Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 22, 2014, 10:33:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81179 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 194 195 [196] 197 198 ... 237
9751  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Why we fight on: November 30, 2008, 07:27:57 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023719.php#more

November 30, 2008

Mumbai: The Grapes of Wrath of Western Complacency

Raphael Israeli was born in Fez, Morocco, and arrived in Israel at the age of 14. A professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he is the author of 25 books, including Islamikaze: Manifestations of Islamic Martyrology (Frank Cass, London, 2003) and The Spread of Islamikaze Terrorism in Europe: The Third Islamic Invasion (Vallentine Mitchell, London, 2008).

The events of Mumbai, the “surprise” they caused, the clumsy fashion in which they were treated, and the almost glorifying attitude meted out to them by the world media, demonstrate, seven years after the September 11 attacks, that little was learned in the West from them, while the pledges of Islamic terrorism to pursue its novel strategy proved credible and feasible. For after Madrid, London, Bali and other acts of mega-terrorism, the West still hesitates to pronounce the M-word, and talks about “Militants”, who draw sympathy in the Islamic world, instead of condemning them as Muslim terrorists and trying to rally moderate governments worldwide in support of the war against them. Moreover, instead of vigorously rejecting the Muslim notion of jihad, in the name of which all these horrors are done, the West has been indulging in the vain distinction between Islam and “Islamism”, ignoring the fact that they are one and the same faith and that jihad is the language of both.
Abu-‘Ubeid Qurashi, one of the aides of Osama Bin Laden, published after September 11 in the Arabic press and on the al-Qa’ida site on the Internet a stunning article regarding his organization’s strategy in its unseemly confrontation with the US and Western civilization in general. This article demonstrates that not only do those champions of evil do their homework adequately, and that they are equipped with the requisite patience, sophistication and methodical thinking, the fruits of which were seen in the deadly precision of their operation against the Twin Towers, but that Western democracies have something to learn in the war against terror. For it transpires that the Muslim terrorist organizations which have been waging war against the West directly are inspired by al-Qa’ida war doctrine, and it is not too early to try to comprehend their schemes.

Qurashi, who has obviously studied the most recent Western research in matters of the future battlefields and war doctrines, has come up with conclusions that are alarming: first, that the era of massive wars has ended, because the three war models of previous generations have been eroded; second, the fourth-generation wars of the 21st century will consist of asymmetrical confrontations between well-armed and well-equipped armies, who have a turf, a way of life and material interests to defend, and therefore are clumsy, against small groups armed with light weaponry only, who have no permanent bases and are on the move at all times. Third, in these wars, the main target is not the armed forces, but civil society that has to be submitted to harassment and terror to the point of detaching it from the army that fights in its defense; and fourth, that television is more important than armored divisions in the battlefield. The Twin Towers, the terrorist explosions in London and Bali, the Israeli confrontation with Hamas and Hizbullah on its borders, and now Mumbai all show how these doctrines can be rendered operational.
This war doctrine lies in the gray zone between war and peace. Those who initiate this kind of war, e.g. by wanton terrorism, would not declare it openly, and would leave it to the defenders to announce war and thereby become the “aggressors”. The terrorists themselves would create atrocities that are sure to attract the attention of television so as to “strike fear in the heart of the enemy” (a Qur’anic prescription -- 8:60), and enable them to retreat to their bases, if they can, or sacrifice themselves in what the dismayed victims wrongly call “suicide bombings”, for there is no suicide there, only large scale killing of the enemy even if it involves large scale self-sacrifice. But when the victim strikes back in self-defense, television can again be counted on to show the “abuses” of the “aggressor” and create sympathy for the cause of the terrorists, as in Afghanistan and Gaza. On television, the huge armies which crush everything in their path will always look more threatening than the “poor”, “frustrated” “freedom fighters” who are “oppressed” and “persecuted” by far superior troops. Thus this writer could show that small groups of poorly equipped Mujahideen have been able throughout the past two decades to defeat super- and lesser powers: the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US in Somalia, Russia in Chechnya and Israel in Lebanon and then in Gaza.

According to this analysis, the three major components of modern warfare are early warning, the ability to strike preventively, and deterrence -- exactly the elements that were paralyzed by al-Qa’ida on 11 September. As for the early warning, the terrorists achieved a strategic surprise, in spite of American technology, on the scale of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, or of the Nazi attack against the Soviet Union in June 1941, the assault on the Cole in Aden in 2000, and the Suez crossing in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the basis of the above analysis, the terrorists were able to deliver a deadly blow on September 11, and levy on the Americans a very heavy economic and psychological price. The ability to deliver a preventive strike is linked, in the mind of Qurashi, to the issue of early warning, because when the latter fails, then a preventive strike becomes irrelevant. But even if it had worked, there would have been no one to strike against in retaliation, as the terrorists are small groups, hidden and mobile. And finally, deterrence totally collapses in the face of the asymmetry between an institutionalized state which values life and a desire to live and prosper, and a group of Mujahideen who are indifferent to life, and indeed desirous to perish in the Path of Allah and attain the delights of Paradise. Thus, since nothing can deter them, they can always determine, against all odds, when, where, how, what, and whom to strike, without fearing that anyone will retaliate against them.

It is harrowing to reflect on how applicable this doctrine is in our daily lives, starting with the Middle East, but going to the periphery of the Islamic world, in places like Australia and Canada. For example, the Hizbullah in Lebanon, which is linked to al-Qa’ida, not only ideologically, has had some successes, but has also exported this doctrine to the Muslim terrorist movements in the Palestinian Territories, such as the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. Moreover, “secular” organizations such as the Tanzim and the Aqsa Brigades have been converted to these tactics, once Arafat’s call for martyrdom, with himself at the helm, had become the favorite form of struggle against Israel.

There is, however, a way to counter every deed or doctrine, with a view of reducing its effect, thereby immunizing Western society from its deadly threat and eliminating the terror it imposes on all civilized people. For example, if the terrorists intend to detach Western societies from their armed forces, an area where they have been partly successful by inculcating doubts into the public by supporting protest movements from within, perhaps it is time for these societies to realize that they have been used by their enemies to attain their ends. These ends are to dismantle national unity and to incite populations against their governments, thus playing into the hands of the terrorist subversive doctrine. If television is a declared means to discredit Western societies and their systems of defense, the media should not be allowed to the battlefield until the end of hostilities. Perhaps it is better for governments to be accused of obstructing the media than to let them document the asymmetry between the established strong defenders of freedom and the weaker terrorists in the field.

If terrorism has adopted the recourse of fighting by using Islamikaze "martyrdom", because there is arguably nothing to be done against “suicide-bombers”, each of whom can terrorize and paralyze an entire public, then it is necessary to demonstrate, like President Bush, that we are facing not a war against individuals who are desirous of death and whom we cannot bring to justice when they succeed in their task, but against those who train them, dispatch them, arm them, indoctrinate them, support them and finance them. And that as long as we keep them on the run, they will be less able to concoct and carry out their dark and cruel schemes against the West. That Islamists pursue their campaign of intimidation against the West is not new, but what does seem surprisingly new, compared with the legendary fighting spirit of the British, is the seeming capitulation of European capitals to their tormentors, and the baffling incomprehension they exhibit of the Islamist phenomenon, which has repeatedly declared itself so clearly inimical to them. Just consider the spirit of dhimmitude which has inundated the entire West due to its much-cultivated dependence on Muslim oil and the humiliating consequences thereof. This state of mind, which dictates caution, surreptitious maneuvering in order to survive, and a self-humiliating sycophancy toward the Muslim rulers in the hope of gaining their favor, has been inherited from many centuries of Islamic rule on vast swaths of Christendom, from Sicily to the Iberian Peninsula, from the Balkans to the gates of Vienna. This aggressive Islam which attempted, but failed, to Islamize Europe in the past, had also subjected large Christian communities to the dhimmi regime in the Near East as these communities were conquered by the emerging new faith of Islam: the Copts in Egypt, the Assyrians in Iraq, the Maronites in Lebanon, and countless other Christian communities first became subjugated majorities and then systematically persecuted minorities in their own countries. This amounted, after many centuries of oppression and contempt by the rule of Islam, to a self-diminution of the dhimmis – a loss of their pride and confidence in themselves, in that they did not stand up to the standards set for them by their rulers, and a total distortion of their self-image and the image of their oppressors. So much so, that many Christians and Jews, years after being liberated from dhimmitude, continued to think and act as dhimmis, namely to hold themselves grateful to their Muslim masters, who beat, humiliated, and mistreated them. Any observer of the international arena today would have noticed how Western and Israeli policymakers sycophantically submit to Muslim demands even when they are not compelled to do so.

What is more, the spirit of dhimmitude has been adopted, or taken over, by many Western societies today, which, for reasons hard to understand or explain, pretend not to hear or comprehend Muslim threats. Instead, Western societies evince "understanding" in the face of those threats, and seem to be marching foolishly toward spiritual and cultural capitulation and enslavement. Take, for example, the regime of self-defense and of intruding into the privacy of the air-passengers, which has been imposed in airports all over the world in the past three decades due to Muslim terrorism. Instead of prosecuting it and eliminating it at its roots, the West surrendered to it and adopted, at considerable financial, human and moral cost, taking measures to live with it that have amounted to submission to a mammoth collective punishment of innocents.

Even more ominous is the wholehearted and even enthusiastic support of Europeans for Muslim fundamentalists on their own turf, as when they rushed to sustain Bosnians and Kosovars and other Albanian Muslims in Macedonia who have been supported, financed and trained by revolutionary Iran; and when many Muslim volunteers from Chechnya to North Africa and the Middle East were recruited to fight a jihad for their cause. Again foolishly, the West let Muslim jihad take root on the continent, while emphasizing the Serbian ethnic cleansing (abhorrent in itself), thus causing the severance of Christian continuity between Russia and Central Europe to the Aegean Sea, and creating and sustaining a continuous string of revived Muslim presence from former Yugoslavia to Turkey, hoping thereby to extend the Turkish model of "Islamic moderation" and salvaging the European borders from a Muslim onslaught. As it turned out, Kosovo was totally subtracted from Serbia under UN auspices, while in Turkey a Muslim fundamentalist party took over government in 2002.

Standing up to the menace of world Islam as a united front of all Western and other non-Muslim cultures has then become the key to successful struggle against it. For even Muslim regimes who cooperate with the West, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, have a problem of legitimacy in their own countries, and their populace usually takes the pro-Jihadi stance against the policy of their governments. Even in the cases where legitimacy was addressed through democratic elections, as in Pakistan and Turkey, large parts of the population remain anti-American and resent Western involvement in their countries. That means that clearer borders have to be traced between those who give shelter to terrorists, even if halfheartedly, and those who defend themselves against them.
9752  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India and India-Pak on: November 30, 2008, 02:36:40 PM
**I expect the jewish females hostages suffered very deliberately sadistic sexual assaults, including the use of foreign objects, as is standard jihadi procedure for the treatment of hostages.**

Doctors shocked at hostages's torture

Krishnakumar P and Vicky Nanjappa in Mumbai | November 30, 2008 | 19:53 IST

They said that just one look at the bodies of the dead hostages as well as terrorists showed it was a battle of attrition that was fought over three days at the Oberoi and the Taj hotels in Mumbai.
Doctors working in a hospital where all the bodies, including that of the terrorists, were taken said they had not seen anything like this in their lives.

"Bombay has a long history of terror. I have seen bodies of riot victims, gang war and previous terror attacks like bomb blasts. But this was entirely different. It was shocking and disturbing," a doctor said.

Asked what was different about the victims of the incident, another doctor said: "It was very strange. I have seen so many dead bodies in my life, and was yet traumatised. A bomb blast victim's body might have been torn apart and could be a very disturbing sight. But the bodies of the victims in this attack bore such signs about the kind of violence of urban warfare that I am still unable to put my thoughts to words," he said.

Asked specifically if he was talking of torture marks, he said: "It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood," one doctor said.

The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again," he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. "During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis," an IB source said.

It is also said that the Israeli hostages were killed on the first day as keeping them hostage for too long would have focused too much international attention. "They also might have feared the chances of Israeli security agencies taking over the operations at the Nariman House," he reasoned.

On the other hand, there is enough to suggest that the terrorists also did not meet a clean, death.

The doctors who conducted the post mortem said the bodies of the terrorists were beyond recognition. "Their faces were beyond recognition."

There was no way of identifying them," he said. Asked how, if this is the case, they knew the bodies were indeed those of the terrorists, he said: "The security forces that brought the bodies told us that those were the bodies of the terrorists," he said, adding there was no other way they could have identified the bodies.

An intelligence agency source added: "One of the terrorists was shot through either eye."

A senior National Security Guard officer, who had earlier explained the operation in detail to rediff.com, said the commandos went all out after they ascertained that there were no more hostages left. When asked if the commandos attempted to capture them alive at that stage, he replied: "Unko bachana kaun chahega (Who will want to save them)?"

   
URL for this article:
http://www.rediff.com///news/2008/nov/30mumterror-doctors-shocked-at-hostagess-torture.htm
9753  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security on: November 30, 2008, 10:16:08 AM
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/11/16/20081116scrutiny1116.html

Ariz. Muslim leaders face increased FBI scrutiny
Monitoring grew after charity probe, 2 incidents
by Sean Holstege and Dennis Wagner - Nov. 16, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The FBI has sharpened its scrutiny of some Phoenix-area Muslim leaders because of their links to two controversial incidents and a federal probe into the financing of terrorist groups.

