government’s historical outreach program, regardless of whether it has been a Democrat or Republican in the White House, has been based on a schizophrenic policy: In many cases federal prosecutors have gone into federal court and identified American Islamic organizations and leaders as supporters of terrorism, and no sooner have left court before government officials openly embrace these same organizations and leaders as moderates and outreach partners. In several notable cases, the FBI’s outreach partners have been under active FBI criminal investigation and were later convicted on terrorism-related charges at the time the outreach occurred.
In the case of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, mosque attended by the suspected Boston marathon bombers, when the plethora of extremist ties to the Islamic Society of Boston were reported, a mosque spokesman replied that they could not be extremists since they regularly participated in outreach programs with the FBI, Department of Justice and Homeland Security.
This exemplifies the chronic failure of the U.S. government’s outreach programs.
OUTREACH FAILURE: THEN AND NOW
When President Obama hosted his annual Iftar dinner in August 2010 to commemorate the Muslim celebration of Ramadan, the list of invitees published by the White House was curiously missing the names of several attendees–all of whom were top leaders of organizations known to be purveyors of jihadi ideology and implicated by federal prosecutors in financing terrorism.
Yet it was not like they had crashed the party. In fact, one of the individuals missing on the official White House list, Mohamed Majid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was pictured in a news service photograph sitting at the front table just a few feet from the president as he spoke. When Majid was hailed by Time Magazine in November 2005 as a “moderate Muslim cleric” who was helping the FBI fight terrorists, he quickly published an open letter to his congregation on the mosque’s website assuring his congregants that he was doing no such thing, stating that his relationship with the FBI was a one-way street only to communicate Muslim community concerns–not to report on individuals suspected of terrorist activity.
It was just a few years ago the attorney general of the United States was canceling Muslim outreach events for the sole reason that Majid would be present at the meeting, because the Department of Justice had just named the ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history.
Majid’s connection to terrorism, however, goes back even farther than that, since the offices of the mosque he leads, the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center, were raided by U.S. Customs authorities in March 2002 in a wide-sweeping terror finance investigation. In an affidavit requesting a search warrant for the raids, Customs Agent David Kane testified that Majid’s mosque was being used to launder hundreds of thousands of dollars for the targeted terror finance network that shared offices with ADAMS. An appendix to the Customs Service affidavit also names eleven ADAMS Center officials as targets of their terror finance investigation. Yet Majid and the ADAMS Center are still considered legitimate outreach partners by the FBI as of the writing of this article.
This was just the most recent episode in the disastrous attempts at outreach to the Muslim community since the September 11, 2001, attacks. In addition, with the release in 2011 of President Obama’s strategic plan to combat “violent extremism” to expand outreach to these same terror-tied groups, the present administration seems intent on compounding the disaster wrought by previous administrations. Prior to the September 11 attacks, there were two prime examples of how the government’s Muslim outreach policy failed spectacularly: Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi and Sami al-Arian.
Al-Amoudi’s case is perhaps the best example, because he was the conduit through much of the U.S. government outreach that was conducted following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Not only was he asked by the Clinton administration to help train and certify all Muslim military chaplains (his organization being the first to certify such), he was later appointed by the State Department in 1997 as a civilian goodwill ambassador to the Middle East, making six taxpayer-funded trips.
Further, with the assistance and encouragement of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, al-Amoudi arranged the first White House Iftar dinner in 1996, personally hand-picking the attendees. Thus, he was regularly invited to the White House during both the Clinton and Bush (II) Administrations. In 1992 and 1996, al-Amoudi’s American Muslim Council hosted hospitality suites at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. It is fair to say that during this period, Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi was the most prominent and politically connected Muslim leader in America.
As is now known, and the U.S. government has admitted, at the time that he was being courted by Democrats and Republicans alike, he was a major fundraiser for al-Qa’ida according to the Department of the Treasury. However, it isn’t as if the U.S. government was not aware of al-Amoudi’s attachments. As far back as 1993, a government informant told the FBI that al-Amoudi was funneling regular payments from Usama bin Ladin to the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted for authorizing terror attacks targeting New York landmarks.
In March 1996, al-Amoudi’s association with Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook was exposed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Two years later, the State Department came under fire by the New York Post for inviting al-Amoudi to official events despite his known statements in support of terrorism and terrorist leaders. Even then the Post noted the problem with the government’s policy of reaching out to the wrong Muslim leaders:
The problem is that such groups have been legitimized–both by government and the media–as civil-rights groups fighting anti-Muslim discrimination and stereotyping. Unfortunately, their definition of such discrimination consists of anyone who writes about the existence of–or tries to investigate–radical Islamic terrorist groups and their allies on these shores.
