'Honor' Killings: A New Kind of American Tragedy :: Chesler in Breitbart

Follow the Middle East Forum

MEF Home  |   Research & Writings  |  Donate

Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area. 'Honor' Killings: A New Kind of American Tragedy by Phyllis Chesler Breitbart June 30, 2014 http://www.meforum.org/4742/honor-killings-america Print Send RSS Share: Be the first of your friends to like this. Both the defendant, standing trial for conspiracy to commit murder abroad in Pakistan, and the main witness against him, his daughter Amina, wept when they first saw each other. Amina's extended family stared at her with hostility. As she testified, Amina paused, hesitated, and sobbed. She and her father had been very close until he decided that she had become too "Americanized." This Pakistani-American father of five, a widower, worked seven days a week driving a cab in order to support his children; this included sending his daughter, Amina, to Brooklyn College. This is a successful American immigrant story—and yet, it is also a unique and unprecedented story as well, one which demands that Western law prevail over murderously misogynistic tribal honor codes. At some point, Mohammad Ajmal Choudry sent Amina to Pakistan so that she might re-connect with her "roots"—but he had her held hostage there for three years. During that time, Amina, an American citizen, was forced into an arranged marriage, ostensibly to her first cousin, who probably expected this marriage to lead to his American citizenship. Such arranged marriages, and arranged specifically for this purpose, are routine. They are also factors in a number of high profile honor killing cases in the United States, Canada, and Europe. For example, the Texas born and raised Said sisters, Aminah and Sarah, refused to marry Egyptian men as their Egyptian cab-driver father Yasir wanted them to do and he killed them for it. Canadian-Indian, Jaswinder Kaur, refused to marry the man her mother had chosen for her and instead married someone she loved. Her widowed mother and maternal uncle had her killed in India. They have been fighting extradition from Canada for more than a decade. Amina, who grew up in New York from the time she was nine years old, did not want to be held hostage to this marriage. Indeed, Amina had found a man whom she loved and wished to marry. Plucky Americanized Amina fled the arranged marriage within a month. With the help of a relative, the U.S. State Department, and ultimately, the Department of Homeland Security, Amina left Pakistan and went into hiding in the United States. She had to. Her father had threatened to kill her if she did not return to her husband, give up her boyfriend, or return to her father. Mohammad may have pledged Amina's hand without her knowledge, long, long ago. A female relative's sexual and reproductive activities are assets that belong to her father's family, her tribe, her religion. They are not seen as individual rights. Acting as if one is "free" to choose whom to marry and whom not to marry means that a woman has become too Westernized, or, in Amina's case, too "Americanized." This is a capital crime. From Mohammad's point of view, his beloved daughter had betrayed and dishonored him. She had "un-manned" him before his family. The desire to marry whom you want or to leave a violent marriage are viewed as filthy and selfish desires. Many Muslims in the Arab and Muslim world; Hindus and Muslims in India; and Muslims and, to a lesser extent, Sikhs in the West share this view and accordingly, perpetrate "honor killings." I do not like this phrase. An honor killing is dishonorable and it is also murder, plain and simple. It is a form of human sacrifice. It is also femicide--although sometimes boys and men are also murdered. I would like to call them "horror" murders. American federal statutes have allowed prosecutors to charge and convict American citizens and residents while they are in the United States for having committed crimes abroad. This includes conspiracy to commit murder, incite terrorism, launder money, engage in racketeering, etc. What did Mohammad Choudry do? According to the Indictment filed in United States District Court/the Eastern District of New York on September 20, 2013, Choudry "knowingly and intentionally conspired" to commit one or more murders. He contacted and wired money to at least four conspirators in Pakistan, including some relatives. Since Amina would not come out of hiding, their job was to murder the father and sister of Amina's boyfriend. And they did just that. An eyewitness "observed Choudry's brother standing over the victims, holding a gun and desecrating the bodies." The murders were committed in Pakistan "between January 2013 and February 2013." Mohammad Ajmal Choudry was arrested in New York on February 25, 2013. The trial began last week, in June, 2014. Amina testified that her father vowed to kill her and every member of her new lover's family if she did not do the right thing. The price of love or of freedom for Amina—and for other women in her position--is very high. She will have no family of origin. If she ever weakens and tries to seek them out, she risks being killed by one of her siblings, uncles, or cousins. After all, Amina entrapped her father on the phone by allowing him to death threaten her and others. I have published three studies about honor killing and am at work on a fourth such study. I have also written countless articles about this subject and submitted affidavits in cases where girls and women have fled honor killing families and are seeking political asylum. I am beginning to think that, like female genital mutilation, honor murder is so entrenched a custom that, in addition to prevention and prosecution, (at least in the West), what may be required is this: People may need to be taught courage, the art of resisting tribal barbarism. Families need to learn to go against tradition, withstand ostracism and mockery, withstand being cut off by their families and villages—for the sake of their daughters. One fear that a "dishonored" family has is that they will not be able to marry off their other daughters or sons. Perhaps educating a pool of potential marriage mates into understanding that murder is not "honorable;" that daughters' lives are valuable, that such horror murders are not religiously sanctioned (if indeed, that is the case), and that enacting tribal honor codes are high crimes in the West. The Choudry trial continues today in Brooklyn. Phyllis Chesler, an emerita professor of psychology and women's studies and the author of fifteen books, is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum. Related Topics:  Muslims in the United States, Sex and gender relations, South Asia  |  Phyllis Chesler