No Arizonan has been accused of supporting terrorist groups or actions. However, a Mesa man was charged with lying to the FBI during the financing investigation.

The events that triggered the stepped-up scrutiny were the federal probe into a Muslim charity accused of funneling money to the Palestinian group Hamas; a target-shooting episode in Phoenix this year involving a large group of Muslim men and boys firing hundreds of rounds from AK-47s and other guns; and the high-profile removal in 2006 of six Arizona-bound imams from a jetliner after passengers and crew complained of their behavior.

Although some Islamic leaders say they understand the scrutiny, they also view it as another sign that innocent Muslims unjustly fall under suspicion because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"Whoever did Sept. 11, go after them and see who they are. I'm not going to pay for them. I'm not going to be guilty," said Marwan Sadeddin, one of the Valley imams who sued US Airways after being removed from a jetliner in Minneapolis. Like the others, he was questioned by FBI agents after the incident, in addition to being questioned about the arrested Mesa man.

The FBI is monitoring the family and community ties among Valley residents involved in the jetliner, shooting and charity probes, said John Lewis, who runs the FBI's Arizona office.

"All of these things come on our scope," said Lewis, the agency's former head of counterterrorism operations.

The FBI routinely watches communities and groups that show patterns of radicalism seen in terrorism cases in the U.S. and Europe; those include radical Islamic theology, anti-Western political rhetoric and fundraising tied to terrorist groups.

Lewis declined to discuss any details of the agency's monitoring activities.

The only Arizonan arrested by the FBI is Akram Musa Abdallah of Mesa. He was indicted by a grand jury in August on one count of lying to FBI agents. The government contended in court documents that Abdallah falsely told agents he had not raised money in the 1990s for the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim charity that President Bush shut down in 2001.

Five founders of the Texas-based charity are on trial in Dallas on charges of steering $12 million to Hamas after the U.S. declared it a terrorist group.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician and Muslim who founded an organization to counter radical Islamic teachings, said Abdallah's arrest, the target-shooting episode and what he says are the imams' extreme views bear vigilance.

"You can't help wonder where this is going," he added.

Target shooting
Shortly before noon on a sunny Sunday in March, two Toyota SUVs rolled to a stop along a dirt road in north Phoenix.

About 20 young Muslim males climbed out, armed with assault rifles, a shotgun, a sniper rifle and handguns. The location near Happy Valley Road and 51st Avenue is a desert recreation site for off-road motorists, hikers and bikers, dozens of whom were enjoying the spring-like weather.

For more than an hour, the shooters blasted away at a granite rock and empty cans in front of a hill.

Officials estimate the fusillade totaled 500 to 1,000 rounds. Some shooters left before police arrived and detained 10 adults and five boys, including an 11-year-old.

The young men and boys told officers the weapons belonged to their parents. They said they were not aware it was illegal to use firearms in the residential area.

Six were arrested and charged with felony weapons violations in Maricopa County Superior Court. Among them were the 20- and 21-year-old sons of two imams at Phoenix-area mosques, as well as the 20-year-old son of Abdallah.

Phoenix police then notified the Arizona Counter Terrorism Center, a clearinghouse for intelligence, and the case was referred to the FBI, Lewis confirmed. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was called to trace the guns, its Arizona chief said.

Soliman Saadeldin, brother of one of the imams on the jetliner and a board member at the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, was not surprised by the reaction.

"Twenty Muslims? Of course the FBI, the CIA and the White House would be worried," Saadeldin said.

Valley Islamic leaders were furious at the youngsters, he added, knowing how the incident might be perceived.

"I'm one of those who got mad at them. (But) they went over there just to have fun shooting. ... It's showing off more than anything else," Saadeldin said.

He described the target shooting as merely bad judgment by a group of young guys out for a good time.

The Abdallah case
The FBI's scrutiny of Abdallah came to light in January 2007, when agents raided his Mesa house and loaded what a neighbor said was two vans full of evidence.

Court records show that Abdallah, a 54-year-old Palestinian, denied during interrogation that he had been a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation during the 1990s, when the Islamic charity could still legally receive donations.

At the time of the raid, federal investigators were pursuing a criminal case against the foundation based on allegations that it had channeled money to Palestinian terrorists. The organization had been banned after the 9/11 attacks.

The Abdallah case points to the FBI's continued interest in Arizonans who have raised money for any charity suspected of supporting militant groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

For many years, several mosques in Phoenix and Tucson legally raised money for the Holy Land Foundation, which was the largest Muslim charity in the United States.

Islamic civil-rights groups argue that Muslim Americans donated to the charities to support hospitals and orphanages in the West Bank and Gaza. Although Hamas and Hezbollah have organized attacks against Israeli civilians, their humanitarian missions are central to Palestinians' fight for survival, civil-rights groups say.

The federal government charged the foundation's leaders with raising $12 million for Hamas. The first trial in Dallas ended in October 2007 with a deadlocked jury, a stunning setback for the government's biggest-ever terrorism financing case. A new trial has gone to the jury.

Abdallah is not a witness or defendant in that case. But as the FBI looked into Holy Land Foundation contributions, he was indicted in August on one count of lying about the fundraising to federal agents. An FBI tactical squad swarmed into a northwest Phoenix cafe to arrest him. Abdallah pleaded not guilty and was released without bail. No trial date has been set.

Abdallah, a naturalized citizen who arrived in the country in the late 1970s, did not return calls.

His 20-year-old son, Saiaf, is one of the half-dozen suspects facing felony charges from the target shooting. The younger Abdallah declined to comment except to say, "In the past five to six years, Muslims have been falsely accused of many things."

Controversial imams
The saga of the six traveling imams touched off a national controversy and attracted federal scrutiny. Much of the focus has been on the group's spokesman, Omar Shahin.

Shahin, who lives in Phoenix and presides over the North American Imams Foundation, led the Arizona delegation of six imams to its conference in Minneapolis in 2006. After boarding the return flight to Phoenix, passengers and crew reported that the men chanted loudly to Allah and spoke angrily about President Bush and America's war in Iraq.

All six imams were handcuffed and later interrogated, then released with no charges. US Airways banned the men from future flights.

Shahin led a news conference to condemn prejudice against Muslims. The imams later sued the airline, airport police and an FBI agent, claiming they had been degraded and humiliated unlawfully. US Airways officials have said they acted appropriately. The lawsuit is ongoing.

Shahin's involvement was one factor that drew the FBI's attention to the case and intensified its interest in Muslims' activities in Arizona.

A strident scholar of Islamic law and prolific charity fundraiser, the 47-year-old Shahin had been under the FBI's microscope before but has never been accused of wrongdoing.

In the late 1980s, Shahin served as imam at the Islamic Center of Tucson, where he headed a Muslim youth group. The mosque was a hub for adherents to the radical Wahhabi school of Islam, some of whom later became important aides to Osama bin Laden in the al-Qaida terrorist group.

Weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Shahin, a Jordanian-born naturalized citizen, said he did not believe Muslims were responsible for destroying the World Trade Center and questioned the accuracy of the FBI's list of hijackers.

While in Tucson, Shahin raised money for the Holy Land Foundation before the group was outlawed. He also was a fundraiser for the Illinois-based KindHearts Foundation, which the government shut down last year for alleged support of Hamas.

According to tax records, Shahin was a paid employee of a third charity, the Michigan-based Life and Relief Development Inc. In September 2006, FBI counter-terrorism agents seized $134,000 in cash from the home of the charity's founder as part of a fraud case related to the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal. The charity remains open.

Shahin has served as a Muslim community liaison with the FBI and the Phoenix police. A book released by Shahin last year advocated that Muslims living in Western society follow a strict version of conservative Sharia law.

"A Muslim must try his best to abide by the rulings of Sharia whenever possible as much as he can. He should not allow himself to be liable to those western laws that contradict the clear-cut Islamic rulings," Shahin wrote.

Throughout the book, Shahin quotes an extremist Islamic scholar who studied under the man widely credited with inspiring al-Qaida. The scholar was a speaker at Holy Land Foundation events, prosecutors in the Dallas case said in court this year. They showed jurors photos of the man with Hamas and Hezbollah leaders and in videos preaching to kill Jews.

Shahin declined to comment in detail on his writings, the jetliner incident or the fundraising case. He is the father of one of the young men arrested in the Phoenix target shooting, Oday Shahin, 20. Another imam stopped in Minneapolis, Mahmoud Sulaiman, 51, a Syrian native, also has a son who was at the scene of the target shooting but was not arrested, a Phoenix police report stated.

Shahin and his son share other connections with people involved in events that drew the FBI's interest. Omar and Oday Shahin work with a third imam from the plane, Didmar Faja, a 28-year-old Albanian, at a conservative Islamic school in south Phoenix. Saiaf Abdallah, son of Akram Abdallah, accused of lying to the FBI, also works there, and his mother is a board member.

Shahin declined to comment except to say that his son's target-shooting arrest is "no big deal" and to caution against drawing unfair conclusions. "All I want to say is there is no connection between these things."

Civil libertarians, Muslim advocates and Valley imams all point out that even extreme political views don't equate to potential violence.

Marwan Sadeddin said the nation is teeming with Americans who hate President Bush's policies. So why can't he despise U.S. support for Israel, condemn terrorism and love America at the same time?

"The foreign policy is wrong," Sadeddin said. "That's my personal opinion. That doesn't mean I'm going to try to change it by force. I'm using my constitutional right to think the way I like."
9754  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India and India-Pak on: November 30, 2008, 09:49:59 AM
WARNING - GRAPHIC CONTENT

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/mumbai_under_attack.html
9755  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Islamic Countries: on: November 30, 2008, 09:36:39 AM
Such a wonderful culture.
9756  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: November 30, 2008, 09:06:48 AM
http://mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Videos&p=Intro

Here is why TIPS and other, similar programs are a good idea. I'd hope everyone here would report if they saw something that was a potential threat.
9757  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India on: November 30, 2008, 08:58:08 AM
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.2756280942

India: Al-Qaeda websites rejoice over Mumbai attacks



Mumbai, 27 Nov. (AKI) - Al-Qaeda websites on Thursday were swamped with messages from people who were celebrating the devastating Mumbai attacks which have left over 100 people dead and 281 injured. "Oh Allah, destroy the Hindus and do it in the worst of ways," was one of the comments that appeared on Islamist forums on the Internet immediately after the attacks.

"The battle that is underway in Mumbai is a battle for Allah between its servants and the infidels," said another message published on the al-Falluja forum.

Several Al-Qaeda sites also posted several pictures of the victims in Mumbai and provocative statements.

Some media reports are saying that a group calling itself Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility for the coordinated attacks, but this has not yet been confirmed.
9758  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India on: November 29, 2008, 09:01:37 AM
The Long War Journal: Analysis: Mumbai attack differs from past terror strikes



Written by Bill Roggio on November 28, 2008 12:31 AM to The Long War Journal
Available online at: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/11/analysis_mumbai_atta.php


 
Click image to view an interactive graphic showing the attacks in Mumbai. Created by The New York Times.

Almost two days after terrorists attacked the Indian financial hub of Mumbai, the Indian military is still working to root out the remnants of the assault teams at two hotels and a Jewish center. More than 125 people, including six foreigners, have been killed and 327 more have been wounded. The number is expected to go up, as Indian commandos have recovered an additional 30 dead at the Taj Mahal hotel as fighting has resumed.

The Mumbai attack is uniquely different from past terror strikes carried out by Islamic terrorists. Instead of one or more bombings at distinct sites, the Mumbai attackers struck throughout the city using military tactics. Instead of one or more bombings carried out over a short period of time, Mumbai is entering its third day of crisis.

An attack of this nature cannot be thrown together overnight. It requires planned, scouting, financing, training, and a support network to aid the fighters. Initial reports indicate the attacks originated from Pakistan, the hub of jihadi activity in South Asia. Few local terror groups have the capacity to pull of an attack such as this.

While it is early to know exactly what happened in Mumbai as the fog of war still blankets the city, multiple press reports from India allow for a general picture to be painted. An estimated 12 to 25 terrorists are believed to have entered Mumbai by sea. After landing, he attack teams initiated a battle at a police station, then fanned across the city to attack the soft underbelly of hotels, cafes, cinemas, and hospitals. Civilians were gunned down and taken hostage, while terrorists looked for people carrying foreign passports.

Preparation

While the exact size of the assault force and the support cells is still not known, police estimate about 25 gunmen were involved in the attack. The number of members of the supporting cells that provide financing, training, transportation, and other services could be two to four times this number. Operational security for such a large unit, or grouping of cells, is difficult to maintain and requires organization and discipline.

To pull off an attack of this magnitude, it requires months of training, planning, and on-site reconnaissance. Indian officials have stated that the terrorists set up "advance control rooms" at the Taj Mahal and Trident (Oberoi) hotels, and conducted a significant amount of reconnaissance prior to executing the attack. If the news about the "control rooms" is accurate, these rooms may also have served as weapons and ammunition caches for the assault teams to replenish after conducting the first half of the operation.


A terrorist outside the train station in Mumbai.

The planners of the Mumbai attack appear to have chosen able military-aged males. Witnesses have described the men as young and fit. Some of the gunmen appear to have been well trained; some have been credited with having good marksmanship and other military skills.

A witness who saw one of the teams land by sea described the gunmen as "in their 20s, fair-skinned and tall, clad in jeans and jackets." He saw "eight young men stepping out of the raft, two at a time. They jumped into the waters, and picked up a haversack. They bent down again, and came up carrying two more haversacks, one in each hand."

