By, Michael Stürzenberger
In the speech Zahid Khan 30 June Offenbach’s “Islam is not part of Germany” ( here the PI notice with a statement of Khan) it came to violent riots. A collection of about 150 Muslims had surrounded the speakers and loudly chanted “Allahu Akbar” and other Islamic battle cries. What recited the pakistanischstämmige Ex-Muslim, was in the roaring simply do not understand. Suddenly some highly aroused convert Muslims rally began throwing objects and jumped over the fence to attack Khan.
In the video, can be heard in the first five minutes, the deafening shouts of the Muslim counter-demonstrators who had surrounded downright Khan. From 5:00 the attacks are going on:
Seven of the attackers were arrested . One has to keep in mind that this is not shocking scene occurred in Islamabad or Kabul, but in Offenbach. In the middle of Germany. These are harbingers of the coming civil war, the CIA Director Michael Hayden predicted around 2020 . The only question is whether it really takes so long until the ticking time bomb is in Muslim societies against an explosion.
Perhaps the EU and the demand of the powerful organization of Islamic Countries OIC will indeed comply and enforce a ban on criticism of Islam, nor to delay the outbreak of open violence somewhat. But it will come eventually win in any case, because Islam has under its sole and rigid dogma, the secular power. Seconded the conquest of multibillion-dollar investments from the Arab world,especially Qatar . When the time is ripe, the call will ring for jihad.And then you will see how many “peaceful”, “moderate” and “well-integrated” Muslims stand on the side of the inferior Kufar ..
by, Joel Richardson
I recently had the opportunity to have dinner with a very well-known Christian leader, scholar and missionary to the Muslim world. Among the various subjects upon which the conversation focused that evening, was the thesis of Dr. Philip Jenkins, British historian and author of several books, including “The Next Christendom,” published in 2002. In this book, Jenkins theorizes that in the next few decades, the world may expect to see Christianity continue its decline in both Europe and the United States as it makes a drastic demographic shift to the south and the east. Jenkins claims that the United States will quickly lose its status as the Christian stronghold of the globe, and instead, Christianity will see its greatest strength in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Jenkins also ends his book with some dire warnings. With the rise of both Islam and Christianity together in many heavily populated Southern Hemisphere nations, we may expect to see a wave of religious clashes. Jenkins is not a wild-eyed alarmist. As a noted historian, his warnings are thoughtful, well supported by observable evidence and eloquently argued.
Among the nations Jenkins predicted we should watch, most notable is the African nation of Nigeria. The missionary with whom I was speaking agreed. As a well-known leader among the Christian missionary community worldwide, this individual is very well-connected and informed regarding the many trends in the global Christian and Islamic movements. He had some very relevant thoughts regarding the future of Africa. “What most of the missiologists are saying now is, ‘As goes Nigeria, so goes Africa.’ And it doesn’t look very good for Nigeria right now.” He stated.
He then elaborated that while the numbers of Christian believers in southern Nigeria is vast, the churches tend to be very influenced by what is often called the “health and wealth gospel” that is often associated with the American televangelists of the 1980s. In the north however, the churches are strong, but they are very small in comparison. He then continued with the following description:
“The church in the south is not prepared for persecution and difficulty. When it comes, many fall away and become Muslims. I recently was invited to speak at a small pastor’s gathering in northern Nigeria. Almost every one of the pastors that I met had noticeable machete scars from Muslim attacks. The church there is suffering greatly, but they are prepared and they are standing strong. Sadly, however, they are very small in number and cannot compare the growing Muslim population.”
The Daily Sun interviewed an eyewitness to the event.
“The pastors … were asked to change their faith to Islam. … I think there was an argument by one of the pastors, which gave the others some level of confidence to also resist accepting Islam. … They came out later to the courtyard within the compound and cut their heads one after the other and thereafter, shouted Allah Akbar in wild celebration accompanied with several gun shots.”
Corroborating the eyewitness account, the Rev. Baba Gata Ibrahim from the Good News Church, told the Daily Sun that an assistant pastor in his church, Pastor George Orjih, was among those beheaded because of his refusal to accept Islam.
An eyewitness who was also captured by the Islamic militants gave us details of how the pastor was killed. He told us they were persuading him to accept Islam and he said over his dead body. He was even said to have preached Christ to [his captors].
Pastor Orjih had just completed a masters program in theology. He left behind a wife and children.
More than 10,000 people have been killed through Christian-Muslim conflict in Nigeria since 1999. The worst conflict usually occurs in what is often called “the Middle Belt,” where the predominantly Muslim north butts against the Christian south. Just this past week, over 800 were killed in fighting between the radical group Boko Haram and Nigerian Security Forces. Boko Haram, which means “Education is Prohibited,” believes that Nigerian Muslims need to abandon Western educational indoctrination and return to Islamic Shariah law. Shariah law is already practiced in 12 Nigerian states.