To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php The Middle East Forum

Saba Ahmed Unveiled

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/deborah-weiss/saba-ahmed-unveiled/

June 30, 2014 by Deborah Weiss 44 Comments

 

 

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times. She is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” and the primary writer and researcher for “Council on American Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation.” You can find more of her articles on www.vigilancenow.org

23

 Print This Post

During a recent Heritage Foundation event on Benghazi’s unanswered questions, Brigitte Gabriel, President of Act! for America, proclaimed that the peaceful majority have been irrelevant to history’s outcome when tyrannists have had the power and motivation to destroy freedom. But a Muslim audience member whose question prompted Brigitte’s comments, insists she’s not irrelevant.

On June 16, 2014, The Benghazi Accountability Coalition, spearheaded by Ginni Thomas, held a half-day seminar with a series of speakers to raise issues regarding unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four American patriots at Benghazi.

Brigitte Gabriel was one of three speakers on the first panel. During Q&A, a hijabbed Muslim woman standing in back of a packed audience complained, “Salam Alechim, peace to you all. We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there are 1.8 billion followers of Islam. We have 8 million plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.” She asked how the jihadist ideology can be fought with weapons and stressed the need to bring Muslims to the table in order to solve the problem.

After one panelist asserted that nobody on the panel thinks all Muslims are the problem, Brigitte responded to the question. She noted in her emphatic and dynamic voice how interesting it was that the panel had not discussed Islam or Muslims, but the murder of those at Benghazi and yet the questioner asked about Islam out of context. “Of course not all [Muslims] are radical, but it’s 15 – 25% according to all the world’s intelligence, which equals 180 – 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization.” Brigitte went on to explain that we should worry about the radicals because it is they who kill, behead and massacre. Throughout history it was the radicals that drove the agenda and “the peaceful majority were irrelevant”. This was true in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China, and pre-World War II Japan. Additionally, on September 11, 2001, it took only 19 hijackers out of 2.3 million Arab Muslims living in the U.S. to bring America to its knees and kill almost 3000 Americans. “I’m glad you are here” Brigitte said, “but where are the others speaking out?”

Additionally, Brigitte pointed out that instead of showing concern about Benghazi, the questioner took the limelight to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims. “It is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs!” The woman replied “as a peaceful American Muslim, I would like to think I’m not that irrelevant.” Moderator Chris Plante, jokingly asked “[W]ho is head of the Muslim peace movement?” to which the woman replied “I guess it’s me right now” and the audience applauded.

So who is was the Muslim woman in the audience and is she irrelevant?