An Indian official claimed the attackers used "sophisticated weapons," however this may be an overstatement. Reports indicate the gunmen used automatic rifles, hand grenades, and some machineguns, as well as several car bombs. The terrorists did not have sophisticated weapons such as anti-aircraft missiles to attack helicopters supporting Indian counterterrorism forces.

Getting to Mumbai

One of the more intriguing aspects of the attack is how the teams entered Mumbai. Reports indicate at least two of the assault teams arrived from outside the city by sea around 9 p.m. local time. Indian officials believe most if not all of the attackers entered Mumbai via sea.

Indian Coast Guard, Navy, Mumbai maritime police, and customs units have scoured the waters off Mumbai in search of a "mother ship" that transported one or more smaller Gemini inflatable boats used by the attackers. A witness saw one of the craft land in Colaba in southern Mumbai and disgorge eight to 10 fighters.

Two ships that have been boarded are strongly suspected of being involved in the attacks: the Kuber, an Indian fishing boat, and the MV Alpha, a Vietnamese cargo ship. Both ships appear to have been directly involved. The Kuber was hijacked on Nov. 13, and its captain was found murdered. Four crewmen are reported to be still missing.

Indian security officials found what they believe is evidence linking the boat to the attack, as well as linking the attackers to Pakistan. "A GPS map of south Mumbai was found along with a satellite phone on the ship, Coast Guard officials confirmed," The Times of India reported. "There were reports that this phone was used to make calls to Karachi immediately before the shootings began in Mumbai."

Indian police also detained three terrorists from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terror group closely allied with al Qaeda. The three men are said to be Pakistani nationals, and claimed to have been part of a 12-man team that launched from the MV Alpha. They said the MV Alpha departed from Karachi.

Another Indian official said that it is "suspected that the Pakistan Marine Agency helped the terrorists hijack the trawler (the Kuber)," although this has not been confirmed. Another unconfirmed report indicated the Kuber originated from Karachi, Pakistan.

The attack

After landing in Colaba, the terrorists moved north and attacked the Colaba police station, possibly as a single unit. The attack on the police command and control node disrupted the police response and pinned down police units.

The Mumbai police paid a heavy price. Early in the fight, the attackers killed the chief of Mumbai's Anti-terrorism Squad and two other senior officials. At least 14 police were reported to have been killed during fighting throughout the city.

From the Colaba police station, the assault force broke up into smaller teams and fanned out to hit secondary targets throughout Mumbai. At least one police van was hijacked and the terrorists drove around the city, firing automatic weapons from the truck at random targets.

In all, 10 locations, including the police station, were attacked. The assault teams struck at vital centers where foreigners were likely to congregate: the five-star Taj Mahal and Trident hotels, the Nariman House (an orthodox Jewish center), the Cama hospital, the CSP train station, a cinema, and a cafe were all struck almost simultaneously. Two Taxis were also blown up near the airport in the north and the docks in the southern part of the city.

At the Taj, Trident, and Nariman House, several bombs or hand grenades were tossed into the lobbies and in other areas. The Taj Mahal Hotel was set on fire due to the blasts.

Gunmen opened fire indiscriminately in the hotel lobbies and at the cafe, cinema, train station, and the Jewish center. At the hotels, gunmen then sought out foreigners holding American, British, and Israeli passports.

More than 200 hostages were reported to have been held at the Taj and scores more at the Trident and the Jewish center. Mumbai was under siege as police and counterterrorism officials struggled to regain control of the city.

The counterattack

Police appear to have regained control of the situation at the CSP train station, cafe, and cinema relatively quickly, however they were unable to handle the hostage situation at the hotels, the hospital, and the Jewish center. Police officials admitted they were “overwhelmed” by the attacks and unable to contain the fighting.

After a delay, more than 200 National Security Guards commandos and a number of elite Naval commandos, as well as an unknown number of Army forces were deployed to Mumbai. The hotels, the hospital, and the Jewish center were surrounded as the special operations forces prepared to assault the buildings.

Commandos are in the process of clearing the Taj and the Trident in room-by-room searches. Some of the rooms are reported to have been rigged with explosives. Several National Security Guards commandos have been reported to have been killed or wounded in the fighting. Indian forces are also storming the Jewish Center after air assaulting soldiers into the complex. Curiously, it does not appear the terrorists have executed hostages once they were taken.

At this time, police said seven terrorist have been killed and nine have been detained. Several more are still thought to be hiding in the Taj and Trident hotels, and the Jewish center.

Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility

In an e-mail to local news stations, a group called the Deccan Mujahideen, or Indian Mujahideen, has claimed responsibility for the Mumbai strike. While the Indian Mujahideen’s role in the attack has yet to be confirmed, at least two of the terrorists fighting in Mumbai indicated they were linked to Islamic terrorists.

One of the terrorists phoned a news station demanding jihadis be released from jail in exchange for prisoners. "We want all Mujahideens held in India released and only after that we will release the people," a man named Sahadullah told a media outlet. "Release all the Mujahideens, and Muslims living in India should not be troubled."

Another terrorist named Imran phoned a TV station and spoke in Urdu in what is believed to be a Kashmiri accent. "Ask the government to talk to us and we will release the hostages," he said. "Are you aware how many people have been killed in Kashmir? Are you aware how your army has killed Muslims? Are you aware how many of them have been killed in Kashmir this week?"

The Indian Mujahideen has taken credit for several recent mass-casualty attacks in India. The group claimed credit for the July 25 and 26 bombings in Ahmedabad and Bangalore. At least 36 Indians were killed and more than 120 were wounded in the attacks. The Indian Mujahideen took credit for the Sept. 13 attacks in New Delhi that resulted in 18 killed and more than 90 wounded. The group also claimed credit for the bombings in Jaipur last May (60 killed, more than 200 wounded), and bombings in Uttar Pradesh in November 2007 (14 killed, 50 wounded).

In several of those attacks, an Indian Mujahideen operative who calls himself Arbi Hindi e-mailed the media to claim responsibility. Arbi Hindi's real name is Abdul Subhan Qureshi, an Indian national who is believed to be behind many of the recent terror attacks inside India. Qureshi, a computer expert, is believed to have trained hundreds of recruits to conduct terror attacks in India. He is often called India’s Osama bin Laden.

Indian intelligence believes the Indian Mujahideen is a front group created by the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Harkat ul Jihad al Islami. The Indian Mujahideen was created to confuse investigators and cover the tracks of the Students' Islamic Movement of India, or SIMI, a radical Islamist movement, according to Indian intelligence.

The Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Harkat ul Jihad al Islami receive support from Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence to destabilize India and wage war in Kashmir. Both of these terror groups are local al Qaeda affiliates in Pakistan and conduct attacks in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The Indian “occupation” of Kashmir helped spawn these groups.

Reports indicate signals intelligence has linked the attackers back to Pakistan. Intelligence services are said to have intercepted the terrorists' conversations via satellite phone. The men spoke in Punjabi and used Pakistani phrases.

Indian politicians have been quick to point the finger at Pakistan. Gujarat state Chief Minister Narendra Modi accused Pakistan of allowing terrorists to use its soil as a terror launchpad. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed terror groups backed by India's "neighbors," a reference to Pakistan. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said "elements in Pakistan" were behind the Mumbai attacks.

A unique attack

The Mumbai attack differs from previous terror attacks launched by Islamic terror groups. Al Qaeda and other terror groups have not used multiple assault teams to attack multiple targets simultaneously in a major city outside of a war zone.

Al Qaeda and allied groups have conducted complex military assaults on military and non-military targets in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Somalia, Algeria, and Pakistan. But these are countries that are actively in a state of war or emerging from a recent war, where resources and established fighting units already exist.

Al Qaeda has also used the combination of a suicide attack to breach an outer wall followed by one or more assault teams on military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as well as at the US embassy in Yemen. But again, these attacks are focused on a single target, and again occur where the resources and manpower is available.

Previous terror attacks in non-war zone countries such as India, London, Spain, the United States, Jordan, Morocco, and Egypt have consisted of suicide or conventional bombings on one or more critical soft targets such as hotels, resorts, cafes, rail stations, trains, and in the case of the Sept. 11 attack, planes used as suicide bombs.

The only attack similar to the Mumbai strike is the assault on the Indian Parliament by the Jaish-e-Mohammed, aided by the Lashkar-e-Taiba, in December 2001. A team of Jaish-e-Mohammed fighters attempted to storm the parliament building while in a session was held. A combination of mishaps by the terrorists and the quick reaction of security guards blunted the attack.

The Mumbai attack is something different. Foreign assault teams that likely trained and originated from outside the country infiltrated a major city to conduct multiple attacks on carefully chosen targets. The primary weapon was the gunman, not the suicide bomber. The attack itself has paralyzed a city of 18 million. And two days after the attack began, Indian forces are still working to root out the terror teams.
9759  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India on: November 28, 2008, 08:46:08 AM

Massacre in Mumbai: BRITISH gunmen seized in commando raid as death toll hits more than 140

By Justin Davenport , Rashid Razaq and Nicola Boden
Last updated at 2:08 PM on 28th November 2008


British-born Pakistanis among arrested militants
Commandos storm strongholds to rescue hostages
Death toll hits 143 as another 24 bodies found in hotel
At least five dead hostages found in Jewish Centre
Bystanders wounded in crossfire at Taj hotel siege
British-born Pakistanis were among the Mumbai terrorists, Indian government sources claimed today, as the death toll rose to more than 140.

Two Britons were among eight gunmen captured by commandos after they stormed two hotels and a Jewish centre to free hostages, the city's chief minister said.

Vilasrao Deshmukh also revealed that up to 25 terrorists were responsible for the series of bomb blasts and shootings that targeted tourists and foreign interests.

Sieges in the Indian city were still ongoing today in dramatic stand-offs at the three buildings. Some hostages emerged unharmed but inside were scenes of carnage.



Calm: One of the young gunmen with his weapon, looking for more victims. Indian authorities say two of the arrested militants were British-born Pakistanis
At the luxury Oberoi Hotel, brought back under control this morning when commandos shot dead two militants, another 24 bodies were found.

Their discovery takes the total death toll to 143. Only one is confirmed as British so far but there are fears this may rise. At least another 300 people were wounded.

Hundreds of other traumatised guests were rescued from their rooms there and at the five-star Taj Mahal hotel but still the fighting did not cease.

At the Taj, commandos were still engaged in a prolonged shootout with militants. Four bystanders were reported wounded in the crossfire.

Indian forces launched grenades at the walls. Inside, at least one terrorist was believed to be holed up in a ballroom.

Commandos also stormed the Nariman House Jewish centre where some of the militants were believed to be hiding to find the dead bodies of at least five hostages.

Around 20 masked officers had dropped onto the building from helicopters on to the roof this morning covered by heavy fire in what was dubbed Operation Black Tornado.

After hours of heavy fighting, a massive explosion ripped through the building, blowing out windows in the surrounding houses. Gunfire and smaller explosions followed before Indian authorities appeared to have control.



Blast: Police throw a grenade into the Taj Mahal hotel as they desperately try to control a militant. Below, officers on guard outside


Across at the Oberoi, traumatised guests were struggling to absorb their ordeal. Many had been locked in their rooms terrified for 41 hours while the gunmen rampaged.

Today, around 100 were rescued after two militants were shot dead. One man was clutching a tiny baby in his arms.

British lawyer Mark Abell emerged with a beaming smile, saying: 'I'm going home, I'm going to see my wife. '

The 51-year-old told how he had spent the night listening to gunshots and explosions and described the scene of 'carnage' when he was eventually led to safety by troops saying 'there was blood and guts everywhere'.

'I was supposed to be working in Delhi but I think I have had more than my fair share of my business trip so I am looking forward to going home to see my family,' he said.



Rescued: A British man is led to safety from the Oberoi Trident Hotel today and below, another guest emerges clutching a tiny baby


A number of the hostages were airline staff still wearing their Lufthansa and Air France uniforms when they emerged from the building.

As they came out some carried luggage with Canadian flags, and two women were dressed in black abayas, traditional Muslim women's garments.ever, at the Taj Mahal hotel today.

Indian police thought they had secured the huge Taj hotel last night after intense fighting but it restarted hours later and was ongoing this afternoon.

Earlier, one commando revealed he had seen around 50 bodies littering the Taj hotel floor after special officers stormed the building and rescued hundreds of guests.

Clad in black, with a mask covering his face, the unit chief said: 'There was blood all over the bodies. The bodies were strewn here and there and we had to be careful as we entered the building to avoid further bloodshed of innocent civilians.'

The terrorists had seemed like young, ordinary men but had clearly been very well trained, he said.

'They were wearing T-shirts, just ordinary looking, but they have definitely been trained to use weapons. There is no way they could handle such weapons without being taught how to.'

 

Air rescue: A commando drops to the roof of Mumbai's Jewish centre and below, officers span out ready to storm the building


Nine terrorists are thought to have been shot dead in gun battles across Mumbai as police and special forces tried to regain control of the city.

Between six and eight were still holed-up in the two luxury hotels and the Jewish centre this morning but two were then shot dead at the Oberoi.

Three arrested at the Taj Mahal have been officially identified as a Pakistani national and two Indians. Another is reported to be a Mauritian national.

They arrived in the city by sea before fanning out to at least 10 locations. Dinghies were found moored at a jetty by the famous Gateway to India monument.

Today, coast guard officials said they could have hijacked an Indian trawler to drop them off after finding an abandoned boat drifting near the shore.