At the funeral services for Pastor Orjih, the Rev. Bulus Azi urged Christians to emulate the pastors who were killed because of their refusal to deny Christ and accept Islam. He quoted from the Book of Revelation, chapter 7:
And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. Never again will they hunger; never again will they thirst. The sun will not beat upon them, nor any scorching heat. For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”
– Revelation 7:14-17
This passage is often associated with another passage from the book of Revelation that speaks about the nature of martyrdom in the last days:
And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands.
– Revelation 20:4
There is a deeper issue that needs to be commented on here. Consider this carefully: According to this passage, the martyrdom that Christians will face in the last days will be carried out primarily through the vehicle of beheading.
Now, while many students of prophecy have looked to Europe for an empire and a religion to emerge that will eventually legislate the beheading of Christians, many are now abandoning this notion as silly. In Europe today, popular sentiment expresses an open revulsion at the wild and barbaric practices of some American states because they still continue to execute their murderers. Europe simply does not fit the many descriptions in the Bible of the iron-toothed beast-like empire that is said to overwhelm the earth in the days prior to the return of Jesus. And so, as Europe continues its slide toward a toothless effete state. So also does the slide away from the Euro-centric Antichrist paradigm continue. The Euro-centric end time perspective is simply looking far less plausible than it once did. Instead, many are now turning their eyes toward radical Islam. When we consider this horrific aspect of beheading in the last days, the Islamic end-time paradigm begins to make far more sense. As the sickening practice of Islamic ritual beheading has been repeated multiple times in recent years by radicals, often in a very public fashion, many have taken note and have been reminded of Revelation 20. For this and many other sound Scriptural reasons, many theologians, pastors and students alike are now turning their attention to the growing worldwide movement of fundamentalist Islam.
Certainly, some will say that this is all very alarmist and inflammatory. In an age when exposing elements of Jew-hatred or Christian-hatred within Islam inevitably brings angry charges of “Islamophobia,” there are many who simply refuse to be pleased. For these, political correctness is a law vocal Christians will never be able not to break. Nevertheless, despite what should be obvious, let me clearly state that most Muslims have no desire to behead Christians. The vast majority of Muslims do not wish to kill unbelievers. But no matter how many peace-loving Muslims there are, there are still many who will look at the Quranic command, “when you meet the unbelievers … strike off their heads” (8:12) and will simply interpret it at its face value. This is Allah-breathed sacred scripture, after all. Yes, there are multiplied millions of peace-loving Muslims who find revulsion at passages like this in their Quran, but as these horrific recent events in Nigeria have shown, many, many fundamentalist Muslims remain.
In the future, will the peaceful Muslims or the fundamentalist Muslims prevail? Time will tell. But I believe the Bible gives us some pretty clear clues.
Kieran Crump Raisewell (18), Stabbed to death by muslim lunatic.
Kieran, 18, was heading to look for a job when Imran Hussain, 27, walked up to him and “without warning” stabbed him four times in the chest, Manchester Crown Court was told.
By, Manchester Evening News
A teenage gap-year student was knifed to death in the street in broad daylight by a “laughing” stranger in Manchester, a jury has heard.
Kieran Crump-Raiswell, 18, was heading to look for a job when Imran Hussain, 27, walked up to him and “without warning” stabbed him four times in the chest, Manchester Crown Court was told.
Witnesses to the shocking scene in Whalley Range said Hussain appeared to be “sniggering” as he ran to his car and drove off, jurors heard.
The killing was the second of two street assaults committed on total strangers within 12 days in January.
Mature student Hussain, from Bracknell, Berkshire, drove from his student flat in Coventry on January 4 and punched a man in the face in Nottingham and ran off.
On January 16, he travelled up to Manchester from Coventry.
Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said: “It is the prosecution case that on this occasion, fortified by the apparent ease at which a stranger could be attacked, this time he travelled to Manchester armed with a knife and intending to kill someone.”
Hussain drove around Whalley Range and Chorlton in the early afternoon for around a hour.
“He was driving around the area, stopping and then carrying on,” he said. “We say he was now looking for a suitable victim.”
Hussain parked his vehicle in Upper Chorlton Road and then got out with a knife as his victim walked along nearby, he continued.
Mr Wright said: “Kieran crossed the road and then entirely without warning he approached him and he stabbed him to the front and back of his chest four times before running off.”
He said the defendant initially denied involvement in either of the incidents when he was arrested days later.
But he “changed his tune” when the evidence against him began to unravel.
Hussain went on to claim he had been hearing “threatening and abusive voices” and that he travelled to the two cities to confront them.