As it turns out, the woman’s name is Saba Ahmed and she was not just some innocuous audience member who happened to show up at a Heritage Foundation event.

Saba was born in Pakistan and moved to Portland Oregon at age 12. She has numerous academic degrees and a particular interest in protecting the Islamic Ummah from America’s “useless wars.”
She feels so passionately about this that while in Portland, she became very active in Democrat politics for years, even making an unsuccessful bid for congress in 2012. As a candidate, her priority was to bring home all American troops and cut military spending. “There is no need for them to be in foreign countries”… “Drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan are hurting our long term national security and will come back to haunt us.”

After obtaining less than ½ percent of the vote, Saba switched her registration to Republican. But her ideology hadn’t changed. She marched in Occupy Portland, which had a large anti-Israel component, and was a featured speaker. She argued that the Muslim world hates America and therefore America should change her policies. She explained that Muslims in foreign countries are suffering as a result of U.S. policies and don’t have a voice. “We are their voice here in the United States”, she proclaimed.

Despite claiming to be Republican, she was banned from the Oregon Tea Party and the Washington County Republicans, not for her “Islamic views” as she claims, but for false accusations of death threats.

Saba made an appearance at Glenn Beck’s 9/12 meeting in Oregon, and while clinging onto a Koran, proclaimed that her faith is all she has. In TV interviews with Sean Hannity and others, she refuses to denounce any portion of Sharia law, arguing instead that “there are good and bad things everywhere.”
She dodges, deflects and avoids addressing the human rights violations and tyranny committed in the name of Islam. When she’s unable to duck a question, she always has an excuse. Hannity, for example, asked Saba if she would denounce the law in Saudi Arabia that disallows women outside the home without being accompanied by a male relative. Saba replied, “I wouldn’t feel comfortable going outside alone in parts of Afghanistan. I wouldn’t want to.” Yet, she whines that, “especially in America, it’s a very harsh environment [for Muslims] due to the bias.”

Not surprisingly, Saba denies the right of Israel to have its current boundaries and argues that the boundaries for Israel after 1948 have caused “division among people all around the world.” And in an interview, when confronted with the fact that there’s nothing in Christianity comparable to Islamic terrorism, she replied, “[T]he United States Military and CIA are the most well-funded Christian organizations that regularly conduct crimes against humanity all around the world. Currently we are killing and murdering people in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq. etc. with our drones, missiles, bombs, etc. What is the practical difference between a soldier who kills and an Al-Qaida operative the kills??? Both in God’s eyes are taking sacred life…”

Yet, as someone who insists she is against all killing, Saba still has ties to Mohamed Mohamud, a Somali born Islamic terrorist who attempted to bomb a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon in 2010. She even showed up at his trial to provide him support. When a mosque was torched in response to the bomb attempt, Saba blamed the U.S. government for “inciting violence” and warned, “[W]e will take very serious action – politically and legally – against the government for this.”

It’s no wonder coming from a woman who has attended CAIR’s Iftar dinner and was a member of the Islamic Society of Greater Portland (an outgrowth of ISNA). Both CAIR and ISNA are Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, whose mission is to destroy western civilization from within. They were also unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terror financing trial in the history of the United States.

Saba claims that she was Co-Chair of the Oregon Muslims Citizens Alliance, which, if it exists, has no website and appears to have had no activities except one “cancelled” event, which research confirms was never planned to begin with.

Saba has interned for Democratic politicians including Governor Ted Kulongoski, Senator Leahy and Representative Earl Blumenauer. She currently has an LLC or at least a website which appears to represent an LLC. According to blogger Ernest Dell, originally the website indicated that Saba Ahmed, LLC represented a global investment and intellectual property research service, with its corporate office in Portland, Oregon and its research center in New Delhi, India. The site stated that the company had a high end financial research team comprised of experts on a variety of asset classes, and provided services to investment banks, equity firms, asset management firms, financial advisory firms, and additionally had an “intellectual property team” that serviced law firms, in intellectual property firms, in-house IP corporate counsels.