The captain's dead body was found inside the vessel, along with communications equipment.

Dressed in jeans and T-shirts and heavily armed, they then headed for the city - India's financial centre - and started firing indiscriminately.

It is thought they gained entrance to the hotels by pretending to be staff and hotel guests, according to reports.

Indian authorities have not released any details about the two Britons and the Foreign Office has refused to confirm Indian television reports.

Security services in Britain are now examining images of the gunmen in an effort to identify them.

Gordon Brown said he would be speaking to the Indian Prime Minister again today but warned that it was 'too early' to reach any conclusions about British involvement.

India's High Commissioner Shiv Shankar Mukherjee also said today: 'I have seen nothing more than what is in the media and that is based on speculation. i will wait for the investigation to produce some hard facts.'

A team of Scotland Yard anti-terrorist detectives and negotiators are now on their way to Mumbai to assist in the investigation.

Indian commandos have recovered credit cards and the militants' ID cards as well as seizing a vast arsenal of grenades, AK-47 magazines, shells and knives.


 

Desperate: A hostage at the Oberoi peeks out of his window during the siege
A previously unknown Islamic group, Deccan Mujahideen, has claimed responsibility for the attacks but terror experts believe is is linked to Al Qaeda.

It is known that dozens of British-born Pakistanis have travelled to Pakistan to train in its camps in recent years.

One security source said recently: 'The camps are full and many of the people inside are Brits.'

Last night, there was speculation that a British Al Qaeda suspect reportedly killed by a U.S. missile strike in Pakistan last weekend may have helped plot the attacks.

Rashid Rauf was among five killed in a missile attack in a tribal area in North Waziristan on Saturday.

Security sources believe that at the time of his death Rauf had been planning a major attack on Western targets.



Met officers were also interviewing passengers returning from Mumbai as they stepped off planes at Heathrow.

There was speculation last night that England cricketers could have been an intended target of the terrorists.

It emerged that some of the team had been due to stay in Mumbai, most likely the Taj Mahal, on Wednesday evening before a late decision was made to switch training to Bangalore.

Shocked player Michael Vaughan said: 'I don't know why it was switched but we could have been there in one of those hotels when they were attacked.

'All our white Test kit is in one of the rooms at the Taj Mahal hotel: All our pads and clothes for the Test series and our blazers and caps and ties. That's how close the danger is.'

The England team will fly back to Britain today.




On the hunt: Two baby-faced gunman brandishing automatic weapons
The bloody drama had begun on Wednesday night when young men carrying guns on their shoulders and hatred in their hearts slipped ashore in Mumbai from a 'mother ship' and fanned out into the city.

Their targets were:

The Oberoi Hotel, in the commercial district. Its restaurant was bustling with diners, many of them tourists;
Also attacked was the Leopold restaurant, a haunt of the city's art crowd. As the fanatics sprayed the packed cafe, diners fled in terror;
Some of the worst scenes were at the major railway station. As they entered the Gothic Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, once named after Queen Victoria, the gunmen were smiling. With an astonishing air of casualness, the terrorists started to shoot. Within seconds the concourse was a bloodbath. People lay screaming on the floor;
A further prestigious target was the 105-year-old Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel;
More hostages were taken at the nearby Chabad House, headquarters for an ultra-orthodox Jewish group. A rabbi was among those held.
About 15 police officers were killed, including the head of Mumbai's anti-terrorism unit.

India's prime minister Manmohan-Singh has blamed militant groups based outside the country - usually meaning Pakistan - raising fears of renewed tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals. Pakistan condemned the attacks.



Massacre: Blood splatters the floor at the train station where travellers were slaughtered. Below, two of the baby-faced gunmen
The attack on the train station had echoes of previous terror outrages.

In July 2006 more than 180 people were killed in seven bomb explosions at railway stations and on trains in Mumbai that were blamed on Islamist militants.

On Wednesday night, in a city that works late, droves of homebound commuters stood waiting for trains when the terrorists started to shoot.

Briefcases, shopping bags and suitcases were simply dropped and abandoned in the rush for shelter. Pools of blood trickled over the polished stone floor.

The Jewish centre was attacked at about 10pm. A gunman inside the building phoned an Indian television channel to offer talks with the government for the release of hostages.

He complained about abuses in Kashmir, over which India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars.

From 10.30pm into the early hours, the terrorists continued their co- ordinated rampage through the city.

At the Mazagoan Dockyard, three people died in a large explosion in a taxi driving along the approach road.

The Mumbai police HQ, in the southern part of the city, came under fire, as did two hospitals, the CAMA and GT.



Hostages: Rabbi Gabriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka were believed to be inside the Jewish centre. Reports say no hostages inside survived
Also attacked was the Metro Adlabs cinema, a 70-year-old art deco landmark that has become a red carpet theatre for the Bollywood industry. It shows many English language films and is a popular spot for Western tourists.

Mr Brown said the attacks had been met by 'shock and outrage' around the world and pledged all possible UK support for the Indian authorities.

He said: 'This is the loss of innocent lives, people just going about their daily business. We've got to do everything we can now to help.'

But firebrand British-based Muslim preacher Anjem Choudhary backed the terrorists and said any Britons killed or held hostage were legitimate targets because they should not have gone to India.

Choudhary, right-hand man to preacher of hate Omar Bakri, said Britain and America is at war with the Muslim world and their citizens must keep off the battlefield.

'Muslims are being killed in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan every day through acts of atrocity against them. But the media only report events like Mumbai.'

Worried friends or relatives should call the Foreign Office's emergency line on 0207 008 0000.



 
A map shows the locations of the bombings across Mumbai


Find this story at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1089711/Massacre-Mumbai-BRITISH-gunmen-seized-commando-raid-death-toll-hits-140.html
9760  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: November 27, 2008, 08:32:46 AM
The Indian Hostage Rescue teams seem to have done some good work thus far. Hopefully they'll be able to save more hostages.
9761  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India on: November 27, 2008, 08:29:31 AM
The M.O. is classic al qaeda.
9762  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Re: Reproductive issues on: November 26, 2008, 10:25:19 PM
GM,

Do you want to rephrase your question to include a healthy mother or it that irrelevant. 

**I think that is relevant. Reality often involves making hard choices, including ones like that.**

Assuming you just forgot to mention the the health of the mother ---  I have no problem with not allowing abortions  for healthy women with healthy pregnancies  in the third trimester.

**So that can be criminalized then?**

 I have serious problems with gathering evidence on all women  who had late term abortions .  I also have serious problems with the idea that a judge or police officer would tell  my doctor what procedures they can or can not do to save my life. 

**Police officers enforce the laws on the books. Judges are also supposed to rule based on the laws and constitution, though activist judges like to move beyond that to create "rights" that fit their personal political agenda. An abortion to save a life is one thing, an elective abortion is very different.**

In Illinois it is illegal to buy fireworks. It is not illegal to buy them in Indiana.  Near the 4th of July every year cars coming back over the border are searched for possession of fireworks. It is within the realm of possibility if abortions became illegal  that women who have abortions over state lines our out of the country could be searched for evidence of an abortion  crossing the border.

**Really? How exactly would these searches be done?**

9763  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: India on: November 26, 2008, 09:28:46 PM
Now waiting for JDN to insist this attack in Mumbai has nothing to do with islam, and is all Bush's fault anyway.
9764  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender issues thread on: November 26, 2008, 07:38:27 PM
On a warm summer day two years ago, a 16-year-old girl put on a skirt and headed to the SuperTarget in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla. As she shopped the air-conditioned aisles, a man knelt behind her, carefully slid a camera in between her bare legs and snapped a photo of her underwear. Police arrested the 34-year-old man, but the charges were ultimately dropped on the grounds that the girl did not, as required by the state's Peeping Tom law, have "a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy," given the public location. In non-legalese: Wear a skirt in public, and you might just get a camera in the crotch.

**I'm surprized they didn't try to charge him with a "sexual exploitation of a child" crime. I don't know OK statutes, but given that she is under 18, i'd think there might be something applicable in their state laws.**
9765  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Reproductive issues on: November 25, 2008, 10:07:07 PM
Would aborting a healthy fetus in the 3rd trimester consist of "women for exercising their right to choose when and whether to be pregnant" ?

9766  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: November 25, 2008, 04:00:55 PM
**Possible, or just Russian wishful thinking?**

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3sayDZz.QKc&refer=us

Russian Professor Says U.S. Will Break Up After Economic Crisis


By Robin Stringer

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- A professor at the diplomatic academy of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the U.S. will break into six parts because of the nation’s financial crisis.

“The dollar isn’t secured by anything,” Igor Panarin said in an interview transcribed by Russian newspaper Izvestia today. “The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche; this is a pyramid, which has to collapse.”

Panarin said in the interview that the financial crisis will worsen, unemployment will rise and people will lose their savings -- factors that will cause the country’s breakup.

“Dissatisfaction is growing, and it is only being held back at the moment by the elections, and the hope” that President- elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he said. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

The U.S. will fracture into six parts: the Pacific coast; the South; Texas; the Atlantic coast, central states and the northern states.

“Now we will see a change to the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will cease to be the world’s regulator,” to be replaced by China and Russia, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Robin Stringer in New York at rstringer@bloomberg.net.
9767  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: November 24, 2008, 05:13:28 PM
**I guess they don't want to make CAIR angry by showing the true face of islam.**

The Case of the Missing Honor Killing   
By Phyllis Chesler
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, November 24, 2008

Psychologically, we tend to believe that what we see with our own eyes, especially if it is "acted out" for us, is the "truth." Our brains are wired so that visual images assume a permanent reality--even if that reality is a computer-generated or photo-shopped Big Lie. Mohammed al-Dura did not die in his fathers' arms even though that carefully staged image was seen round the world. Israel did not massacre anyone in Jenin even though that Big Lie has also taken on a life of its own.

I'm glad that America's Most Wanted chose to dramatize the honor killing of Sarah and Amina Said in Dallas on Jan 1, 2008 by their father Yaser Abdul Said, who has been missing ever since. I hope the program helps aid in his capture. I applaud on-camera narrator John Walsh, who has turned his own grief at the loss of his child into something positive for so many others.

However, the dramatization was oddly, perhaps even purposefully misleading. Key figures were either fatally mischaracterized or were entirely missing in action. Malevolent motives, which had no basis in fact, were attributed to the innocent girls and yet their mother, Patricia, was not presented as the collaborator in their murder which she surely was. Their older brother, Islam, a foul-mouthed man who bullied his mother, harassed and monitored his sisters, and ultimately justified their being honor murdered, was not in the TV picture

Why would America's Most Wanted do this?

Patricia, the girls' mother, is and was a white, blonde, blue-eyed Texas-born Christian woman, a child really, when Yaser first married her. The dramatization chose to portray her as an Arab- or Hispanic-looking woman. Although the program has an on-camera interview with the real Patricia, their choice of an Arab-looking actress to play Patricia accomplishes the following:

Viewers might think that the girls really were rebelling against their culture when, in fact, their mother and her extended family are Christian-Americans whose customs the girls were choosing. Second, by failing to show the real Patricia as she enticed her daughters to come home, promised them that their father only wanted to make up, the program blurs, renders indistinct, the fact that this was a classic honor killing, one which always involves a family collaboration. That is probably why they did not include the girls' older brother Islam. He would have also visually and verbally confirmed the concept that an honor killing is characterized by family collaboration. Of course, Islam may also have cursed the producers and threatened to kill or sue them if he was included. Nice guy.

In other words folks, the producers did not want to inflame any white "ethnic" or "racist" passion by showing an Arab Muslim male tyrant dominating a white Christian American woman (his wife) and their daughters. The program wanted no part of the long, historical stench which has attended the usually false, but sometimes true allegations about "Indians" or "blacks" raping white women, and the terrible lynchings that have occurred thereafter.

But, even more: The producers did not want to be charged with 'Islamophobia" by showing what a real, full-blown honor killing looks like. Further, they wanted to appear and present a "balanced" re-creation even if they had to make things up in order to do so. Thus, they showed the two girls as plotting revenge or preemptive self-defense against their father. If only Sarah and Amina had followed through on this imaginary course of action, they might be alive today. But, knowing how American law works, they might also be in jail for life.

While the program tried to pack a lot of information into a limited amount of time, they did not show how brutally and continuously Yaser physically and verbally assaulted his daughters, tapped their phone lines, monitored their computers, watched them and had them watched.

Finally, to be extra careful, the program chose an exceptionally soft-spoken Muslim boy, Zohair Zaid, the girls' friend, who said some strong, true things but who also presented such a peaceful face of Islam. It does exist and yet--what a perfect foil to Yaser Said's cold-blooded murderousness. One cancels the other out and we are left with ... confusion.

Zohair advised the girls to take their fathers' threat to kill them seriously and to go to the police. He also told them that "once you run away, you can never come back. He will become totally insane once he's lost control of you...His honor and dignity (will be) scarred."

What a shame they did not listen to Zohair but instead listened to their murderous mother. On camera, a subdued, soft-spoken Patricia, actually defends Yaser. She says that when she would punish or ground the girls, that Yaser would try to protect them, go easy on them. When she was asked whether Yaser was upset when he discovered that his daughters were dating Christian boyfriends, Patricia says: "I don't think so. He always said that we could work (everything) out as a family."

Either Patricia is dull-witted, exceptionally passive, even mentally retarded; was battered, brainwashed, primed to turn against her own daughters; is one hellava cunning criminal; or, long ago, converted to Yaser's brand of Arabian-Egyptian Islamism, shares Yaser's view that disobedient daughters should be punished, even killed. A typical Islamist mother.