The jury was told that Hussain pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.
Mr Wright said, though, that Hussain’s medical defence was “contrived by him as a last resort that only arose once he realised it could be proved he was the culprit”.
Hussain, of Tilehurst Lane, denies murder.
The trial is expected to last a week.
by, Shahzad Nafat
From April 2013 until now, three Christian boys have been tortured and murdered by Pakistani police due to love affairs with Muslim girls. Afzal Masih 20 years old and his cousin Iftikhar Masih, also 20 years old from Moran Walla Sharkpur were tortured and murdered on the 29th of April 2013. Then, on the 10th of June, Adnan Masih was also tortured and murdered by Punjab police, without any written complaint.
Now yesterday, Farhad Masih who is 16 Years old of Shibli town Gulshan Ravi Lahore was arrested by the Complaint (FIR) 579/13.PPC, 380/496 A. of Sakina Bibi, the mother of Rabia, also 16 Years old. The local Muslims looted and then attempted to burn Farhad’s house.
We observed in all of these cases, the police constables and investigation officers were torturing and abusing the Christian boys, as well as threatening them about their love relations with Muslim Girls.
They believe that in Islam, muslim males are allowed to be with non-muslim women but muslim women are not allowed to be with non-muslim males. Please pray for Farhad Masih’s life. He is currently under investigation in S P. Iqbal town Lahore.
Yesterday evening, once again local Muslims held a huge protest against Christians and tried to burn down their houses. Some Muslims have announced that Christian boys must be forced to convert to Islam. Due to great pressure from the S. P. Iqbal town Imtiaz Sarwar conditions were given to provide for the safety and lives of Farhad Masih and the members of his family. These conditions are as follows:
1. Farhad must convert to Islam.
2. He must pay 500,000 (half) to his wife.
3. He must pay 2,000 to his wife every month.
4. He can visit his parents but is not allowed to live with them.
5. If he converts back to Christianity then he will be murdered.
By, Michael Woods, Postmedia News
A contentious section of Canadian human rights law, long criticized by free-speech advocates as overly restrictive and tantamount to censorship, is gone for good.
A private member’s bill repealing Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the so-called “hate speech provision,” passed in the Senate this week. Its passage means the part of Canadian human rights law that permitted rights complaints to the federal Human Rights Commission for “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet” will soon be history.
The bill from Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth passed in the House of Commons last summer, but needed Senate approval. It has received royal assent and will take effect after a one-year phase-in period.
An “ecstatic” Storseth said the bill, which he says had wide support across ideological lines and diverse religious groups, repeals a “flawed piece of legislation” and he called Canada’s human rights tribunal “a quasi-judicial, secretive body that takes away your natural rights as a Canadian.”
“(Section 13) had actually stopped being used as a shield, as I think it was intended, to protect civil liberties, and started being used as a sword against Canadians, and it’s because it was a poorly-written piece of legislation in the first place,” he said.
Various human rights lawyers and groups such as the Canadian Bar Association say Section 13 is an important tool in helping to curb hate speech, and that removing it would lead to the proliferation of such speech on the Internet.
But critics of Section 13 said it enabled censorship on the Internet, and are calling its repeal a victory for free speech.
“We’re pleased with the repeal,” said Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), who testified before a Senate committee on the topic.
Zwibel said Section 13 had “some serious problems from a freedom of expression perspective.”
“We don’t want there to be a chill on speech that is controversial but not necessarily hateful,” she said. “We felt that given the impact that it has on freedom of expression, and given that it hasn’t really proven to be a very effective method for dealing with discrimination, that it shouldn’t be on the books anymore . . . We really encourage countering hateful speech, rather than trying to censor it.”
Zwibel, at the CCLA, also said there’s not a lot of good evidence that marginalized groups have used the statute to curb discrimination.
“Section 13 is not something that minority groups were already embracing and making use of,” she said, noting that a large majority of the tribunal cases “were brought by a single individual.”
That person is Ottawa-based human rights lawyer Richard Warman, who has brought 16 successful Section 13 complaints before the human rights tribunal against neo-Nazis and white supremacists since 2001.
On Thursday, Warman said Section 13 had helped sideline neo-Nazis from the Internet because of its power to obtain cease-and-desist orders from Canada’s human rights tribunal and enforce them through the courts.
“Virtually every other Western democracy has these kinds of civil law controls on hate speech,” Warman said. “Now, Canada just moves one large step further out of line from realizing that these kinds of controls are necessary and imperative.”
Producing and disseminating hate speech remains a crime in Canada, but regulating it will fall to the courts, not to human rights tribunals. Under the Criminal Code, spreading hate against identifiable groups can carry up to a two-year prison sentence.