Now Saba states that her LLC is a firm from which she lobbies Congress to stop all wars, claiming “expertise” in national security matters, despite any objective training or experience. The current site indicates no employees other than Saba and lists no clients. And despite her Republican registration, she is seeking a political appointment with the Obama Administration. Though insisting that she’s in “discussions” toward this end, there is no evidence that the interest is mutual or that it is anything more than Saba expressing her self-aggrandizing desire to land a plumb political position.

Brigitte Gabriel never denounced the peaceful majority of any country when she asserted their irrelevance. Clearly, what she meant is that the focus needs to be on the problem. And the problem is always the radical minority who may have less numbers, but has the power to undermine freedom and security.

Saba appears to be worming her way into politics, not to represent Americans or U.S. interests, but to represent the Muslim world. She says she doesn’t want to be irrelevant, but given her pro-Sharia apologetics and her advocacy for peace at the cost of freedom, let’s hope that she is.

The Islamic Tactic of Terror and Lure

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/nonie-darwish/the-islamic-tactic-of-terror-and-lure/

June 30, 2014 by Nonie Darwish 19 Comments

 

Nonie Darwish is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.

53

 Print This Post

There is more bad news for moderate Muslims who deny any connection between Islam and terror and who insist on convincing the West that no one should interpret Quranic commandments to kill, behead, torture, terrorize, humiliate, belittle and never befriend the non-believer, as violent.

As I was watching an Arabic Aljazeerah TV show, which did not have a date, called “Sharia and Hayaa,” meaning Islamic law and life, the topic was “Dawaa Baina Al Tarhib Wal Targhib,” Arabic for “Preaching between Terror and Lure.” The word “dawaa” means preaching or spreading Islam. “Tarhib” is derived from the word “irhab” or terror, and “tarhib” means to instill terror. Incidentally, the Quran encourages Muslims to “instill terror through the hearts of unbelievers.” The word “targhib” means luring or making something attractive. I am sure Islamic apologists will dispute the interpretation since they never admit that the word “kill” in the Quran means “kill” anyway.

“Tarhib Wal TarghibI” is an Islamic doctrine that the West and many Muslims are unfamiliar with but that demonstrates yet another clear connection between Islam and terror. This doctrine promotes the use of two extreme tools to bring people and nations to submit to Islam. Such polar opposite and extreme techniques penetrate Islamic society from top to bottom; they are encouraged in child rearing, in the relationship between men and women, leaders and citizens, mosque preachers and the congregation, Arab media and the public, and even between Islamic nations and the West — the nations they wish to conquer or lure to Islam.

A Quranic verse (The Rock 49-50) was mentioned at the beginning of the show stating that Allah said: “tell my worshippers that I am the beneficent the merciful and my torture [Athab] is a painful one”; two opposite extreme descriptions of Allah, or more accurately Mohammed himself, that became the foundation of the contradictory doctrine of Islam.

It must be noted that Arabic Aljazeerah discusses Islam in a totally different light from English Aljazeerah, which is designed to lure Westerners to the idea that Islam is peaceful while defending terror as freedom fighting.

This doctrine is a summation of what the Quran is all about, terror and lure, and promotes such extremely but powerful and raw cultural attributes of Muslim society; shame and pride. Such a doctrine has also evolved from Mohammed’s character when he failed to peacefully evangelize through persuasion and “lure” and therefore had to flip tactics, going straight to pure terror. Thus his famous saying “I have been victorious through terror.”

The show’s questions were more interesting than the answers. The host, Othman Othman, was trying to bring the guest, Islamic Dawah “preaching” expert Dr. Salman Alawda, to state that Islam equally balances the two extreme tools of terror and peaceful teaching. These were some of his questions: Many say terror and bullying are necessary. How do we achieve balance regarding the names of Allah between punishment and forgiveness? Why is it that the agony side often prevails over the mercy side? Are hardship and pain required for their own sake when it comes to Islamic legislation?