I want to know why the police have not arrested her and why America's Most Wanted has failed to portray her accurately.

I asked Gail Gartrell, the girls' great-aunt, what she thought of the program. Viewing it made her angry and it broke her heart. Gartrell feels that the program failed to present this double homicide as a full-blown honor killing. She quotes John Walsh who said: "Some people say this was an honor killing. But, there's no honor in this."

How dare he. I have worked hard to educate and get the word out about honor killings and he diminished what honor killings entail. You know, they are usually well planned out in advance and others in the family involve themselves as well.

How about this? Yaser shoots the girls, gets out of the cab without a single drop of blood on him, after 11 shots were fired at close range, and simply walks away. Who picked him up? He did not leave there on foot. Someone picked him up and fled with him.

How about it? Who could have driven Yaser away?

I have to give them credit for one thing. They had the means (Was it money? Or attention?) to get the otherwise reclusive Patricia to talk to them on camera. Check her out for yourselves. As I said she's soft-spoken, passive, subdued.

But this is also how an honor killer looks.

Perhaps this is also another face of jihad. Think about it. What if an American-despising Yaser was also interested in marrying Patricia in order to get a green card, become a citizen--and biologically produce American citizen jihadists? Might the fifth column we have long feared, come from such a source? Yaser is known to have owned many knives and guns, known to have taken his family to "Jihad military camps." At least, they are posed wearing keffiyehs and brandishing weapons. Maybe he was only joking. Maybe his annual visit back home to Egypt was only to visit another wife and family. Maybe Yaser is just a petty criminal and woman-hater.

But what if Yaser married as a form of jihad? What if his daughters were in turn expected to marry other Egyptian jihadists who would pay dowries for them?

I hope the FBI is considering all these questions.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the well known author of classic works, including the bestseller Women and Madness (1972) and The New Anti-Semitism (2003). She has just published The Death of Feminism: What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of Women and Madness. She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women's studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women's Health Network (1976). Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com.
9768  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender issues thread on: November 24, 2008, 04:51:36 PM
As the PRK already has domestic partnerships, why would they need "gay marriage" except to use to power of the state to force their beliefs on others?
9769  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War? on: November 24, 2008, 02:04:19 PM
I watched 60 Minutes last night. The SA plant managers were lying their asses off. That was no crime of opportunity, that was a terrorist/organized crime operation.
9770  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Humor/WTF on: November 23, 2008, 08:18:33 PM
Imagine the screams if they'd been forced to ride in a ham truck. At least one embassy would have been burned down.  rolleyes
9771  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 23, 2008, 06:18:08 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWY4ODNjYTQ0Yzc3ZmI0YWQ3MDM0NDVjYWY2OTJmMGM=

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Is it 2008-or 1984?   [Victor Davis Hanson]

We should all let President-elect Obama have some honeymoon time, but that said, so far the sudden cessation in 'hope and change' that became part of the American mindset for two years is surreal, and one of the most remarkable developments in recent American political history. Obama's Clintonite appointments, his reliance on those well-known DC fixtures credentialed by Ivy League Law Schools, and his apparent backtracking on radical tax hikes on the "wealthy", instantaneous shut-down of Gitmo, prompt withdrawal from Iraq, and repeal of anti-terror legislation seem to have delighted conservatives, relieved that the Daily Kos and Huffington Post are not calling the shots. But two minor points, it is still November, not late January. So no one knows anything yet and we should suspend judgement, despite the FDR and Lincoln daily comparisons.

Second, if we should see in January that the government really does not want to evict Khalid Sheik Mohammed & co. from Guantanamo, and does want to stay in Iraq until 2011 to finish up, and does want to let the present tax code ride for a bit, and does want to leave most Bush-enacted homeland security measures in place, then Obama has not merely embarrassed his hard-left base, but has terribly humiliated the media as well.

For years now we have been preached to that Guantanamo is a gulag where Korans are stomped and flushed (not laptops provided to the chief architect of 9/11), that we waged a foolhardy, amoral, and hopelessly 'lost' war against the Iraqi people, that the rich plundered the economy on the backs of the poor, and that the Constitution was burned so that covert agencies could play James Bond. I could go on, but you get the picture.

Given all that, are we now suddenly—in 1984-fashion—around late January either to be told all that was not quite so, or will we simply hear no more about how these Bush legacies have ruined America—or what exactly is the party line to be? There is still such a thing, after all, as Google.

The point is that somewhere around early to mid-2007 ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, Newsweek, Time, etc. chose to become—in the manner that they selected, emphasized, and presented their news stories—a quasi-official Obama media, or at least a quasi-official what-they-thought-Obama-was news media. Chris Matthews' asinine statement about his investment in the success of the Obama administration was merely a crude summation of the creed of the more sober and judicious.

I don't really think they can now pull off an Animal-Farm-like 'two-legs were bad', 'now two-legs good' complete turn-about just because they've taken over the manor. I do think that the media's unprofessional lobbying for the cause of Obama—not now, but in a decade or two—will become a classic case study in any graduate class on journalistic ethics.
9772  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Big Picture WW3: Who, when, where, why on: November 23, 2008, 03:31:44 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/3506544/Iran-receives-al-Qaeda-praise-for-role-in-terrorist-attacks.html

Iran receives al Qaeda praise for role in terrorist attacks
Fresh links between Iran's Revolutionary Guards and al-Qaeda have been uncovered following interception of a letter from the terrorist leadership that hails Tehran's support for a recent attack on the American embassy in Yemen, which killed 16 people.
 
By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 9:04PM GMT 23 Nov 2008

Delivery of the letter exposed the rising role of Saad bin Laden, son of the al-Qaeda leader, Osama as an intermediary between the organisation and Iran. Saad bin Laden has been living in Iran since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, apparently under house arrest.
The letter, which was signed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's second in command, was written after the American embassy in Yemen was attacked by simultaneous suicide car bombs in September.
Western security officials said the missive thanked the leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards for providing assistance to al-Qaeda to set up its terrorist network in Yemen, which has suffered ten al-Qaeda-related terror attacks in the past year, including two bomb attacks against the American embassy.
In the letter al-Qaeda's leadership pays tribute to Iran's generosity, stating that without its "monetary and infrastructure assistance" it would have not been possible for the group to carry out the terror attacks. It also thanked Iran for having the "vision" to help the terror organisation establish new bases in Yemen after al-Qaeda was forced to abandon much of its terrorist infrastructure in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
There has been intense speculation about the level of Iranian support for al-Qaeda since the 9/11 Commission report into al-Qaeda's terror attacks against the U.S. in 2001 concluded that Iran had provided safe passage for many of the 9/11 hijackers travelling between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia prior to the attacks.
Scores of senior al Qaeda activists - including Saad bin Laden - sought sanctuary in Iran following the overthrow of the Taliban, and have remained in Tehran ever since. The activities of Saad bin Laden, 29, have been a source of Western concern despite Tehran's assurances that he is under official confinement.
But Iran was a key transit route for al Qaeda loyalists moving between battlefields in the Middle East and Asia. Western security officials have also concluded Iran's Revolutionary Guards have supported al-Qaeda terror cells, despite religious divisions between Iran's Shia Muslim revolutionaries and the Sunni Muslim terrorists.
Iran is active in Yemen, Osama bin Laden's ancestral homeland. The country has been a focal point for al-Qaeda, which has found relatively easy targets in its lawless environment. "Yemen is now a key strategic base for al-Qaeda's operations, as well as being fertile recruitment territory," said a senior Western security official. "Iran's Revolutionary Guards have provided important support in helping al-Qaeda to turn Yemen into a major centre of operations."
Apart from the terror attacks against the US embassy al-Qaeda has also threatened to attack the British and Saudi Arabian embassies in Yemen.
9773  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 21, 2008, 06:26:19 PM
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/isis/islamic_viewpoints/girls_nightmare_in_muslim_families_forced_marriages_in_europe/

Girls’ Nightmare in Muslim Families: Forced Marriages in Europe

By Azam Kamguian

Every year, many thousands of young girls, living in Muslim inhabited communities in European countries face forced marriages. In Muslim immigrant families, often from the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey, teenage girls are struggling against the pressure of tribal culture and Islamic customs imposed on them by their parents; and forced marriage is often their fate.

A women group against sexual mutilation of women, formed in 1980s in France, estimates that more than 30,000 young girls have been involved in forced marriage since 1990. In Britain, south Asian women groups have records of numerous cases of young girls who have been forced to marry by their parents.

This nightmare started in 1990s, when young girls from Muslim immigrant families in Europe reached their early teenage years and were considered mature and marriageable by their parents. Teenage girls from Turkish immigrant families are especially under intense pressure. According to statistics provided by women groups in France and Britain, in 1990s, 43% of girls from Turkish families, and 36% of girls from South Asian families in Britain, have been involved in forced marriages.

Forced marriage is a taboo, untouchable, and is performed secretly. The secret is revealed when the girl suddenly behaves strangely, gets isolated and is not doing well at school. She often breaks the silence and talks about her painful ordeal with a friend or some teacher at school. In this way, she unveils the bitter reality that is awaiting her. Once the forced marriage becomes known outside the family, the real fight starts. Zahia Hasan, chair of a women association; "Women's Voice" in France, and a victim of forced marriages says: " it is a painful experience, it was a nightmare for me for many years. I was deeply ashamed, I lied about my life and hid my misery"

Girls, who reveal the terrible secret outside family, often clash with their parents and leave home. They even feel ashamed and guilty of revealing the secret and having betrayed their families and relatives. Many young girls under a heavy family and community pressure undergo forced marriage because they don't want to lose their families and relatives. Forced marriage is their inevitable fate, because there is no government or social support network to protect their rights. Forced marriages are practiced in France, Britain, Scandinavian countries and among Turkish community in Germany.

Early marriage is another aspect of forced marriages. Girls, 15 or younger, undergo forced marriages, are considered as part - times wives, continue to live with their parents and go to school, living with their dark and heavy secret.

In most cases, these marriages end to divorce; according to statistics; two out of three. Rape, teenage pregnancy, disrupted education; nervous breakdown, neurological disorders and suicide are all fruits of forced marriages for young girls. But, their families insist that their act is decent and good for the girls. They defend it by referring to Islam and Islamic Law; according to which, a girl cannot marry without the consent of her father, and in the absence of her father, that of her paternal grandfather. These families, not only haven't been affected by advanced and modern culture in Europe, but also are out of tune with the current situation in their countries of origin, where social and cultural norms and values have moved forward. By marrying their young girls in this way, Muslim parents try to block the integration of their daughters into a modern and European life style. As a result, parents deprive their own children of enjoying the civil rights and individual freedom entitled to them. They harm their children physically, emotionally and psychologically.

Under French law, a forced marriage can be annulled if there has been lack of consent. But if the marriage ceremony is a customary one, the French courts cannot act. However, magistrates can intervene before a marriage takes place if an underage girl, who has broken with her family, is in physical danger.

Under the guise of respecting 'others' traditions and Islamic values, the legal system and authorities tend to overlook forced marriages. They say: "there are customs and religion, which are different from those, practiced here. It is not for us to judge these traditions and religion, unless the young girls are in physical danger and there should be proof for that."

Consider a young girl under legal age, undergoing the ordeal of a forced marriage, clashing with her family, without a legal help or a supporting social network, who must provide proof against her own parents in the court, in order to get rid of this nightmare. Isn't it inhumane and shameful? What is respectable in this misery imposed on these innocent young girls? What is respectable in destroying and wasting lives, hopes and dreams of these girls? And of course, both 'Western' and Eastern 'intellectuals', shamelessly, tell us that "to talk of forced marriages is an Euro - centric way of looking at things."

Young girls in Muslim inhabited communities in Europe are victims of tribal and Islamic values and traditions, as well as a racist treatment by government authorities, intellectuals and mainstream media. These girls are born and have grown up in European countries, and should be entitled to all rights and freedom like other European citizens. Forced marriages must be prohibited by law as rape; and mental and emotional damages to teenage girls.

Girls from Muslim families are not the belongings of their families; they should be treated as equal citizens. The governments and the legal system must protect them from the harm caused by their parents. Society is duty bound to help the victims of forced marriages to recover from the emotional, mental and physical damages they suffer.

azam_kamguian@yahoo.com
9774  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 21, 2008, 12:16:46 PM
She took the great English feminist Mary Wollstonecraft as her lodestar, and began to campaign for the state to log the rate of "honour" killings, because nobody was even bothering to count. This led to the centre-right Liberal Party asking her to run to be a member of parliament.[/b]

She accepted, and got one of the highest personal votes in the country. This in turn led her into the path of Theo van Gogh – and to his slaughter. After that, Ayaan was placed under full-time surveillance by security guards and was barely permitted to leave her house.

****

At this point, two Ayaans were born, with clashing and contradictory views on Islam. Sitting here now, I can feel their presence; I can hear them alternate in her mind. I call the first "revolutionary Ayaan", and this Ayaan says about September 11: "This was not just Islam, this was the core of Islam. Mohammed Atta believed he was giving his life for Allah. This is beyond Osama bin Laden, it is based in the basic roots of Islam."

Without pausing, she continues: "You have to ask – is it a fact that the Prophet Mohamed conquered lands using the sword? Is it a fact that Muslims are commanded to commit jihad? Yes it is."