The bill from Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth passed the House of Commons last summer. Photograph by: Handout, Postmedia News
But Conservative Sen. Nancy Ruth noted that while any citizen can file a human rights complaint, criminal charges for hate speech require the attorney general’s approval.
She said she left the Senate “heartbroken” after the bill passed, saying it creates a gap regarding discrimination based on sex, age and disabled people.
“This is a victory for hate speech. To remove protection from disadvantaged groups in society . . . this is a protection for hate speech,” she said, accusing the Conservative senators who voted for the bill of “tribal loyalty.”
“It is not about freedom of expression. It’s about freedom to hate, in my opinion.”
Warman also said institutional barriers make it “virtually impossible” to convince police to lay criminal charges for hate speech on the Internet.
However, Storseth said the government has committed to “buffing up the Criminal Code to ensure that these types of groups would not be left open to hate speech.”
Between the Options of Freedom and Terrorism…
Barack Hussein Obama Supports and Finances Terrorism!
by Raymond Ibrahim
Evidence that the Obama administration is unhappy with the Egyptian people’s liberation from Muslim Brotherhood rule continues to emerge. As reported today by Youm 7, according to Muhammad Heikal — “the Arab world’s most respected political commentator” and for some 50 years a political insider — soon after the overthrow of Morsi, U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson assured Hisham Qandil, who hours ago was Egypt’s Prime Minister, that “there are many forms of pressure, and America holds the keys to the Gulf.”
Such blatantly pro-Muslim Brotherhood assurances by Patterson are consistent with many of her other actions in Egypt, which have led most Egyptians, including politicians and activists, to refer to her as a Brotherhood stooge. Among other things, in the days leading to June 30, she called on Egyptians not to protest — including by meeting with the Coptic Pope and asking him tourge the nation’s Christian minority not to oppose the Brotherhood, even though Christians have naturally been the most to suffer under Morsi, especially in the context of “blasphemy” accusations.
Thus, and once again, the Obama administration makes indubitably clear that its primary interest in Egypt is to see the Muslim Brotherhood stay in power, the Egyptian people’s will — the will of tens of millions of secularists, liberals, moderates, and Christians — be damned.
Fides News Agency
Qusair (Agenzia Fides) – Mariam was a 15-year-old Christian from Qusair, a city of the governorate in Homs, 35 km south of the capital. The city, which had become a stronghold of the Syrian rebels, was reconquered by the troops of the regular army at the beginning of June. Mariam’s story – sent to Fides thanks to the report of two Catholic priests – is a sign of the brutality of the conflict and the extreme vulnerability of religious minorities. Mariam’s family was in town when militants linked to the jihadist group “Jabhat al-Nusra” conquered and occupied it.
While her family was able to escape, Mariam was taken and forced into an Islamic marriage.
Fides sources point out that, through social networks, the fatwa was widespread in Syria produced by Yasir al-Ajlawni – A Salafi sheikh of Jordanian origin, resident in Damascus – who declared lawful, for opponents of the regime of Bashar al-Assad, rape committed against “any non-Sunni Syrian woman.” According to the fatwa to capture and rape Alawi or Christian women is not contrary to the precepts of Islam.
The commander of the battalion “Jabhat al-Nusra” in Qusair took Mariam, married and raped her. Then he repudiated her. The next day the young woman was forced to marry another Islamic militant. He also raped her and then repudiated her. The same trend was repeated for 15 days, and Mariam was raped by 15 different men. This psychologically destabilized her and made her insane. Mariam, became mentally unstable and was eventually killed.
“These atrocities are not told by any International Commission” say to Fides two Greek-Catholic priests, Fr. Issam and Fr. Elias who have just returned to town. The two are collecting the cry’s and complaints of many families. “Who will do something to protect civilians, the most vulnerable?” they ask. As reported to Fides, the two have just celebrated a Mass to consecrate again the Catholic church of St. Elias in Qusair.
The church was ransacked and desecrated by the guerrillas, and had become a logistic and residential base for rebel groups. (PA) (Agenzia Fides 02/07/2013)
Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri - United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
by, Daniel Greenfield
Obama has announced the appointment of Azizah al-Hibri to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Al-Hibri (full name, Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri) is a Muslim professor and the granddaughter of a Sheikh, who claims that the Koran inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founders and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.
Appointing a Muslim scholar to a commission on international religious freedom is only justifiable if that scholar recognized that much of the injustice in the world originates from Islamic law. But Al-Hibri has made her career whitewashing Islamic law and even presenting it as superior to American law.
While she has been called a reformer, her call in 2001 for a return to the fundamentals echoes Wahhabi rhetoric. Rather than examining the incompatibilities of Islamic law and the modern world, and urging the appropriate adjustments, as genuine reformers have done, Al-Hibri instead builds myths that uphold the Islamist agenda.