 Why does the discussion of the torment of the grave, death and the afterlife turn into a terrifying discussion? Why are Salafis more inclined to use fear/terror factor regarding global advocacy? Some ask, shouldn’t we [Muslims] be judged as imperfect humans anyway?

The host, while exalting Islam, the Quran and Mohammed, was desperately trying to get a glimmer of hope with his questions to bring out any trace of joy and hope for Muslims who want to enjoy life right here on Earth, but are not getting such a message from Islamic teachings. Unfortunately the guest provided very little hope when he skillfully spinned that Islam does have a balance. But what failed the guest was the fact that values of joy, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and making the world a better place, do not exist in the Quran. The guest could not give the host the good news, when he asserted that seeking pleasure and happiness on earth is equal to death. The guest’s discussion of the good life for Muslims was narrowed down to the after life in the Islamic jannah, heaven. Thus the Islamic promise of virgins and carnal pleasure became the infamous lure Islam uses on the jihadis, pushing them into waging Allah’s war of terror on his enemies: the unbelievers.

The lesson America needs to learn and get united under is that we, the West, right now are under assault by the good old Islamic doctrine of Terror and Lure; two sides of the polar opposite and deceptive face of Islam.

If the West continues to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, then unfortunately for the West they will suffer irrevocable consequences.

If We Want to Beat Al Qaeda, We Have to Stop Arming It

 http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/if-we-want-to-beat-al-qaeda-we-have-to-stop-arming-it/

June 30, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield 59 Comments

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

71

 Print This Post

Obama’s call for $500 million to arm and train Syrian Jihadist fighters couldn’t have possibly come at a more inappropriate time as Al Qaeda in Iraq menaces both countries.

It wasn’t the Iraq War that made the Al Qaeda affiliate so dangerous. In 2008 it specialized in suicide bombings. It wasn’t marching on Baghdad with an army behind it.

The Arab Spring destabilized the region while money, weapons and recruits poured into Libya and Syria. Obama’s regime change war in Libya led not only to the takeover of entire Libyan cities by Al Qaeda, culminating in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, but to an Al Qaeda affiliate seizing much of neighboring Mali. Libyan terror training camps also led to an attack on the Amenas gas plant in Algeria.

Three Americans were killed in that attack bringing the US death toll from Obama’s Libyan War up to seven.

But that was last year. This year it’s the Syrian Civil War that turned its local Al Qaeda affiliates into breakout Jihadi stars seizing entire cities and terrorizing the region.

Obama’s solution is to direct money intended for counterterrorism partnerships to terrorists in Syria.
This may be one of the worst ideas that he has ever come up with. Attempts to control the flow of weapons likely played a role in the Benghazi attacks. NATO forces enforcing an arms embargo on Libya had been told to ignore Qatari weapons shipments that were meant for “moderates”.

Instead they went to Al Qaeda.

Obama and Kerry, not to mention Graham and McCain, believe that weapons can be directed to “moderate” Syrian groups and that by arming the “good” terrorists, we’ll stop the “bad” terrorists.
But there are no “good” terrorists. Promises of delivering weapons only to “pre-vetted” groups are worth as much as Obama’s assurances that Al Qaeda was on the run and that ISIS is only a jayvee team.

Kerry met with Ahmad al-Jarba, the President of the Syrian National Coalition. Al-Jarba said that $500 million wouldn’t be enough and demanded more weapons. Meanwhile Al-Jarba was feuding with Ahmad Tohme, the Prime Minister of the SNC’s fictional government. Tohme had attempted to disband the Supreme Military Council over corruption charges while firing the head of the Free Syrian Army.

None of this really matters because the SNC is a puppet regime with many puppet masters and no puppets. The Syrian front men for the Saudis, Qataris, the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey and other factions are constantly firing each other. Their Free Syrian Army is a label stamped on a bunch of Islamist militias, many of whom openly support Al Qaeda.