A more embarrassing episode occurred in October 2000, when al-Amoudi appeared at an anti-Israeli rally where he was cheered by the crowd for his support for terrorists. “I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody support Hamas here?” he asked the crowd three times to the roar of attendees. “Hear that, Bill Clinton?” he continued. “We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. Does anybody support Hezbollah here?” Again, he was met with the cheers of the crowd.
Al-Amoudi wasn’t so bold the following day when asked about his comments by reporters from the New York Daily News, who had a videotape of the rally to counter his initial claim that he wasn’t even there: “In a phone interview yesterday, Alamoudi at first challenged the account of his Saturday speech, which The News reviewed on videotape. ‘You better check your Arabic,’ he said. Told he had given the speech in English, Alamoudi replied, ‘It was in English? Oh my God, I forgot!’” He then deferred any further media inquiries about his comments to his attorney, who appealed to the fact that he worked for the State Department and had just returned from a taxpayer-funded trip to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman as proof of his moderation.
Al-Amoudi’s statements were not made in a closed-door meeting in the Middle East. Rather, he delivered his speech supporting two designated terrorist organizations in Lafayette Park–just steps from the White House. Yet it had no impact on his standing with the U.S. government nor did it hinder his positions with the Pentagon, the State Department, or the White House.
No sooner had President George W. Bush taken office before al-Amoudi was being courted by the new administration. In June 2001, the Jerusalem Postreported that al-Amoudi was going to be part of a White House meeting with Vice President Cheney despite the fact that al-Amoudi was known to have attended a terror confab in Beirut earlier that year, which featured representatives from virtually every major Islamist terrorist organization in the world–including al-Qa’ida. Yet just days after the September 11 attacks by al-Qa’ida, al-Amoudi was one of the Muslim leaders asked to appear with President Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. That same week one of al-Amoudi’s close associates, Muzzammil Siddiqi, was asked to deliver an Islamic prayer and to represent the entire Muslim-American community at the national prayer service mourning the fallen.
The decision to include al-Amoudi and Siddiqi at the post-September 11 events was highly criticized, especially since al-Amoudi had been videotaped in October 2000 enthusiastically expressing his support for the Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations at a rally held just steps from the White House. At that same rally, Siddiqi accused the United States of responsibility for the “plight of the Palestinians,” parroting Usama bin Ladin, and warning that “the wrath of God will come.” One former Secret Service agent told Fox News that “The intelligence Community has known for sometime the association of Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, and Mr. Alamoudi and their association with terrorist organizations.”
Yet Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi was not the only troubling association for the Bush administration after the September 11 attacks. When Sami al-Arian, a tenured professor at the University of South Florida, was indicted on terror support charges and his leadership role in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was revealed, his connection with Bush and top administration officials also came under media scrutiny.
In fact, photos of al-Arian and Bush on the campaign trail in Florida during the 2000 election quickly surfaced. The Washington Post also reported that al-Arian had met with Karl Rove in the White House. One law enforcement official told Newsweek that al-Arian had been flagged by the Secret Service as a possible terrorist at that June 2001 meeting with Rove, where the Bush advisor discussed the administration’s “outreach” policy, but he was allowed to enter to prevent an incident. Several weeks later while al-Arian was being questioned during the deportation hearing for his brother-in-law, he had to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 99 times to avoid answering questions about his role in supporting terrorist organizations.
The reasons for al-Arian’s White House visits during the Clinton and Bush administrations revolved around his attempts to change the U.S. government’s policy on the use of secret evidence in terrorism deportation proceedings, a policy that candidate Bush had promised to change during the 2000 campaign. The Justice Department had drafted new guidelines revising the use of secret evidence, and ominously, President Bush was to present these new guidelines to Muslim leaders at a meeting in the White House scheduled at 2 p.m. on September 11, 2001.
However, at the time that al-Arian was meeting with these Clinton and Bush administration officials, he and his associates had been the subject of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wiretap order since December 1993, and his home and offices had been raided by the FBI in 1995. During that initial raid, FBI agents discovered a document in al-Arian’s possession that outlined a program to “infiltrate the sensitive intelligence agencies or the embassies in order to collect information and build close relationships with the people in charge of these establishments” and to create a center that would “collect information from those relatives and friends who work in sensitive positions in government.”