According to Al-Hibri “Islamic fiqh is deeper and better than Western codes of law”. She favorably compares Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accept blood money bribes to excuse a murder, to the “impersonal and powerful” American justice system.
Al-Hibri is often billed as a Muslim feminist, but she is equally hypocritical on women’s rights. Rather than conceding that Islamic law discriminates against women, she whitewashes its discriminatory treatment of women, arguing that guardianship is meant to protect “inexperienced women”.
Rather than trying to bring Islam in line with the modern world, Azizah Al-Hibri pushes for the modern world to be brought in line with Islam. Rather than reforming Islam, it is America that she would like to reform to Islamic standards.
Placing a woman who believes that American law is inferior to that of the Koran on an American commission to promote international religious freedom perverts the purpose of the commission and promotes religious tyranny instead.
Given a forum to call for reform, Al-Hibri unerringly insists that there is nothing to reform. At the UN, Al-Hibri expressed outrage that the Koran, which “established acceptance of others, now needed to be defended” and insisted that Islam “guaranteed freedom of thought”.
Listening to her defend Mohammed’s tyranny as an early form of democracy at the UN is a reminder of the era when Soviet representatives to the UN angrily defended their record on human rights and insisted that there is no freedom outside of Communism.
In Al-Hibri’s distorted history, the wave of genocides and conquests that turned the multicultural Middle-East into a desert of brutality governed by minor variations of Islamic ideology, was actually a wave of enlightenment. The massacres of the region’s Jews and the purge of all other religions from the area never occurred in Al-Habri’s history book.
Revisionist history of this kind would be dangerous even if it were not coming from a woman in a position to influence opinion leaders.
The twin approaches of the Islamist narrative may be described as the Caliph Omar bridge. When the Muslim armies of the Caliph reached the great Library of Alexandria, he decreed that it should be burned, for if the library’s scrolls held the same ideas as the Koran they were redundant, and if they opposed the Koran, they were heretical.
While some Islamists attack the United States Constitution as a heretical document and Western Civilization as worthless– others more cleverly represent the Constitution as an inferior version of the Koran and Western Civilization as derivative of Islamic civilization. Either way they must burn along with the Library of Alexandria.
But the second approach is more seductive. Rather than launching a direct attack, it seeks to construct a bridge that connects Islam and the West. But the structure of the bridge is only a more insidious form of attack.
These bridge builders don’t come bearing a torch, rather an argument that since American law is derived from Islam, it must ‘revert’ to the higher standards of Islamic law. By contrasting the reality of American law with an ideal version of Islamic law that does not exist anywhere in the world, they manage to make the system that protects human rights seem shabby, while the system that represses women and minorities appears noble and righteous.
That is the kind of revisionist history that Al-Hibri traffics in, creating a noble Islamic creed contrasted with a flawed American system.
Al-Hibri appears to transmute the rhetoric of Islamism into sweet music to progressive ears, and her associations only reinforce that image. She served on the advisory board of Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, defended it in print against accusations of extremism and made joint appearances with Alamoudi even after his statements in support of terrorism.
In 1995 she even testified at a congressional hearing against the Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Act’s ability to cut off funds to terrorist groups, because, “it gives the President the ability to designate, with no effective recourse, certain groups as terrorist”.
The America Muslim Council, whose national advisory board Al-Hibri sat on, had reason to fear that portion of the act. Some years later the AMC would be caught encouraging donations to the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, both charities affiliated with terrorists.
In the early days of 2001, Al-Hibri traveled to the Afghan border and criticized the Western press for “sensationalizing” Taliban atrocities and using them “as an opportunity to attack Islam”. After the attacks of September 11, she cautioned against bombing Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets during Ramadan. And that same year she defended Wahhabism as part of Islam’s “religious diversity” and its “marketplace of ideas”.
Al-Hibri appeared at an ISNA panel two months ago to call on Obama to stand up for Muslims against their American critics. And her insistence that no Muslim country practices true Sharia law appears to echo a familiar Islamist slogan. When the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed bringing Sharia to the UK, Al-Hibri gave an approving quote. Last year at the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association she called for a “a council of scholars” to serve as a central authority on Islam for the United States.
Azizah Al-Hibri’s feminist credentials rest heavily on Karamah, an organization of Muslim women lawyers, primarily funded by her brother Ibrahim El-Hibri and nephew Fuad El-Hibri’s “El-Hibri Charitable Foundation”.
The El-Hibri clan are a curious footnote in the War on Terror. Ibrahim El-Hibri had made a fortune doing business with Saudi Arabia. His company dominates the manufacture of the anthrax vaccine and suspicions have been raised by the Wall Street Journal about leaks from their company into the hands of terrorists. Regardless of all that, there is something ironic in Azizah Al-Hibri’s feminist organization being funded by her brother’s charitable trust with a board of trustees that includes two male members of the family, but not her.