Four out of five of the FSA’s front commanders had demanded to work with Al Qaeda last year. Parts of the FSA joined the Islamic Front and seized the FSA’s weapons warehouses taking anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. The FSA fighters fled. Earlier ISIS had seized USAID items intended for the FSA.

After these embarrassments Obama was forced to temporarily suspend aid to the Free Syrian Army.
A senior Al Qaeda terrorist who answered to Ayman Al-Zawahiri was a leading figure in the Islamic Front through Ahrar al Sham, which operated alongside the FSA, until he was killed in an attack by ISIS. Ahrar al Sham had a powerful role in the Supreme Military Council through Deputy Chief of Staff Abdel-basset Tawil.

The FSA, to the extent that it exists, consists of bearded Salafist fighters and commanders in the field and “moderate” leaders in suits in Qatar and Turkey who usually never set foot in Syria. They obtain weapons and money from the West for Jihadists who are much less camera friendly.

Groups such as Liwa al Ummah choose to affiliate with the FSA even while they continue fighting alongside the Al Nusra Front. Experts label some Syrian Jihadist groups as moderate and others as extremist, but the “moderates” and “extremists” fly the black flag of Jihad and fight for an Islamic state.

Pre-vetting the groups means nothing because names like the Free Syrian Army or the Supreme Military Council are only fronts for outside interests. Even the names of the individual militias are often meaningless because new groups and new umbrella groups are constantly being created and dissolved.  Fighters and commanders move from one group to another taking their weapons with them.

Keeping track of the various pseudonyms used by the commanders is already a full time job. It is often impossible to tell whether two Jihadist commanders with the same pseudonym are even the same person. Figuring out the relationship between various groups means depending on intelligence
from those groups and various activists on the ground who all have their own alliances and agendas.
No meaningful vetting is possible under these circumstances and supplying weapons to “pre-vetted” groups is as good as supplying them to Al Qaeda. Supplying weapons to pre-vetted groups only  means that it will take longer for those weapons to reach Al Qaeda through barter, alliance or capture.
And even if the weapons don’t end up with Al Qaeda, they will go to Salafist groups that share its goals. The difference is that those have not yet officially declared war on us. That same false sense of security led to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi.

We should not be arming any Islamic militias. We certainly should not be arming Salafi Jihadis who wave the black flag of Jihad. That would be more foolish than anything that Carter did in Afghanistan.

And even if we could control who the weapons went to and even if the Free Syrian Army were moderate, prolonging the Syrian Civil War only makes Al Qaeda more dangerous. Some have said that the best scenario is for both the Sunni and Shiite sides to go on bleeding. But the Syrians and Iraqis are not Americans. They have a much higher birth rate and a much lower regard for individual life.
A prolonged conflict will not break them. It will however train them.

Iran and Iraq bounced back from a much more devastating war to become serious threats.  Conflicts in the region are training grounds that make enemies more dangerous, not less. The longer the fighting goes on, the more fighters will be recruited and the more competent commanders will emerge.  And no matter how the fighting ends, many of those fighters and commanders will go on to other wars.

Afghanistan produced many of the Al Qaeda fighters and commanders who became a threat to the United States. The Arab Spring wars are producing a new generation of fighters. Their expertise will lead to multiple terror attacks and wars around the world. There is already concern about Muslim settlers in America, Europe, Canada and Australia who have gone to fight in Syria returning to the West.

The longer the conflict goes on, the more of them there will be. Prolonging the fighting by aiding the Sunnis is a mistake that ultimately helps Al Qaeda, not to mention Hezbollah, become more dangerous.

The myth of a moderate alternative to Al Qaeda that we can create with weapons shipments is an appealing fiction. The FSA couldn’t stand up to the Islamic Front. It certainly can’t stand up to ISIS. And there is no need for it to do so. The opposition fighters all want the same thing. They only disagree on who will have the upper hand. That is why Al Nusra fought against ISIS before kissing and making up.

The forces of the Sunni opposition have much more in common ideologically and culturally with each other than they do with us. Their common goal is a Sunni Islamic state built by the Jihad.

We can’t win by supporting them. We can only lose.