During his trial, al-Arian’s attorney asked the government to disclose any wiretapped conversations he had with then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Asa Hutchinson, and GOP activist Grover Norquist. His attorney also submitted evidence that al-Arian had been at the White House every year between 1998 and 2001; he had met with Al Gore in November 1998 and Hillary Clinton in October 1999, and that he had attended a briefing at the Justice Department in July 2001 as proof that he could not be a terrorist. That fact alone may account for the jury’s deadlocking on a number of counts.
Yet al-Arian’s influence was not exclusive to political circles. In fact, while he was subject to FBI wiretaps and serving as a top official on PIJ’s governingshura council, he was acting as a Middle East advisor to the military’s Central Command, located in Tampa. Al-Arian not only lectured at Centcomm and translated materials for the military, but also his colleague Ramadan Shallah, who would later emerge as the head of PIJ in Damascus. Al-Arian and Shallah were able to gain access to Centcomm through their friendship with Arthur Lowrie, who served as the Centcomm commander’s Mideast adviser.
Two weeks after speaking at a Centcomm symposium in May 1993, attended by Centcomm commander Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, al-Arian wired $4,776 to the family of convicted PIJ terrorists in the West Bank. When the FBI executed a search warrant at Ramadan’s Florida home in November 1995, agents found materials that had been sent from Centcomm to his residence.
In both al-Amoudi and al-Arian’s cases, years of warnings about their support for terrorism and public criticism of their inclusion in government programs and events went unheeded and ignored. Not only that, but these terrorist leaders were being engaged by the U.S. government at the very time they were being investigated by federal law enforcement authorities. In one incredible instance, the head of the FBI’s civil right division Tom Brekke and the FBI’s top spokesman John Collingwood appeared at one of al-Amoudi’s conferences held inside the Hart Senate Office Building, where they shared the podium not only with al-Amoudi but also al-Arian, despite the FBI knowing of both men’s direct terror ties and funding years before.
The U.S. government’s success with Muslim outreach since September 11 hasn’t fared any better. One of the first Muslim leaders that the government turned to was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qa’ida cleric who was in direct contact with at least three of the September 11 hijackers. Awlaki, who had been placed on the CIA’s “kill or capture” list, was killed on September 30, 2011 in a CIA-led drone strike on the al-Qa’ida cleric’s convoy in Yemen, which President Obama hailed as a “milestone” in the fight against al-Qa’ida.
As the cleanup from the terrorist attack on the Pentagon continued, Awlaki was invited by the Pentagon’s Office of Government Counsel to speak at a lunch in the building’s executive offices as part of the government’s new Muslim outreach policy. Ironically, one of the September 11 terrorists who had helped hijack American Airlines Flight 77 that was flown into the Pentagon had described Awlaki as “a great man” and his “spiritual leader.” Yet concerns had been raised about Awlaki long before the September 11 attacks.
A joint congressional inquiry in the September 11 attacks found that law enforcement had been investigating Awlaki’s contacts with terrorism suspects as far back as 1999. Further, just two days after September 11, Awlaki had described the terror attacks as an “accident” in an interview with a local television station. Also prior to his appearance at the Pentagon the New York Times had noted Awlaki’s fiery anti-American rhetoric prior to the attacks, and in November 2001, he had defended the Taliban in an online chat about Ramadan on the Washington Post website. Thus, despite claims that Awlaki had been “vetted” before the Pentagon event, abundant evidence of Awlaki’s extremist views was more than readily available before he appeared at the Pentagon event.
Equally egregious was the invitation by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to Yasir Qadhi to speak on de-radicalization at a conference in August 2008. At that time too, Qadhi’s extremist views (such as his statements denouncing “the hoax of the Holocaust”) were well known. Even more than that, at a Muslim outreach event in Houston in 2006, Homeland Security official Dan Sutherland was present when Qadhi openly admitted that he was on the terror watch list.
Yet no one at the NCTC bothered to question Qadhi’s “de-radicalization” credentials. By the time he was invited to speak at the NCTC conference, at least one of Qadhi’s Houston students, Daniel Maldonado, had been captured by Kenyan forces fighting with the Somali al-Shabaab terrorist group. A number of other students from Qadhi’s AlMaghrib Institute program have gone in to careers in terrorism, including Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, who attended a two-week training session in Houston sponsored by Qadhi’s group learning the “nuts and bolts of Islam” from the cleric. Abdul Mutallab also attended two other events in the UK sponsored by AlMaghrib. If Yasir Qadhi is an expert in deradicalization, one shudders to think what an expert in radicalization might produce.