Another donor to Karamah was Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of the famously progressive Saudi royal family. A kingdom well known for promoting feminism and women’s rights, which no doubt in between banning women from driving cars and distributing such feminist tracts as “Women Who Deserve To Go To Hell” funds organizations that empower women. Rather than organizations that put a faux feminist face on the Islamic repression of women.
Yet the oddest moment in Al-Hibri’s career of promoting Islamic law in the United States may have come when before Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, she actually wrote an article discussing how a sitting President of the United States might be tried under Islamic law.
“Had the President been testifying in an Islamic court, he would not have been placed in this terrible predicament in the first instance,” Al-Hibri wrote. As an added bonus, to Bill, she added that under Islamic law, it would be his accusers “would be punished for committing the crime of qathf”.
In a further reminder of the Islamic commitment to freedom of speech; “Others who violated his privacy and broadcast his behavior are guilty and, if not repentant, are punishable.” We can only guess if this involved stoning Matt Drudge.
Al-Hibri went on to point out that four witnesses to the crime were lacking. The same law that makes it so easy for gang rapists to accuse their victim of adultery, while leaving her helpless to defend against the charges.
Then she wrote, “Coming from a religious background, the President may have understood the religious significance of penetration and hence avoided it.” Clearly Bill Clinton wasn’t just the nation’s first Black president. He was also its first Muslim president.
At no point in this surreal article did Al-Hibri acknowledge that adultery is a crime punishable by death or vicious corporal punishment in much of the Muslim world. Instead she used a congressional investigation into presidential malfeasance to misrepresent Islamic law, which lashes or stones adulterers to death, as a more liberal code.
What can such a woman offer to the cause of international religious freedom? Only Obama and Bill know.
Azizah al-Hibri, Founder and Chair of Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights; Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Professor at the T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond.
Update: 1900hrs /est./us. – Deputy Minister of the Muslim Brotherhood Placed Under Arrest.
Egypt’s top military commander says the army is now in full control of the country and President Mohammed Morsi has been replaced by the chief justice of the constitutional court as the interim head of state.
He made the announcements in a Wednesday night speech — the latest twist in an all-out power struggle inside Egypt that Morsi and his national security adviser are describing as a military coup.
Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi said the country’s constitution has been temporarily suspended and Morsi has failed to meet the demands of Egypt’s people. Adli Mansour will be the new interim leader.
Fireworks and cheers erupted from the millions gathered in Tahrir Square after the announcement was made.
Earlier in the day, an army deadline for Morsi to resolve Egypt’s political crisis expired.
Top military officials and opposition leaders met Wednesday and agreed on a political roadmap for the country’s future, calling for early presidential and parliamentary elections, el-Sissi said. A new presidential cabinet will be formed as well as a national reconciliation committee, which will include youth movements that have been behind anti-Morsi demonstrations.
Morsi said on his presidential Facebook page that he rejected el-Sissi’s statement, according to Reuters. An aide says he has been moved to an undisclosed location.
El-Sissi said the military will deal “decisively” with any violence sparked by the announcements.
Before el-Sissi’s address, Egyptian troops, including commandos in full combat gear, were deployed across much of Cairo, including at key facilities, on bridges over the Nile River and at major intersections.
The military vowed Wednesday to defend its people “against any terrorist, radical or fool.”
But one of Morsi’s advisers called their actions a “coup.”
“For the sake of Egypt and for historical accuracy, let’s call what is happening by its real name: Military coup,” the Morsi adviser, Essam al-Haddad, said on his Facebook page.
An aide told Reuters that Morsi had spent the day working at a presidential office in a compound of the Republican Guard in Cairo, but it was unclear if he would be able to return later to his palace.
Witnesses told Reuters that the army was erected barbed wire and barriers around the compound, and moved in vehicles and troops to prevent supporters from getting to his palace.
A travel ban was put on Morsi and the head of his Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badie, as well as Badie’s deputy Khairat el-Shater, officials told the Associated Press.
The Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) — the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood — has denied that Morsi was placed under house arrest.
Minutes before the military’s deadline for Morsi to resolve the nation’s political crisis passed Wednesday afternoon, the embattled leader called for “national reconciliation,” but vowed he would never step down.
Millions were in the main squares of major cities nationwide Wednesday, demanding Morsi’s removal, in the fourth day of the biggest anti-government rallies the country has seen, surpassing even those in the uprising that ousted against his autocratic predecessor Hosni Mubarak. Critics say Morsi has set the nation on a path toward Islamic rule.