Journalist Fouad Hussein Called It In 2005, His Prediction About the Course of Jihad Eerily Predict Today's Events

Journalist Fouad Hussein Called It In 2005, His Prediction About the Course of Jihad Eerily Predict Today's Events 

 

http://ibloga.blogspot.ca/

Fouad Hussein spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi. He seems to have understood the strategy of Al Qaeda and the Grand Jihad.

Events this weekend reminded me of this from 2005:

The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."

The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.

The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.

The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.

(There was an awful lot of poopooing about this "plan" at the time. In the same article der Spiegel wrote "The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality -- especially phases four to seven." Yeah. Ok.)

Bill Roggio wrote about it

As did others

Well done Uncle Barry and friends. Well done indeed.

THIS MAN WILL GET US ALL KILLED

The ISIS map of the world: Militants outline chilling five-year plan for global domination as they declare formation of caliphate - and change their name to the Islamic State

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html#ixzz367OlbkAk

• Sunni militants have announced formation of Islamic state in Middle East
• They demand Muslims around the world swear allegiance to the caliphate
• Claim leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi now has authority over all Muslims
• Group has also now changed its name from ISIS to just the Islamic State
• Announcement described as 'most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11'.

By John Hall

Published: 07:06 GMT, 30 June 2014 | Updated: 15:39 GMT, 30 June 2014

• 
  

9,926 shares

380

View
comments

ISIS has formally declared the establishment of a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the vast stretches of the Middle East that have fallen under its control, and has outlined a vision to expand into Europe. 

The announcement was described as the 'most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11'.

Upon declaring a caliphate, the Sunni militants - whose brutality in attempting to establish control in Iraq and Syria has been branded too extreme even by Al Qaeda - demanded allegiance from Muslims around the world.

With brutal efficiency, ISIS has carved out a large chunk of territory that has effectively erased the border between Iraq and Syria and laid the foundations of its proto-state.

Scroll down for video

+10

Caliphate: A map purportedly showing the areas ISIS plans to have under its control within five years has been widely shared online. As well as the Middle East, North Africa and large areas of Asia, it also reveals ISIS' ambition to extend into Europe. Spain, which was Muslim-ruled until the late 15th Century, would form part of the caliphate, as would the Balkan states and eastern Europe, up to and including Austria

+10

Announcement: ISIS militants (pictured) have formally declared the establishment of a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the vast stretches of the Middle East that have fallen under its control

+10

+10

Leader: ISIS declared the group's chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (pictured left and right), the head of the new caliphate under the name Caliph Ibrahim and called on all Muslims around the world to swear loyalty to him

+10

Extremist: A gun-brandishing Islamist loyal to ISIS celebrates the announcement of the Islamic State by waving an Islamic flag in the Syrian city of Raqqa yesterday. The area is considered ISIS' main operational base

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html#ixzz369G6lqBN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Islamic State: “If Allah wills, we will kill those who worship stones in Mecca and destroy the Kaaba”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/islamic-state-if-allah-wills-we-will-kill-those-who-worship-stones-in-mecca-and-destroy-the-kaaba

Robert Spencer Jun 30, 2014 at 9:17am Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Jihadist intimidation and thuggery, Saudi Arabia 32 Comments

This will not endear them to many Muslims. The Saudis themselves, who are no friends of The Islamic State, assiduously destroy religious artifacts in a bid to prevent “idolatry,” but since Muhammad himself is — according to Islamic tradition — supposed to have prayed in the Kaaba, they have not dared to touch it. Will an irresistible force here meet an immovable object? Muslims must reject and destroy all possible temptations to idolatry, and also must follow Muhammad’s example in all things. Can the Kaaba ipso facto not be an inducement to idolatry because Muhammad prayed there? Or must it be destroyed despite Muhammad’s example so as to prevent the worship of stones? Are Muslims to follow Muhammad in all things or are they to destroy all sources of idolatry? Can’t do both in this case! This will be interesting to watch.