The NCTC under the Obama administration continues this bipartisan policy of Muslim outreach disasters, best exemplified when they gave Shaykh Kifah Mustapha a tour of their top-secret facility as part of the FBI’s Citizen Academy civilian training program in September 2010. Why was this so catastrophic? In 2007 Kifah Mustapha was named an unindicted co-conspirator by federal prosecutors in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history. During that trial FBI agent Lara Burns testified that Mustapha was part of a singing troupe that glorified Hamas and encouraged the killing of Jews as part of the fundraising efforts for Hamas.
Yet months before participating in the FBI Citizen Academy program and visiting the NCTC, Mustapha was removed as an Illinois State Police chaplain in the wake of media reports noting his long-time terrorist support activities. After Mustapha sued the state police for discrimination, a protective order was filed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald that disclosed that the Chicago FBI’s Special Agent in Charge Robert Grant had warned state police officials that Mustapha would never be able to pass an FBI background check. One former FBI official told the Washington Times that Mustapha was “a known senior Hamas guy.”
None of that prevented the FBI Chicago field office from hosting Mustapha in the six-week Citizen’s Academy course, which included a guided tour of the NCTC and the FBI Academy at Quantico. Caught in an embarrassing situation, an FBI spokesman admitted to Fox News that he had in fact participated in the program, but defended the decision, saying that he was “a prominent figure in the community.” A week later, FBI Director Robert Mueller doubled-down on Mustapha’s inclusion in the program after he was questioned about it following a speech he had given, but refused to address the mountain of evidence that federal prosecutors and the FBI had compiled on the Hamas cleric, saying, “I am not going to talk about any particular individual.”
Court documents filed in March 2013 in a federal court by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan asked the judge for summary judgment against Mustapha’s lawsuit against the Illinois State Police. In them were revealed more warnings about Mustapha’s terror ties from the FBI Chicago field office. Ironically, this was the same office that a few months later invited Mustapha to participate in the FBI Citizens Academy, even telling Illinois State Police officials about the imam’s “demonstrable ties to an organization that funded terrorism” and providing them a video of Mustapha singing lyrics in praise of Hamas and calling for violence against Jews as children danced around him carrying guns. Attorney General Madigan added that the information provided by the FBI Chicago officials conclusively showed that Mustapha’s activities “damage Illinois State Police due to its anti-Jewish and un-American content and manner.”
No matter how embarrassing the Kifah Mustapha incident was for the FBI and the NCTC, the Department of Homeland Security has no grounds to fault their colleagues, especially after Secretary Napolitano appointed Mohamed Elibiary to her Homeland Security Advisory Council in October 2010. Elibiary had previously served on the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, along with Mohamed Majid, despite his speaking at a December 2004 conference honoring Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini (an event that the Dallas Morning News editorialized as a “disgrace”). Recently Elibiary has billed himself as a “deradicalization expert,” despite clear evidence of his previous defense of terrorist support organizations, his praise for jihadist authors, and his threats made against a Dallas journalist who repeatedly exposed his extremist views. His open support for jihadist ideological godfather Sayyid Qutb prompted the Washington Times to comment, “If Mr. Elibiary is one of his [Qutb’s] disciples, he has no business being anywhere in government, let alone as an adviser at the uppermost reaches of an agency that purports to protect the homeland.” Considering Mohamed Elibiary’s track record, it seems he has done more to promote violent ideology than to prevent it.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton was not immune from such outreach disasters either. In November 2010, U.S. Ambassador to Britain Louis B. Susman stirred international outrage following his visit to the notorious East London Mosque, well known as a longtime hotbed of extremism and a prolific terrorist incubator. In January 2009, the mosque hosted a conference featuring wanted al-Qa’ida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki via telephone. Just a few weeks before Susman’s visit, the mosque chairman had defended Awlaki’s participation in the conference, calling it an act of “fairness and justice.”
The visit by the U.S. ambassador was slammed in the Wall Street Journal by Shiraz Maher of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College, who described the mosque as “among Britain’s most extreme Islamic institutions.” Maher concluded that “Mr. Susman’s visit illustrates the blunders Western politicians often make by reaching out to the wrong Muslim ‘dialogue partners.’” He added that the attendance of such a high-ranking diplomat to the mosque “emboldened robed reactionaries at the expense of their more moderate counterparts.” Maher also stated that Susman’s visit to the mosque was such an egregious blunder that British Prime Minister David Cameron instructed officials to conduct an “exhaustive review” of the government’s “Preventing Violent Extremism” program to ensure that all community partners had been thoroughly vetted.
The U.S. government, however, failed to even acknowledge the blunder, let alone attempt to reconsider its long-standing policy of engaging extremists. In fact, the American Embassy issued a statement explaining that the visit was “a part of President Obama’s call for a renewed dialogue with Muslim communities around the world.”
continue reading here…
The Russian TV channel RT is, as usual, doing something right and something wrong, often in the same breath.