“The presidency renews its own roadmap and invites all national forces for dialogue,” Morsi said in a statement on his Facebook page, adding that his vision is to hold a coalition government that will run upcoming parliamentary elections. Morsi also said he was looking to “form an independent committee for constitutional amendments to be presented to the coming parliament.”
He described electoral legitimacy as the only safeguard against violence and instability.
Khaled Daoud, spokesman of the main opposition National Salvation Front, which pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei leads, said that ElBaradei, Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, grand imam of Al-Azhar mosque, and Pope Tawadros II, patriarch of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority, were part of the Wednesday meetings with military leaders.
Political sources told Reuters that two members of a rebel youth group that is leading the anti-Morsi protests and members of the hardline Muslim fundamentalist al-Nour Party also attended.
A Defense Ministry official said Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi held another emergency meeting with his top commanders Wednesday, hours before the deadline expired. The official, who gave no further details, spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media, the Associated Press reports.
The army also asked the FJP to meet with el-Sissi, but the invite was rejected.
“We have a president and that is it,” Waleed al-Haddad, a senior leader of the party, told Reuters.
The state-run Al-Ahram newspaper — which also seemed to be following a military line — reported that the military had placed several leaders of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood under surveillance.
Before the deadline expired at 5 p.m. local time (11 a.m. ET), employees at Egypt’s state TV station said military officers were present in the newsroom monitoring its output, but not interfering with their work.
The military also beefed up the presence of troops inside the building, the employees told the Associated Press, though they were not visible outside. Even before the crisis, a small army contingent usually guards the state TV headquarters.
In his emotional 46-minute speech late Tuesday, Morsi vowed not to step down and pledged to defend his legitimacy with his life in the face of three days of massive street demonstrations calling for his ouster. The Islamist leader accused loyalists of his ousted autocratic predecessor Hosni Mubarak of exploiting the wave of protests to topple his regime and thwart democracy.
“There is no substitute for legitimacy,” said Morsi, at times angrily raising his voice, thrusting his fist in the air and pounding the podium. He warned that electoral and constitutional legitimacy “is the only guarantee against violence.”
The statements showed that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood were prepared to run the risk of challenging the army. It also entrenches the lines of confrontation between his Islamist supporters and Egyptians angry over what they see as his efforts to impose control through the Brotherhood and his failures to deal with the country’s multiple problems.
At the main pro-Morsi rally in Cairo, thousands of his Islamist supporters chanted, “Wake up el-Sissi, Morsi is my president.”
“We will not bring back the military rule,” they chanted outside the Rabia al-Adawiya Mosque. “Will not happen, will not happen,” they shouted.
After the army’s deadline passed, a military helicopter circled over the crowds in Tahrir Square, which was transformed into a sea of furiously waving Egyptian flags. “Leave, leave,” they chanted to Morsi, electrified as they waited to hear of an army move.After nightfall, fireworks went off and green lasers flashed over the crowd.
On Tuesday, clashes in Cairo and elsewhere in the country that left at least 23 people dead, most in a single incident near the main Cairo University campus. The latest deaths take to 39 the number of people killed since Sunday in violence between opponents and supporters of Morsi, who took office in June last year as Egypt’s first freely elected leader.
The bloodshed, coupled with Morsi’s defiant speeches, contributed the sense that both sides were ready to fight to the end. The president’s supporters also moved out in increased marches in Cairo Tuesday and other cities, and stepped up warnings that it will take bloodshed to dislodge him.
On Monday, the military gave Morsi the ultimatum to meet the protesters’ demands within 48 hours. If not, the generals’ plan would suspend the Islamist-backed constitution, dissolve the Islamist-dominated legislature and set up an interim administration headed by the country’s chief justice, the state news agency reported.
The leaking of the military’s so-called political “road map” appeared aimed at adding pressure on Morsi by showing the public and the international community that the military has a plan that does not involve a coup.
Fearing that Washington’s most important Arab ally would descend into chaos, U.S. officials said they are urging Morsi to take immediate steps to address opposition grievances, telling the protesters to remain peaceful and reminding the army that a coup could have consequences for the massive American military aid package it receives. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
At the U.S. State Department media briefing Wednesday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki restated the administration’s priority on the democratic process.
“It’s never been about one individual,” she told reporters. “It’s been about hearing and allowing the voices of the Egyptian people to be heard.”
Pentagon Spokesman George Little says there has been no change in terms of the U.S. military prepositioning assets in and around Egypt in the event they are called upon to assist the U.S. embassy in Cairo.
Ed Husic, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Broadband, during the swearing-in ceremony at Government House with Governor-General Quentin Bryce. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
by, Rachel Olding
The Prime Minister’s new parliamentary secretary, Ed Husic, has been subjected to a torrent of abuse online for being sworn in to his position with a Koran.