She has no time for what she sees as the ignorant, woolly Islam-is-peace message of Western liberals, insisting: "I see no difference between Islam and Islamism. Islam is defined as submission to the will of Allah, as it is described in the Koran. Islamism is just Islam in its most pure form. Sayyid Qutb didn't invent anything, he just quoted the sayings of Mohamed."


Revolutionary Ayaan believes that the religion cannot be reformed or changed, only defeated. The millions upon millions of Muslims who are not violent – "the wonderful, decent, law-abiding people" – simply do not really follow Islam. They ignore it, or they live uncomfortably with the explosive "cognitive dissonance" of simultaneously supporting human decency and the demands of Islam.

She lists the awkward truths about the Prophet Mohamed. "All Muslims believe in following his example, but many of the things he did are crimes. When he was in his fifties, he had sex with a nine-year-old girl. By our standards, he was a pervert. He ordered the killing of Jews and homosexuals and apostates, and the beating of women." That is why she concludes that "the war on terror is a war on Islam", and "Islam is the new fascism".

But then there is "reformist Ayaan". This Ayaan says the opposite: that internal reform within Islam is both possible and necessary. She insists: "It's wrong to treat Muslims as if they will never find their John Stuart Mill. Christianity and Judaism show that people can be very dogmatic and then open up. There is a minority [within Islam] like [the reformists] Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid who want to remain in the faith and reform it.

"Can you be a Muslim and respect the separation of church and state? I hope a large enough number of Muslims will agree you can, and they will find a way to keep the spiritual elements that comfort them and live in a secular society."

Ayaan's life story is strewn with Muslims who rejected Bin Ladenist fanaticism. Her father, for example, was revolted by the Wahabbism he witnessed in Saudi Arabia, and told her: "This is not Islam – this is Saudis perverting Islam." She hesitates when I ask her about this fracture line in her thinking; I can almost touch the cognitive dissonance.

Then "reformist Ayaan" says: "Well, my father was trying to combine the commandments in the Koran with his conscience. He has reached a level of civilisation because he's living in the 21st century, but he was also trying to follow a religion founded in the seventh century. So on the one hand he thinks you should accept that the content of the Koran is the true word of God, and on the other hand he is a decent person. He tried to move on by saying that we should only convert non-Muslims by example, not by violence, and [by saying] that only the Prophet Mohamed can call for a jihad." But then "revolutionary Ayaan" adds: "That's not what the Koran says. It says you can never change the faith."

Is there is a danger that the language of "revolutionary Ayaan" is undercutting the very people "reformist Ayaan" wants to encourage? Does she worry that by calling all Islam "fascism" she might encourage the hard right, who want to deny women like her the chance even to come to Europe as refugees?

"I do," she says. "But the group of Europeans, white Europeans, who want to stop immigration altogether, and who reject Muslims, today in 2007, is not that large. But they could become larger if European governments continue the policy of accommodating and appeasing fascist demands made by radical Muslims. They need to oppose fascist demands by Muslims, and the fascist demands by far-right white groups. I think that if there is equal treatment on both sides, the traditional populations of Europe will say that it's fair play."

As we discuss this, I realise there is something odd about this conversation. It is all so disconcertingly normal. Ayaan is speaking in a level voice, at a level volume. If you didn't speak English and you saw us talking, you could assume that we were discussing bus timetables, or the weather. It's not that she seems passionless – not at all – but that her personality seems to be coiled up within her, and I am only seeing the carefully considered tip of it. When she describes the people who want to hack her body to pieces, it is in paragraphs that feel prepacked. Perhaps it is all she can bear to show.

And so we continue. She looks at me politely and says that Europe needs to be more confident about standing up to Islamic fundamentalism. "When we come here as immigrants, we know it will be different to where we come from. It's a choice to come, and we can always choose to leave. If we do not want to adopt European values, we should expect to be criticised."

For example, she says, the veil she used to wear is "a political statement, it's not just a religious statement. It says: I'm different from you and I reject what you stand for." She stresses that she doesn't want to ban it, just to see it challenged. "I'm opposed to banning of political expression, but I'm very much a proponent of competing political expression.

"The message of liberals is so much better, so much stronger, that you don't have to resort to banning. You can wear whatever it is that you want, you can give out whatever message that you want to give out – but you have to understand that if that message is rejected, then you can't call people Islamophobic and expect to be taken seriously. If you choose to wear a veil, people might ridicule and oppose you. That's their right, too."

****

She speaks with such eloquent intensity because she is arguing against another, younger version of herself. The Ayaan of 2007 is attacking the Ayaan of 1987 – who is damning her right back. If there is a clash of civilisations, it is happening within her. It's hard to remember, as we sit here, that there are tens of thousands of people who want to prematurely bring this fizzing debate inside Ayaan's head to an end – with a bullet.

She fell in love with Holland because of its tradition of unabashed free speech, but it seems the country's politicians have judged that she took free speech too far for them. Last year, the Dutch government began to reinvestigate the lies in her original asylum claim. Ever since she entered public life she had been totally candid about this: she exaggerated the degree of state persecution she faced because being abused by your family isn't enough to be granted refugee status. Now the government was twitchy about the rows she was stirring up – so they suddenly decided to strip her of her seat in parliament. Amid efforts to revoke her Dutch citizenship as well, she fled to Washington and a job with a conservative think-tank.

Her alignment with the American right doesn't seem like an easy fit. She is a militant defender of atheism, feminism and gay rights – all forces they have demonised for decades. She is an illegal immigrant, their ultimate hate figure. But, as our interview goes on, I realise she has depressingly begun to adopt some of their ideas. She wants to abolish the minimum wage. She no longer calls for the closing of all faith schools, but simply Muslim ones, because "they are the only ones that do not respect the division between secular and divine law".

She has even begun to touch on the American hard right's preposterous predictions that Muslims are "outbreeding" the continent's traditional populations and will impose sharia law "within decades". When I challenge her on this, she says that "experts" say it is true.

Then, this month, the Dutch government went further and stripped away her security protection, saying she should pay for it herself. The US government will not pick up the tab – the only mechanism they have for protecting private citizens full-time is the Witness Protection Program, which isn't appropriate.

"Only 11 members out of the 150 MPs voted to keep my security detail," she says. "So it's an overwhelming decision, and when I saw that I did feel betrayed. It's not only a betrayal of me, it's a betrayal of the idea of free expression.

"I think they believe that supposedly provoking Muslims will only make them more angry and hostile. The four large cities in Holland have now got very large Muslim populations, and that number is increasing – the estimate is that they're about 40 per cent. With that kind of electoral power [they think] it's best not to provoke them." Even if that means sacrificing basic Dutch values? "Yes."

She is revolted by the people who claim that it is she, Ayaan, who has "sold out" Muslims. "Tell me, is freedom only for white people?" she has written. "Is it self-love to adhere to my ancestors' traditions and mutilate my daughters? To agree to be humiliated and powerless? When I came to a new culture, where I saw for the first time that human relations could be different, would it have been self-love to see that as a foreign cult, which Muslims are forbidden to practise?"

So here she is, with the last sliver of protection she can afford standing between her and the people determined to murder her, still speaking, still fighting. Her family have said that they will never speak to her again. She knows she can never return to the country where she was born. Is she frightened? She answers quickly, as if reciting a reassuring script. "I know that is what these terrorists want me to be," she says. "So I try not to be scared." Then she pauses, and looks down. "But sometimes. Yes."

She looks up again. "But I am lucky. There are so many crossroads where my life could have become so much worse. If I had stayed in Kenya with the [jihadist] prayer group, if I had entered into the marriage my father wanted... I could have lived like my mother." She nods with confidence. "How many girls born in Digfeer Hospital in Mogadishu in November 1969 are even alive today? And how many have a real voice?"

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was in London to address the Centre for Social Cohesion
9775  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 21, 2008, 12:15:32 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ayaan-hirsi-ali-my-life-under-a-fatwa-760666.html

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: My life under a fatwa

Born and raised by fundamentalist Muslims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali fled her native Somalia for a new life in the Netherlands. Her talents bought fame as a feminist, writer and MP; her criticisms of Islam made her a target for violent extremists. Johann Hari meets a woman who dared to stand up for her beliefs – and paid the price

Tuesday, 27 November 2007

 
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was stabbed into the world's consciousness three years ago. One wet afternoon in November 2004, her friend Theo van Gogh – a film-maker, and descendant of Vincent – left his house and was about to cycle off through Amsterdam. But a young Dutch-born Muslim called Mohammed Bouyeri was waiting for him – with a handgun and two sharpened butcher's knives.

Wordlessly, he shot Van Gogh twice in the chest. Van Gogh howled: "Can't we talk about this?" Bouyeri ignored his pleas and fired four more times. Then he pulled out a knife and slit Van Gogh's throat with such strength that his head was almost severed from his body. He used the other knife to stab a five-page letter on to Van Gogh's haemorrhaging corpse.

Ayaan explains: "The letter was addressed to me." It said that Van Gogh had been "executed" for making a film with her that exposed the widespread abuse of Muslim women. Now, she would be "executed" too – for being an apostate.

She says that, even now, "every time I close my eyes, I see the murder, and I hear Theo pleading for his life. 'Can't we talk about this?' he asked his killer. It was so Dutch, so sweet and innocent." At the trial, Bouyeri spat at Van Gogh's mother: "I don't feel your pain. I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're a non-believer."

This is the story of how a 25-year-old bogus asylum-seeker from Africa came to Europe in search of freedom – only to be nearly murdered here by a Dutchman, on the streets of Amsterdam, for speaking out against religion. The story opens in the blood-strewn streets of Somalia, and it closes amid the shiny white marble of Washington, DC – yet it also ends where it began: with Ayaan's life in danger. This is the story of the refugee who rocked Islam.

****

Her light, slight figure walks into the room so quietly that I would not have noticed her. But then the bodyguards follow: big, with their eyes darting into every corner in search of the long-awaited assassin, and you realise – yes, she is here. The internet is littered with pledges to torture and slay Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Yet, just a few weeks before we meet in London, the Dutch government has stripped away her security detail. She is paying for her own bodyguards now – and she could soon run out of cash.

So how did this soft-voiced woman come to be so hated – and to be abandoned by the country that gave her sanctuary?

The life of her mother hangs over Ayaan as a morality tale, a warning of what she might have been. "I was determined to never let what happened to my mother happen to me," she says, looking away. "I think that has made me the way I am."

By the time her mother gave birth to Ayaan in a hospital on the outskirts of Mogadishu in 1967, she was a broken woman. Like all Somalian women, she had been pressured all her life to suppress her personality, to sublimate everything to men and to God – to become what Ayaan calls "a devoted, well-trained work-animal".

In her youth, her mother had moments when she fought back, briefly and bravely. She insisted on leaving her family. They were desert nomads, in effect living in the Iron Age, with no writing, few metal objects, and a belief that Allah's angels and demons were constantly tinkering with reality. At 15, she walked out of their desert to the city of Aden.

But when her father called her back to be married to a man she had never met, she submitted. There was another flickering moment of freedom: exceptionally for that time and place, she later insisted on a divorce, and got one.

But this was all gone when Ayaan was born. The woman striving for independence had soon remarried, and crashed into the sheer weight of cultural expectation. She had been persuaded that "God is just and all-knowing and will reward you in the hereafter for being subservient". Her personality became deformed by it.

"She remained completely dependent," Ayaan says. "She nursed grievances; she was resentful; she was often violent, and she was always depressed." She would take it out on Ayaan, tying her arms behind her back and lashing her with wire for the slightest misdemeanour.

When Ayaan first menstruated, her mother screamed at her: "Filthy prostitute! May you be barren! May you get cancer!" Ayaan tried to commit suicide not long after. But now she says she knows that "all the abuse wasn't really directed at me, but at the world, which had taken her rightful life away."

When her second husband left her, Ayaan's mother was too infantilised to react. "It never occurred to her to go out and create a new life for herself, even though she can't have been older than 35 or 40 when my father left," Ayaan has written.

She remembers waking up every night as a small girl to hear her mother wailing. Once, she went into her mother's bedroom and placed a hand on her cheek; her mother screamed and beat her. After that, Ayaan would simply crouch at the door, listening to the wails, wishing she knew what to do.

Somali culture began to demand that Ayaan too become a submissive woman who scrubbed away her own personality and sexuality. When she was five years old, she was made "pure" by having her genitals hacked out with a knife. It was a simple process; her grandmother and two of her friends pinned her down, pulled her legs apart, and knifed away her clitoris and labia. She remembers the sound even now – "like a butcher, snipping the fat off a piece of meat". The bleeding wound was sewn up, leaving a thick tissue of scars to form as her fleshy chastity belt. She could not walk for two weeks.

Ayaan soon realised that, in a culture so patriarchal that it could not tolerate the existence of an unmaimed vagina, "I could never become an adult. I would always be a minor, my decisions made for me. But I wanted to become an individual, with a life of my own."

By reading novels, she heard whispers of a world where this was possible. For her, even poring over Enid Blyton and Barbara Cartland seemed transgressive, because they depicted a world where boys and girls played together on the basis of equality, and where women chose their husbands rather than having them forced on them by their fathers. Imagine a world so patriarchal that Barbara Cartland seems like a gender revolutionary.

Yet, on the road to this self-determining life, Ayaan turned first to its polar opposite: the very Islamic fundamentalism that now wants to kill her. Ayaan was taught from infancy to revere the Prophet Mohamed and the Koran, and she believed it all. She desperately wanted to please Mohamed, and his path seemed to her the only one.