Two days ago I saw its broadcast on the anti-Islam backlash in the UK following the brutal beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, East London. In it they mentioned graffiti on mosques, attacks on Muslims and protest marches by the English Defence League (EDL), whose images were shown.
Even in me, despite my distrust for the mainstrean, socio-communist media, they created a subliminal, temporary association between the first two, which are criminal acts, and the third, which is lawful exercise of freedom of expression, moreover amply justified in this case. I recovered from that association almost immediately, by using my critical spirit, but many will have not.
That was followed by an interview with Paul Weston, the chairman of the newly-formed counterjihad party Liberty GB, with which I sympathize. He rightly said that the EDL should not be called far-right for protesting against such a horrific murder, and then went on to suggest that drastic measures should be taken by the government to eradicate Islamic militancy, for example closing down the mosques that spread radical and violent ideologies (which, I venture to add, are probably many more than we think).
Then I found that RT has a few days ago tackled another big issue related to how Islam “enriches” our cultural environment, namely the Muslim gangs that groom white girls for sexual exploitation.
Maybe something is moving in the right direction here. It only took 20 years after all, from the early 1990s if not before, a jiffy in geological terms! The police, social services and prosecutors, not to mention the politicians, have required two decades, first to recover from the shock of finding out that someone, or rather a lot of people, in the Muslim community were not acting as uprightly as the apologists of the “religion of peace” keep telling us that its followers do; then to master the extreme courage of braving the chance of various epithets, from “far-right” to “racist”, being thrown at them; and then finally to find, as in the recently-tried Oxford gang case, a Muslim prosecutor who could do the dirty job for them without risking his career.
All this can be compared to the 20 minutes taken by the police to get to the crime scene in Woolwich. The contact with, or even proximity to, Islam slows down our betters’ reflexes.
The Oxfordshire child-sex-trafficking ring was allowed by the authorities’ negligence to drug, rape and sell for sex girls aged 11-16 over seven years. Seven gang members, all Muslim, have been found guilty of a string of sex offences just over two weeks ago. Consider the following quote:
The fact is that the vicious activities of the Oxford ring are bound up with religion and race: religion, because all the perpetrators, though they had different nationalities, were Muslim; and race, because they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases.
Indeed, one of the victims who bravely gave evidence in court told a newspaper afterwards that ‘the men exclusively wanted white girls to abuse’.
But as so often in fearful, politically correct modern Britain, there is a craven unwillingness to face up to this reality.
Commentators and politicians tip-toe around it, hiding behind weasel words.
We are told that child sex abuse happens ‘in all communities’, that white men are really far more likely to be abusers, as has been shown by the fall-out from the Jimmy Savile case.
One particularly misguided commentary argued that the predators’ religion was an irrelevance, for what really mattered was that most of them worked in the night-time economy as taxi drivers, just as in the Rochdale child sex scandal many of the abusers worked in kebab houses, so they had far more opportunities to target vulnerable girls.
But all this is deluded nonsense. While it is, of course, true that abuse happens in all communities, no amount of obfuscation can hide the pattern that has been exposed in a series of recent chilling scandals, from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby.
In all these incidents, the abusers were Muslim men, and their targets were under-age white girls.
Moreover, reputable studies show that around 26 per cent of those involved in grooming and exploitation rings are Muslims, which is around five times higher than the proportion of Muslims in the adult male population.
To pretend that this is not an issue for the Islamic community is to fall into a state of ideological denial.
But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.
Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.
Amazingly, the predators seem to have been allowed by local authority managers to come and go from care homes, picking their targets to ply them with drink and drugs before abusing them. You can be sure that if the situation had been reversed, with gangs of tough, young white men preying on vulnerable Muslim girls, the state’s agencies would have acted with greater alacrity.
Another sign of the cowardly approach to these horrors is the constant reference to the criminals as ‘Asians’ rather than as ‘Muslims’.
In this context, Asian is a completely meaningless term. The men were not from China, or India or Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh. They were all from either Pakistan or Eritrea, which is, in fact, in East Africa rather than Asia.
What appalling, Islamophobic, right-wing extremist wrote that? A Muslim leader, the imam Dr Taj Hargey.
I’ve quoted him at length due to the exceptionality of a member of the Muslim community in Britain, and an imam at that, being honest enough to admit, and therefore willing to redress, Muslim grooming gangs. Hargey also has the audacity to accuse imams of promoting grooming rings by encouraging followers to think that white women deserve to be “punished”.