Mr Husic became Australia’s first Muslim frontbencher on Monday when he was appointed to Kevin Rudd’s new-look ministry as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister and parliamentary secretary for broadband.
“This is a wonderful day for multiculturalism, and everything it stands for in our country,” Governor-General Quentin Bryce told Mr Husic during the swearing-in ceremony in Canberra on Monday.
However, after receiving dozens of messages of congratulations on his Facebook page, the comments quickly turned to disgust and outrage that he had chosen to be sworn in on the Muslim holy book.
Some called it un-Australian and unconstitutional.
“Our allegiance should have been to Queen and Country first Ed. That means saying the oath on the holy bible not the Koran…. Shame, Shame, Shame,” posted one user, Ross Peace.
“I am so disappointed in this government that they don’t have the spine to stand up for the Australian way of life.”
Another user, Therese Pearce, said she was “disgusted and embarrassed” for the Australian people.
“Hell i might just have to use snow white and the 7 dwarfs next time i take the oath for australia,” she posted.
One user, Anna Dean, claimed his decision to be sworn in on the Koran undermined “our culture and country and constitution in this way”.
Another user, Carrie Forrest, accused him of disregarding Australia’s constitution and pushing for sharia.
Mr Husic played down the abuse on Tuesday afternoon by saying that people were entitled in a democracy to question his choice to be sworn in using a Koran and the public should not necessarily jump ‘‘because of harsh words out of dark corners’’.
‘‘[People] may have questions and they may have concerns and people are right to raise that,’’ he said. ‘‘But I also think you’ll have, from time to time, people of the extremes. There are people that are definitely extreme … and they will always try to seek ways in which to divide people. The important thing is [that] mainstream Australia wants everyone to work together.’’
He said he had been ‘‘heartened’’ by the huge number of congratulatory messages.
Mr Husic has previously said that he is a moderate Muslim who does not involve himself heavily with most of the religious customs and behaviours of the faith.
Asked about his religion in 2010, he told the ABC: “If someone asks me, ‘Are you Muslim?’ I say yes. And then if someone says, ‘Well do you pray and go to a mosque and do all the other things that are associated with the faith?’ I say no.
“I often get told that I describe myself as non-practising when in actual fact I don’t go round saying that. Like I just say ‘I’m Muslim.’ “
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said people should respect Mr Husic’s choice. ‘‘I respect his choice,’’ he told reporters in Melbourne. ‘‘I think the Australian people should as well.’’
President of the Anti-Discrimination Board and chairman of the NSW Community Relations Commission Stepan Kerkyasharian said it was “a sad day for any society” when someone is abused because of their religion.
He said Mr Husic could act as a valuable bridge between the Muslim community and would put Australia at an advantage in the international community.
“It should be an interesting and positive milestone that someone of migrant heritage has come to Australia and has now, through our democratic process, reached a position of leadership,” he said.
Mr Husic, 43, the son of Bosnian Muslim migrants, became the first Muslim to be elected to Parliament when he won his western Sydney seat of Chifley in the 2010 election with 51.58 per cent of votes, almost double that of his next competitor.
In 2010, he was sworn into Federal Parliament alongside members from several religions. Kooyong member Josh Frydenberg and Melbourne Ports member Michael Danby were sworn in on the Jewish bible.
Lawyer and community rights advocate Mariam Veiszadeh said there was too often an assumption that being a good Australian citizen and a good Muslim were “mutually exclusive concepts”.
“You can be a devout Jew and a good Australian parliamentarian who serves your country just as equally as you can be a practising Muslim and a good Australian citizen and politician,” she said.
“It is ignorant for people to conflate irrelevant issues and it stems from the Muslim bashing that has been going on in this country for a decade.”
by, Robert Spencer
Note also his words about jihad, quoting Muhammad: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify la illaha illa Allah [there is no god but Allah].”
And Qadhi says: “The life and property of a mushrik [one who worships others besides Allah] holds no value in the state of jihad….which means if they don’t sayla illaha illa Allah, their lives and property are halal” — that is, permitted to be taken by the Muslims.
Qadhi is an imam in Memphis. He is also Dean of Academic Affairs at the Al-Maghrib Institute. He is a hafiz — that is, he has memorized the entire Qur’an. He has an M.A. in the Islamic Creed and a B.A. in Islamic Sciences from Islamic University of Medina, as well as a master’s and a doctorate in Islamic Studies from Yale.
How is it, then, that he misunderstands jihad so spectacularly that he sounds like a greasy Islamophobe?
(Video thanks to Americans for Peace and Tolerance.)
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
That question was forwarded to a person that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his forwarded reply:
Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically – no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. Quran 5:51
Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically – no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually – no. Because when we declare “one nation under God,” the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation….perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both “good” Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish….it’s still the truth.