So, once her family had moved to Kenya, a country where few people wore the headscarf, she chose to don one. She has written: "It had a thrill to it, a sensuous feeling. It made me feel powerful: underneath this screen lay a previously unsuspected, but potentially lethal, femininity. It sent out a message of superiority: I was the one true Muslim."

She began to go to a prayer group where the texts of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna – the intellectual inspirations for al-Qa'ida – were pored over. When the Ayatollah Khomeini declared that Salman Rushdie should be murdered for what a maniac says in one of his novels, Ayaan wanted him dead. "I supported it," she says now, "and the logic of my position is that I would have become a martyr myself, or supported the people [who did become martyrs]."

What would that girl, who took to the streets to call for Rushdie's death, say if she could see you now? Would she think you should be killed too? For the first time in our interview, Ayaan pauses. A long pause. "What would that girl of 1989 think of this girl?" she repeats. "I think... well... people change." Another pause. "She would at least approve of it. That's why I try to explain – there is a reason why so many Muslims are silent when, in the name of Islam, violence is committed. It's because we believe that jihad is the sixth obligation. Those, then, who are brave enough to commit acts of jihad must deserve our commendation."

Then, one day, as she slid into jihadism, her absent father reappeared and announced that he had found her a good husband. Ayaan thought the potential life-partner stupid and ugly – but she had no choice. He was from the right clan, he had the right fundamentalist beliefs, and he wanted her. She knew what was expected: "A Muslim girl does not make her own decisions or seek control."

****

But she could not – would not – do it. She ran. She ran all the way to the Netherlands, on a plane, to claim asylum. She was terrified when she landed in the heartland of The Infidel. She expected to find depravity on every corner. But she was amazed. Here was a peaceful land that seemed like Paradise.

"In the Netherlands, I saw people we called infidels living an amazing life – men and women mixing, gay people being free, you could say whatever you wanted," she says. "Then I went back to the asylum-seekers' centre and almost everyone was from a Muslim country begging for the charity of these infidels. And I thought, 'If we're so superior, why are we begging from them?'"

She experimented in stepping out on to the streets without her hijab, expecting she would be harassed and raped by the sex-crazed infidel. Nobody looked twice. She began to test other democratic freedoms. She drank alcohol, she found a boyfriend – and she headed for the library to discover the principles that had created this place. She began to pore over the works of Enlightenment philosophy.

"Sometimes, it seemed as if every page I read challenged me as a Muslim. Drinking wine and wearing trousers was nothing compared to reading the history of ideas," she says. "The Enlightenment cut European culture from its roots in old fixed ideas of magic, kingship, social hierarchy and the domination of priests, and regrafted it on to a great strong trunk that supported the equality of each individual and his right to free opinions and self-rule." She found that all this was a profound challenge to the severe Islam she had been pickled in since childhood.

She began to study for a political science degree and was slowly rethinking her faith when, one bright morning in September 2001, the island of Manhattan became swathed in smoke. The chief hijacker, Mohammed Atta, was exactly the same age as Ayaan. She feels like she knows him, and that if her life had taken a different turn – if she had stayed in Kenya, with the jihadis – "perhaps I could have done it." And she says something very revealing: "I realised I could either go mad, join the Bin Ladenists, or step out of the religion."

This fanatical form of Islam was, she realised, around her in the Netherlands. On the night of September 11, a small group of Muslim men took to the streets to celebrate the massacre. The country's domestic violence shelters were disproportionately crammed with Muslim women fleeing male terror. Forced marriages and "honour killings" continued at a startling rate in Dutch cities. But she found that many otherwise good people were reluctant to speak out against this abuse of women and gay people within immigrant communities.

The Netherlands had a policy called "emancipation within your own circle", and Ayaan saw this as a betrayal. Multiculturalism, she believed, was "elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred towards women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life. I wanted Muslim women to be aware of just how bad, and unacceptable, their suffering was. I wanted to help them develop the vocabulary of resistance."

9776  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 21, 2008, 11:55:43 AM
**Just footnoting islam=submission**

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/_other/main.htm

ISLAM means submission, that is, submission to the will of God, the characteristic attitude of members of our faith. MUSLIM (also spelled Moslem) is based on the same Arabic root as Islam (s-l-m) and means one who submits to God, that is, a believer in Islam.
9777  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: November 21, 2008, 11:48:04 AM
So, now the question is: Will Obama retain some or all of Bush's policies in protecting the nation, or will he "take the high road" and risk mass casualties on his watch?
9778  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The First Amendment on: November 21, 2008, 11:45:44 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/21/obamas-ag-choice-regulate-internet-communication/

Our new AG appointee: Not a big fan of the first or second amendments.
9779  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 21, 2008, 11:22:02 AM
**Note that the Guardian is very left in it's orientation.**


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/19/religion-islam

Dangerous liaisons
Is there really any place for polygamy in English law, as a leading Muslim figure recently argued?
 
Rosa Freedman
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday November 19 2008 14.30 GMT

The bodies of the Knights Templar were surely spinning under their effigies last night, as someone they would have regarded as an infidel delivered a lecture within the walls of Temple Church entitled "Family Law, Minorities and legal Pluralism: Should English Law give more Recognition to Islamic Law?".

The lecture focused on Islamic marriages and divorces in this country, with Sheikh Faiz ul-Aqtab Siddiqi (of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal) speaking candidly on many areas. One such topic was that of polygamy, and the refusal of English law to recognise such relationships. Siddiqi boldly stated:

In a jurisdiction where rights are afforded to a mistress, or many mistresses, and where there are same-sex marriages … polygamous marriages should not be such an alien concept.

Siddiqi is a practising barrister, and has been involved with the process of reforming English law to accommodate Muslim cultural practices, especially within the area of family law. As a religious leader, he is at the conservative end of the spectrum. However, he is a well-respected member of a number of unifying Muslim organisations and is at the forefront of attempts to find common ground between sharia law and English law.

Later, after a question from the floor, he clarified his position as being one of confusion as to why relationships such as extra-marital affairs should be recognised under English law, and furthermore how men could be permitted to marry other men, and women other women. He argued that if such relationships were not considered abhorrent, then current attitudes towards polygamy could not, and should not, be justified.

The main problem with using this argument in favour of recognition of polygamous marriages both inside and outside this country is that of proof as to whether these marriages have been entered into willingly and freely by the women involved. No one forces a person to have an extra-marital affair, or to enter into a civil partnership, but there is widespread evidence of the forcing of women into polygamous relationships in many religions and in many parts of the world. To compare consensual relationships with forced ones, whether physical or emotional coercion is used, is completely misguided.

Siddiqi said that polygamous marriages derived from the need to protect women from destitution, or from being "business for ... pimps". He alleged that prior to polygamous marriages female children were buried alive because they were seen as a burden to their parents. He spoke of the widows and divorcees left to starve; impoverished and abandoned. The Prophet Mohammad was said to have allowed polygamous marriages in order to give kind and benevolent men the opportunity to save these poor wretches.

He expressed the view that women are no longer in such a position today, glossing over – or, perhaps, forgetting – about women in places like the Indian subcontinent who are still viewed as being inferior to their male counterparts, with some female children still suffering terrible fates. He spoke of the opportunities and choices that women now have, which is true in the western world, but less so in predominantly Muslim countries where some women are denied education and other basic rights.

The crux of this argument was that polygamous marriages should be permitted in a country where sensitivity is professed for people's rights to individual and cultural needs. He asserted that these marriages would be relatively few in number, due to the advances made by women in society negating the need to "save" them from destitution, and that any entered into would be through the free choice of the woman. This line of reasoning contradicted his earlier remarks about the subjugation of women through their lack of knowledge of their legal rights in England, and the dire consequences for such women upon divorce. Similarly, warning bells rang when he spoke of the need to deal with domestic violence through arbitration tribunals due to women's fear of approaching the police as it would lead to marital breakdown. The idea of encouraging a woman to remain in a violent relationship, and for an arbitration tribunal to "deal" with the situation through encouraging the man to change his behaviour, suggests that we can't be confident polygamous marriages would be freely entered into by Muslim women.

The final position Siddiqi put forward by the for the acceptance of polygamous marriages under English law was that of the time-honoured herd mentality. He pointed to the 1.5billion Muslims living across the world, and asked the audience whether so many people could be deemed "stupid" or "wrong" for believing that polygamy is acceptable. The ability of leaders to influence large numbers of people's thoughts and actions does not necessarily mean that the underlying principles are correct. Far be it for me to equate religion with brainwashing, but we all know the answer when such logic is applied to groups such as the Unification Church, or to people living under regimes such as Stalin's Russia.
9780  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 21, 2008, 10:57:46 AM
**Celebrate diversity!**

'Family turned a blind eye' as teenage bride was beaten to death by arranged husband

by CHRIS BROOKE
Last updated at 13:06 08 January 2008

A teenage bride was beaten to death by her husband while her in-laws who shared the same house ignored her sickening ordeal, a court heard yesterday.

Sabia Rani, 19, was repeatedly attacked over a three-week period, suffering bruising over 90% of her body and 'catastrophic' injuries usually only seen in car crash victims.

The 'vulnerable' teenager, who had arrived five months earlier from Pakistan for the arranged marriage, required emergency treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, the jury at Leeds Crown Court heard.

Beaten to death: Sabia Rani was repeatedly attacked over a three-week period by Shazad Khan (right)

But not only did four members of her husband's family do nothing to help her, they turned a blind eye as he continued the beatings and ultimately murdered the helpless young woman at the house they all shared, it was alleged.

The victim's mother-in-law and a sister-in-law blamed her horrfic injuries, which included at least 15 fractures on 10 fractured ribs, on 'evil spirits, curses and black magic.' While two of the family allegedly lied under oath while giving evidence in husband Shazad Khan's murder trial in a deliberate attempt to help him cheat justice, the court heard.

Khan, 25, of Oakwood Grange, Leeds, was convicted of murdering his wife at Leeds Crown Court last January. After the trial police launched an investigation into the role of other family members sharing the house.

Detectives arrested and charged the victim's mother-in-law Phullan Bibi, 52, sisters-in-law Nazia Naureen, 28, sister-in-law Uzma Khan, 23, and her husband Majid Hussain, 28. All four denied a charge of allowing the death of a vulnerable adult. Khan and Hussain also denied a charge of perjury.

Summarising the prosecution case Simon Myerson, QC, said of the defendants: 'They did nothing. She was in severe pain, but not one of them did anything about it.'

Sabia grew up in the Pakistani region of Kashmir and arrived in the UK in December 2005 to marry her cousin Shazad Khan and live with his family in Leeds. Although they 'signed a marriage certificate' in Pakistan three years earlier, they were not formally married until a ceremony on 15 January 2006.

The teenage bride didn't speak English, knew no one else apart from her husband's family and never went out alone, the court heard.

Paramedics were called to the family home at 11.28 am on Sunday 21 May 2006 to find Sabia's fully-clothed and dead body in an upstairs bathroom. They claimed Sabia had been found dead in the bath, but the court heard she was 'probably killed in the garage' and her body taken upstairs.

Mr Myerson said Khan had inflicted a number of brutal attacks during the last three weeks of Sabia's life. The final attack which killed her was 'prolonged and vicious,' the court heard. Her agonising rib fractures were caused by 'kicks, stamps or very hard punches.'

The court heard Sabia would have been in terrible pain and her injuries 'couldn't have been hidden by simple stoicism.' She was given paracetemol, but needed powerful medication and hospital care.

However, the defendants claimed they saw no injuries on her body and didn't realise she was in pain.

Mr Myerson said this explanation was a lie and because they shared the same home and regularly spent time with Sabia they must have realised the ordeal she was enduring alone.

He said: 'There must have come a time when each defendant knew Sabia Rani was ill and in pain. They must have known or suspected Shazad Khan was the cause of her illness and pain and must have known it was unlawful.'

He added:'This family disliked Shabia from almost the beginning. That dislkike grew until it turned into violence by Shazad Khan.'

Bibi, the mother-in-law, was said to shout at Sabia continously over 'petty things' and the teenager would 'tip toe around the house trying not to upset her.'

The court heard Khan said she was told by a 'holy man' who examined an item of the victim's clothing that she had been 'possessed by evil spirits.' But Mr Myerson said:'This is not a question of faith, this is a question of evidence.'

He said there have been no scientifically verified cases in which 'evil spirits have beaten a girl to death.' 'The evil spirit who beat Sabia Rani was Shazad Khan and Uzma Khan knew that perfectly well.'

The case continues.


Find this story at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506686/Family-turned-blind-eye-teenage-bride-beaten-death-arranged-husband.html
9781  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 21, 2008, 10:46:17 AM
Pulling up the chair and the popcorn , , ,

Over to you JDN  grin


More likely you are paraphrasing Caesar before the battle! 
And like good centurions, are we to say, "we who are about to die salute you!"    grin

I repeat myself, before the Courts of England a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew are equal.  Again, I quote, Jack Straw, "regardless of religious belief we are all equal before the law.".

Sharia "court" is only a VOLUNTARY court of arbitration.  For example in America, many matters are settled through arbitration and/or outside the US Court system.  It's voluntary; both parties
approve of the arbitrator.  And both parties are or should be aware of any biases of the arbitrator.  Sharia court is separate but equal just like the Church of England and other arbitrator's are separate
but equal.  In all instances, English Law and in American Law participation in arbitration is VOLUNTARY on the part of the participants.   Benefits exist; i.e. speed, cost, and time among them.  Nearly anyone can be the arbitrator.  However, both parties must mutually choose the arbitrator; if you don't like sharia arbitration court, or any other arbitration court, don't participate; it's very simple.