“ISIS: We will ruin the Kaaba after capturing Saudi Arabia,” APA, June 30, 2014 (thanks to Tabitha):

Baku. Rashad Suleymanov – APA. Representatives of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) stated that they will ruin the Kaaba after capturing Saudi Arabia.
APA reports quoting Turkish media that ISIS wants to take control of Arar city of Saudi Arabia and start operations here.
ISIS member Abu Turab Al Mugaddasi said that they would destroy the Kaaba in Mecca: “If Allah wills, we will kill those who worship stones in Mecca and destroy the Kaaba. People go to Mecca to touch the stones, not for Allah.”

Islam's 'Protestant Reformation' :: Ibrahim in PJ Media

Follow the Middle East Forum MEF Home  |   Research & Writings  |  Donate Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area. Islam's 'Protestant Reformation' by Raymond Ibrahim PJ Media June 20 and 27, 2014 http://www.meforum.org/4740/islam-protestant-reformation Print Send RSS Share: Be the first of your friends to like this. Originally published by PJ Media in two parts. In order to prevent a clash of civilizations, or worse, Islam must reform. This is the contention of many Western peoples. And, pointing to Christianity's Protestant Reformation as proof that Islam can also reform, many are optimistic. Overlooked by most, however, is that Islam has been reforming. What is today called "radical Islam" is the reformation of Islam. And it follows the same pattern of Christianity's Protestant Reformation. The problem is our understanding of the word "reform." Despite its positive connotations, "reform" simply means to "make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it." Synonyms of "reform" include "make better," "ameliorate," and "improve"—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western references. Muslim notions of "improving" society may include purging it of "infidels" and their corrupt ways; or segregating men and women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home; or executing apostates, who are seen as traitorous agitators. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—can be deemed an "improvement" and a "betterment" of society. In short, an Islamic reformation need not lead to what we think of as an "improvement" and "betterment" of society—simply because "we" are not Muslims and do not share their reference points and first premises. "Reform" only sounds good to most Western peoples because they, secular and religious alike, are to a great extent products of Christianity's Protestant Reformation; and so, a priori, they naturally attribute positive connotations to the word. ---- At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible's contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was "scripture alone," sola scriptura. Islam's reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam. As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam's scriptures, specifically its "twin pillars," the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah's prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, "they who know"—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam's scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its "Five Pillars." In this context, a "medieval synthesis" flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma'), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes' words, translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands… [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added). This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam's prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iPhone. In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts "Islamic fundamentalism," "radical Islam," "Islamism," and "Salafism" flourished. Many of today's Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the "medieval synthesis," in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did. Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and "reformed" Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam's first modern reformers, "called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it," in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333). The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists. Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam's scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who do not become disaffected after better acquainting themselves with the literal teachings of Islam's scriptures and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay. ----- How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scripture together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings. Obviously a point-by-point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my "Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam" for a more comprehensive treatment). Suffice it to note some contradictions (which will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset): · The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting "infidels," Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die. · The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam's prophet himself decreed that "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." · The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat women as possessions. · The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one's wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the "infidel" during war. It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise. And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise. ---- Those in the West waiting for an Islamic "reformation" along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam's reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam's reformation has naturally produced a civilization markedly different from the West. Put differently, those in the West uncritically calling for an "Islamic reformation" need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society. That would not be a "reformation"—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation. Overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal. Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state. Christ called on believers to "render unto Caesar the things of Caesar (temporal) and unto God the things of God (spiritual)" (Matt. 22:21). For the "kingdom of God" is "not of this world" (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how "man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (Gal. 2:16). On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state. Allah decrees in the Koran that "It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!" (33:36). Allah tells the prophet of Islam, "We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant" (45:18). Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and Hadith—in a word, Sharia. And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib). Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception). Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means "submit." Submit to what? Allah's laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith. The "Islamic reformation" some in the West are hoping for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah's law; a "reformation" that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history. Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does. Related Topics:  Radical Islam  |  Raymond Ibrahim To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php The Middle East Forum