Only a week before the Oxford trial, it had been the turn of another gang of “men” (as the media tactfully or, shall we say, cowardly, call them), in this UK epidemic of sex-slave rings run by Muslims, to be convicted in Telford, a town in Shropshire, for sexually abusing schoolgirls in cases stretching over two years.
Writer and journalist Sean Thomas, in his interview with RT in the video above, correctly identifies these as clear cases of racist crimes in which the victims are targeted for being white.
A Police Chief Constable warned that child sex-slave gangs could exist in every British city.
The Mirror newspaper reports that there are now at least 54 active investigations on grooming rings in Britain. Steve Heywood, chief constable at Greater Manchester, said that child exploitation was now the force’s “number one priority”.
Out of the 43 police divisions in England and Wales, at least a whopping 31 have ongoing investigations into these crimes. The other 12 did not respond to the paper’s request for information. Of the 43 that did, 3 refused to tell The Mirror how many investigations they had. So, 54 is the number of probes disclosed to the paper, but their number is likely to be higher.
Last week another trial involved 10 “men” with names like Mohammed Adnan, Mudassar Hussain, Rameez Ali and Ammar Rafiq, accused of abusing and exploiting a girl in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, over a four-year period.
In April, probably Britain’s biggest child-sex ring, with the highest number of victims by one gang, 50 (the youngest of whom was 12), was discovered by the police. The suspects, six men “of various nationalities”, were arrested in Peterborough, near Cambridge.
In March, 7 men were charged in Newham, East London, on a range of offences against a 14-year-old girl, including rape and human trafficking for sexual exploitation.
And last year 5 men were charged with rape in Stockport, Greater Manchester, after an investigation showed they had 39 potential victims.
Sean Thomas in the video interview above sums up the grisly situation in its numeric terms: “Fifty-four gangs is an astonishing figure. Each gang may have dozens or hundreds of victims, so we’re talking about possibly thousands and thousands of white girls who have been abused, raped and even murdered in the last 20 years, because this crime has been ignored. It’s shocking”.
The Project: Part I of II
The Project: Part II of II
In 2001, an inconspicuous manifesto now known as “The Project” was recovered during a raid in Switzerland: A manifesto that turned out to be a Muslim roadmap for infiltrating and defeating the West. Today, files containing evidence from the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history, which include details about “The Project”, are being withheld by the Department of Justice.
In an explosive two-part mini-series, TheBlaze documentary unit investigates how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the American government and exposes how our nation’s safety is in jeopardy as a result of this dangerous government cover up.
by, Victor Mordechai | Israel Today
At a meeting of the David Allen Lewis “Eschatology Club” a year ago in Springfield, Missouri, where I was the featured speaker, I was told by the organizers that in the previous monthly meeting, Pastor Don Jones made a disturbing statement about President Barack Obama’s plan to Islamicize America.
Jones went to one of his orphanages in Haiti after the massive earthquake there and met with a senior UN official, who said Obama had told him that the US would be a Muslim country by 2016, or by the end of his second term in office.
While that may seem far-fetched, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. First, Obama’s biological father was a Muslim—which makes the President a Muslim. His stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim who raised Obama as a Muslim in a mosque and madrassa (Islamic religious school) in Indonesia until age 11. His halfbrothers in Kenya are Muslims.
My wife Rachel, who is a radio and TV monitor in the Arabic language for Israel Radio in Jerusalem, has picked up many broadcasts indicating that the Arabs see Obama as a Muslim. In one broadcast prior to the 2008 elections, the Saudis claimed that “we will have a Muslim in the White House.”
Another Saudi broadcast said: “Obama’s job is to terminate the Shiite threat [Iran] and the Jewish threat [Israel]. And if he cannot do this, he should pack his bags and go home.”
America has always been a Judeo-Christian nation, but demographically at least, this is no longer true. While there are more than 250 million Christians in the US, the 6 million Jews are now outnumbered by Muslims who total about 20 million (9 million Iranians who fled after the fall of the Shah, 7 million Arabs and at least 3 million black Muslims, with the remainder being from Somalia and the former Yugoslavia).
Numerically, the Jews are now no. 3 or 4 along with the Hindus in the US, whose population is about the same as the Jews. According to Obama’s Inauguration Day speech, America is a “Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu” country. Numerically, he is right. So much for Judeo-Christian America.
In the June edition of Israel Today, I wrote about the worsening conditions of the Christians in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. International investment in Egypt has all but dried up since the Revolution. What international (Christian) corporation will invest in a country which is killing and ethnically cleansing its Christians? So the Egyptian economy appears doomed to collapse, which would create fertile ground for a takeover by the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
This would leave 70 million Muslims in Egypt in dire poverty.
The same applies to other countries in the Middle East that could be taken over by Islamic militants. In the case of Syria, the ruling Muslim Alawite sect will probably share the same fate as the Christians. This could lead to a flood of Arab Muslims to greener pastures in the West.
The Bible says Egypt will be a desolation and Egyptians will flee to other countries because the nation will be uninhabitable for 40 years (Ezekiel 29). If the official Syrian newspaper Tishrin is correct in saying that 600,000 Palestinian refugees and Syrians will march on the Golan Heights to reclaim their land, then a war with Syria is inevitable, which means that Syria will be a desolation as well (Isaiah 17).
The result could be tens of millions of Muslims fleeing to the US and Europe. President Obama would welcome these “brethren” on humanitarian grounds, and in effect, America would become a Muslim country.
I was just convicted and given a three-year jail sentence in Switzerland for helping defeat a plan to build minarets at the nation’s mosques by a 57 percent majority.
But the Muslims in Switzerland are already returning with a new minaret initiative. They are tenacious in their plans to Islamicize Switzerland and Europe. Why not the US?
THE UNITED STATES OF ISLAM?: How Obama Is Carrying Out a Troubling Saudi Plot
by, Avi Lipkin
On the surface, the fact that the U.S. Commerce Department is considering granting “disadvantaged minority” business status to Arab Americans doesn’t appear to elicit a cause for alarm.
But when aligned with other developments, both here in the U.S. and across the Middle East, it creates a larger context that says otherwise, states Avi Lipkin, a U.S.-born Israeli citizen, former member of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and a former translator inside the Israeli Prime Minister’s office.
Apart from maintaining his circles within Israel and the international diplomatic community, Lipkin also—together with his wife, Rachel, an Egyptian-born Israeli—closely monitors various media transmissions throughout the Arab world.
Combining the content of those transmissions with American domestic developments under the Obama administration—from Obama’s policy decisions with regard to Iran, Israel and the so-called Arab Spring, to many of his czar appointments, right down to his infamous 2009 bow to the Saudi king—the notion that Obama could be executing a Saudi plot to Islamize America becomes increasingly unnerving.
Consider Obama’s stance on immigration. According to Arabic language broadcasts intercepted and interpreted by Lipkin, “The Moslem world is saying that President Obama wants amnesty for the current 12 million illegal Hispanic immigrants in the U.S. in order to pave the way for the next wave of tens of millions of illegals from the Middle East to the United States, leading to 50 to 100 million Muslims living in the U.S. before the end of Obama’s second term…”
Furthermore, Lipkin has a source with a senior United Nations official that has also said the U.S. will be a Muslim country by 2016—a scenario that makes the Commerce Department’s latest deliberation to grant Arab businesses a leg up rather peculiar in its timing. Lipkin outlined his best speculative assertion of how Obama is carrying out a three-phase Saudi plan that involves the following:
1. See to the end of the Iranian Shi’ite threat, be it with assistance from Israel or via the rise of a fanatic Muslim Brotherhood Sunni Regime born out of the Arab Spring.
2. Following the takeover of the regimes in the Middle East and the Arab Spring unrest, allow the inevitably massive exodus of Sunni Muslims and Christians from Egypt and other nations to find amnesty in America and Europe—thus bringing about Muslim majorities in the U.S., Europe, Canada and Latin America.
3. Terminate the “Jewish threat” by allowing the Muslim Brotherhood nations to march on Israel.
article 1 source: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/22844/Default.aspx
article 2 source:
Barack Hussein Obama Financially Supporting a Worldwide Genocide of Christian Women and Children
by, Ryan Keller | The Examiner
Members of the Free Syrian Army reportedly attacked the Christian-dominated al-Duvair village in Reef on the outskirts of Homs on Monday, where they massacred its citizens, including women and children, before the Syrian Army loyal to Bashar al Assad intervened on behalf of the Christians.
This reported attack comes shortly after intense fighting in the city of al-Qusseir over the weekend, in which Bashar Al-Assad’s forces inflicted heavy casualties on the rebels.
Assad’s forces launched an offensive in April in an effort to cut off supply lines to the rebels by taking the city and its surrounding areas from the rebel groups that had been entrenched there since last year. Two weeks ago, the Syrian forces reached the center of the city
While the sources describing Monday’s massacre are supportive of Assad, it’s possible that it occurred since the rebel groups fighting the Assad regime are composed mainly of members of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda affiliated groups and have committed war crimes and atrocities in the past.
Jabhat al-Nusra, the branch of al-Qaeda that fought and killed American and allied troops in Iraq, have positioned themselves in Syria and control the rebel movement.
The U.S. and other Western governments that are backing the FSA have acknowledged the presence of jihadists but insist that they’re only a small part of the rebel movement. However, al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups have been at the front of the rebel movement since day one of the Syrian war that began two years ago. According to German intelligence, 95 percent of the rebels aren’t even Syrian.
“Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of,” the New York Times reported last month.
In April, Abou Mohamad al-Joulani, the head of al-Nusra, pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahri, the head of al-Qaeda.
Members of the FSA have admitted that their plan is to institute sharia law, and the rebels now have a brigade named the Osama bin Laden Brigade.
Despite the evidence of al-Qaeda connections, the U.S. government continues to support the FSA.
Last week, Sens. Robert Menendez, D.-N.J., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., drafted a bill that, if passed, would directly arm the Syrian rebels with lethal weaponry. The U.S. government has so far only provided non-lethal supplies and humanitarian aid.
On Monday, Sen. John McCain made a surprise visit to Syria where he met with Gen. Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the FSA. McCain has also called for arming the rebels as well as direct U.S. military intervention in the war.
- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Release from the Vatican:
US-Backed Rebels Committing Christian Genocide In Syria
Christians are being systematically targeted for genocide in Syria according to Vatican and other sources with contacts on the ground among the besieged Christian community. According to reports by the Vatican’s Fides News Agency collected by the Centre for the Study of Interventionism, the US-backed Free Syrian Army rebels and ever more radical spin-off factions are attacking and burning Christian churches, shooting Christians dead in the street, broadcasting ultimatums that all Christians must be cleansed from the rebel-held villages, and even shooting priests.
French Bishop Philip Tournyol Clos, a greek-Catholic Melkite Archimandrite, traveled through Syria and, according to the Holy See’s press agency, reported back that Western press was spreading disinformation about the real nature of the uprising in Syria and thereby prolonging and deepening the conflict. Reported Bishop Clos:In Homs, “opposition forces have occupied two areas, Diwan Al Bustan and Hamidieh, where there are all the churches and bishoprics.
The picture for us is utter desolation: the church of Mar Elian is half destroyed and that of Our Lady of Peace is still occupied by the rebels. Christian homes are severely damaged due to the fighting and completely emptied of their inhabitants, who fled without taking anything. The area of Hamidieh is still shelter to armed groups independent of each other, heavily armed and bankrolled by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
All Christians (138,000) have fled to Damascus and Lebanon, while others took refuge in the surrounding countryside. A priest was killed and another was wounded by three bullets. Mother Agnes Miriam of the Cross, Mother Superior of the Monastery of St. James at Qara in the Diocese of Homs, was interviewed (MP3) on Irish Radio this week where she confirmed that the opposition rebels in Syria were terrorizing Syria’s Christian community.
Asked whether it was the Free Syrian Army that was telling Christians to get out, Mother Agnes Miriam answered “yes…it was commander on the ground Abdel Salam Harba who decided that there was to be no more negotiations with Christians.” She said that Christians are being targeted because they are refusing to back the rebels and instead prefer to keep out of either side of the conflict. She said that the rebels are specifically targeting government troops in Christian areas and are taking Christians as human shields. Shockingly, the once Catholic-friendly National Review, which to its credit broke the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung story that the Houla massacre was carried out by the rebels, published a piece by writers affiliated with Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum and the Israel-basedGLORIA Center ridiculing the Catholic Mother Agnes Miriam as an Assad propagandist.
These “journalists” attacked Mother Agnes for asserting that the rebels were carrying out a foreign backed conspiracy to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. Should we wait for these two neo-conservatives to ridicule and attack the Wall Street Journal, which reported this week that:“…the Central Intelligence Agency and State Department—working with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and other allies—are helping the opposition Free Syrian Army develop logistical routes for moving supplies into Syria and providing communications training.“U.S. officials also are considering sharing intelligence with the Free Syrian Army, or FSA, to allow the rebels to evade pro-Assad forces…”
As we have seen elsewhere where the US and its NATO allies have intervened to change regimes in the Middle East, Christians are the first to be targeted. Yet many US Christians have swallowed the propaganda that these “democracy promoting” coups and invasions are somehow part of the glorious and positive march of history. They should look more closely, beyond the mainstream propaganda, and inform themselves better. Otherwise the blood will at least partly be on their hands — a stain that may perhaps mark their eternal souls as well.