**It might be simple for you or me, not so much for non-english speaking women imported from other islamic garden spots, who are kept locked away and abused, as allah intended.**

As for "protection of muslim women if they chose not to go to voluntary shiria court"  they have the same protection that you and I have if we are threatened.  Again, as justice minister Straw said, "we are all equal before the law.".

**Ah yes, "seperate but equal" again. Nothing uncomfortable about that concept for you?**

If someone threatens me, I call the police.  If someone harasses me, I call the police.  etc.  Muslim women have no more, but no less protection than any other citizen of England.  They are equal.

Islam may or may not be about "forcing submission"; I don't know. 

**Islam most closely translates to submission, as in "submission to the will of allah". Submission and slavery are some of the most common themes in islamic theology.**

But I do know that if a women was physically "forced to submit to sharia" in England the perpetrator upon the victim filing charges would probably be arrested; at minimum I presume a restraining order could be obtained.  That is the same protection any other woman has in England; again, no more no less.

As for "stealth jihad" that sounds like the ninja animation movie I watched last time I was in Japan.  Flying in the air, doing triple flips and killing 100 to one; he too looked pretty ominous, but after I finished my popcorn, we all got up and left for the bar to have a few beers and a few laughs. It was good good story.

**Did you see the movie where 19 jihadis killed about 3000 people in about two hours? There has actually been several movies made about that one. Did you have beers and laughs after watching one of those?**

So Crafty, do you have any popcorn left, or hopefully do you suggest we move on?   smiley

I mean you have have already watched this same movie in Sharia 101 if I recollect.  Reruns are usually pretty boring.   grin


**You are so quick to accuse someone of being a racist without evidence, and yet you are such a fan of policies that result in the oppression, suffering and deaths of the minorities that you allegedly are so concerned about. Who is the racist?**
 
9782  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War? on: November 21, 2008, 09:23:12 AM
http://voanews.com/english/2008-11-19-voa1.cfm

New Report Calls Nuclear Terrorism Serious Risk
By Meredith Buel
Washington
19 November 2008
 

A new report says the world still faces a serious risk that terrorists could obtain a nuclear bomb and urges President-elect Barack Obama to make reducing that risk a top priority of U.S. security policy and diplomacy. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details from Washington.


The new report, called "Securing the Bomb 2008," says major progress has been made to reduce the danger of nuclear terrorism.

The report warns, however, there are still major gaps in these efforts and says the risk of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon remains unacceptably high.

The author of the report, Harvard professor Matthew Bunn, says the potential for a disastrous attack is very real.

"That would incinerate the heart of a major city," he said. "It could turn the center of Washington, D.C. or the center of Manhattan into a smoking, radioactive ruin that would be unusable for decades to come. That would have profound and catastrophic affects on our society, really reverberating around the world."

The study is the seventh annual report from Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and was commissioned by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonproliferation group based in Washington, D.C. 

The report details a series of events around the world in recent years it says highlights the risk of poor security at nuclear installations.

These include an armed break-in at a South African site with hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the arrest of a Russian colonel for soliciting bribes to overlook violations of nuclear security rules and the increasing terrorist threats amid the ongoing strife in Pakistan.

The report says the materials for a nuclear bomb exist in hundreds of buildings in dozens of countries.

Professor Bunn says there are currently about 130 research reactors around the world that still use highly enriched uranium for fuel.

"I think they are a quite serious concern because many of these facilities have very minimal security measures," he said. "Some of them are on university campuses and other locations where it is really not plausible that you would ever have the kind of security that in my view is required when you are talking about potential nuclear bomb material."

The report says there has been progress in the former Soviet Union in recent years. It says U.S.-sponsored security upgrades have been completed for 75 percent of the buildings that contain weapons-grade material and for about 65 percent of Russia's nuclear warhead sites. 

The study says major issues remain, however, ranging from insider theft and corruption to chronic underinvestment in nuclear security.

The report also recommends expanding efforts to secure nuclear materials in China, India, Pakistan and South Africa.

The study contains an agenda for the next U.S. president to prevent nuclear terrorism and Professor Bunn says President-elect Barack Obama needs to accelerate efforts to combat the threat.

"They really need a comprehensive strategy to prevent nuclear terrorism, starting with locking down nuclear stockpiles all over the world, making sure that every nuclear weapon, every kilogram of plutonium or highly enriched uranium, wherever it may be, is secure and accounted for," he said.

Professor Bunn says the Obama administration should appoint a senior White House official, with direct access to the President, to supervise all efforts focused on preventing nuclear terrorism. 
9783  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender issues thread on: November 20, 2008, 03:52:04 PM
Quote
Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.

That is hands down one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life.

Sounds like someone is wound a little tight and in need of a good...uhm...backrub.  wink

I can't imagine living in a society where seeing eye make-up would make you go plain bonkers. Wow...

Having waded through a ton of islamic religious writing, I can tell you that the islamic world is the most fcuked up culture on the topic of sex, ever. IMHO, Muhammad had some serious psych issues, and as his thoughts are now islamic holy writ, they have become a meta-pathology.
9784  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 20, 2008, 03:45:44 PM
**Sharia is to equal protection under the law, what islam is to free speech.**

LONDON — The woman in black wanted an Islamic divorce. She told the religious judge that her husband hit her, cursed her and wanted her dead.
Suhaib Hasan spoke with a woman who was trying to divorce her husband in London. But her husband was opposed, and the Islamic scholar adjudicating the case seemed determined to keep the couple together. So, sensing defeat, she brought our her secret weapon: her father.
In walked a bearded man in long robes who described his son-in-law as a hot-tempered man who had duped his daughter, evaded the police and humiliated his family.
The judge promptly reversed himself and recommended divorce.
**What if this woman had no male relative to offer witness on her behalf? Remember that under sharia, a muslim woman's testimony is only half that of a muslim male's.**

We have had this discussion before.  I am not questioning or discussing the merits or unfairness of "islamic law"; only the law in England.
This post was in "Islam in Europe". 

Before the Courts of England a Muslim, Christian, or Jew are equal.

**Not in sharia court. And yet, in the UK's attempts to appease by giving the pre-existing sharia  courts legal standing, they feed the destructive force they wish to restrain. Has "seperate, but equal" ever been anything but a mask for oppression? Do the neo-nazis get their own civil courts as well? If not, why not?**

“There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Shariah principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law,” the justice minister, Jack Straw, said last month. But he added that British law would “always remain supreme,” and that “regardless of religious belief, we are all equal before the law.”

However, IF BOTH parties agree to arbitration and IF BOTH agree to be heard in an Islamic Court, my point was/is "what's the problem"?  And my answer is there is no problem.  It is fair.  People choose
voluntary arbitration for many practical and different reasons, but the key word is "voluntary". 

**What mechanism is there to ensure that muslim women, in the growing islamic enclaves in europe, would be protected if they chose not to go to "voluntary" sharia court. You ignore the religious, cultural and potentially physical coersion that they face.**


If you don't like it, don't do arbitration and you will then not be subject to Islamic Law; only English Law.  But if you voluntarily agree to arbitration, and there truly are benefits, and then don't like the decision, why am I to feel sorry for you?  I don't - you knew the possible risk and benefits of arbitration before you agreed.  The same is true of arbitration here in America.

Voluntary arbitration has existed for a long time in England and does here as well.  And it may well be religious based.  As Crafty's NY Times article pointed out, the Church of England as does the Jewish faith offer arbitration.  “People often come to us for reasons of speed, cost and secrecy,” said David Frei, registrar of the London Beth Din. “There’s nothing to prevent Muslims from doing the same thing.”

In your example, the woman sandbagged her husband.  She, as does everyone who participates, voluntarily agreed to Islamic Arbitration.  Her husband thought he had the upper hand, and then walked in her father.  Great strategic courtroom tactics; she won a quick and decisive victory for herself; clever girl.  And if she did not have a male relative, well then she should pass on arbitration and take her chances in English court.  It's all strategy, but fair for everyone.  Don't blame Islamic Law; they are only offering a voluntary service for members of their faith.

**Islam, from the time of it's invention has never been about free choice, only forcing submission. Many, if not all of these women are being forced to submit to sharia. This step toward imposing sharia is but the first step in the "stealth jihad". Those that support it have the same goals as al qaeda, the difference is they way they work towards those goals.**









9785  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: November 20, 2008, 03:17:50 PM
Very well said, SB.

I'll admit the last time I was in a classroom (aside from law enforcement training) was in the 90's. However, when I was there, I had firsthand exposure to the holy trinity of "race, class and gender" theory, postmodernism and indoctrination. I also have a personal historical connection to a "name" school because of a gf that was working on her postgraduate degrees at that school when we were together.

Do you question that the left dominates academia and is far from balanced in it's presentation of ideas? What of "speech codes" and other such Orwellian thought-policing?
9786  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Why we fight on: November 20, 2008, 09:49:42 AM
http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/nefazawahiri1108.pdf

So, Obama got elected and peace didn't suddenly appear? Shocking!  rolleyes

Next thing you'll tell me is Iran has enough enriched fuel for a nuke.....
9787  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: November 20, 2008, 09:35:42 AM
**Attention SB Mig, this is what I was talking about when referring to leftist indoctrination centers**

How the Academic Left Elected Obama   
By Dr. Paul Kengor
American Thinker | Thursday, November 20, 2008

Of all the reasons why America voted the way it did on November 4, one factor stands out: young people and first-time voters turned out and voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.

MSNBC's exit polling, which is consistent with other exit polling, showed that voters aged 18-29, who made up nearly one in five voters -- or about 25 million ballots -- went for Obama by more than two to one: 66 to 32 percent. Those voters alone well exceeded Obama's overall popular vote advantage, which was roughly eight million. Likewise, 11 percent of voters were first-time voters, and they went for Obama at an even higher rate: 69 to 30 percent. Single (unmarried) voters, which constituted one in three voters, went for Obama 65 to 33 percent.

While these categories are not monolithic, and overlap, they capture the current generation of college students, who clearly went bonkers for Barack Obama. Why? What are they learning -- and not learning?

These youth live and learn on college campuses where "diversity" and "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" -- bogus buzzwords that apply only to ethnic, gender, and sexual diversity, not genuine diversity of ideas -- reign supreme. Racial diversity is at the crux of this academic trinity, the source and summit of the faith. It is the molten, golden calf, where much of the intelligentsia and their disciples gather to worship. Political correctness has supplanted traditional religion.

Thus, when the university community was presented with Barack Obama, a charismatic, impressive, seemingly excellent Democratic presidential candidate -- who happened to be African-American -- the reaction was nearly reverential, bordering on idolatry. The good senator's bracing radical associations -- enough to deny any other American a security clearance -- and which were not coincidental to a man ranked the most leftist member of the most leftist Senate in U.S. history, didn't matter to the academic world. Quite the contrary, those who dared to point out these associations -- FoxNews, talk-radio, the McCain-Palin ticket -- were deemed loathsome Neanderthals deserving of being burned in effigy from the nearest dorm.

That brings me to another factor in this milieu: McCain-Palin. Neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin resonated with this gang. Given the prevailing orthodoxy in the academic asylum, John McCain's moving personal narrative of military valor had little impact on the college crowd. That McCain was tortured by communists for six years didn't matter much to these people -- the same individuals who endeavor to boot ROTC from their campuses. And as for Sarah Palin, she represented the worst of pariahs at the faculty club: an evangelical so consistently, comically pro-life that she chose to do what 90 percent of women don't do when they're informed of a prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome child -- she delivered the baby. The feminine Palin is seen as an ideological ogre -- an eagerly acceptable target for a torrent of bigotry by the open-minded professoriate and its acolytes.

This is the atmosphere in which these young people are being educated. That's what they're learning. Equally crucial to this election, however, is what college students are not learning:

As I noted earlier,  Americans don't care about Barack Obama's radical past, including his links to the likes of Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, and Saul Alinsky, because of the failure of our educational system to teach the lessons of the Cold War and horrors of communism. This is especially true of higher education, where the leftist worldview is so extreme and so upside down that America's professors share a hearty contempt not for communism but for anti-communism.

Think about this: The current generation of college students was born after the fall of the Berlin Wall. These modern products of elite education are not Reagan babies. They were not inspired by the Westminster Address of June 1982, by the Evil Empire speech of March 1983, by Reagan meeting with Pope John Paul II to topple communism in Eastern Europe throughout the 1980s, or by Reagan in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 1987, demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev tear down that cement tombstone to human freedom. No, today's freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, who voted for the first time on November 4, 2008, were born after these historic events. They've received their education on communism from their professors, which means they've received either no education at all on the unparalleled slaughter formally known as Marxism-Leninism, or, to the contrary, they've heard only dark, dire lectures about the malevolence of anti-communism -- of McCarthyism.

A deliciously fitting -- albeit depressing -- symbol of this came at the very moment that Obama's coronation was announced by the networks. A FoxNews camera-crew was outside the White House, where a contingent of hysterical students from George Washington University hopped up and down in sheer ecstasy. This was a most appropriate image, in light of the fact that it was such voters who delivered the presidency to Obama. I was struck, however, by the conspicuous presence of a beaming student wearing a red t-shirt with a giant Soviet hammer and sickle. No doubt, the young revolutionary was thrilling at the spectacle, awe-struck amid this sea of what his mentor, Vladimir Lenin, considered "useful idiots" -- i.e., naïve liberals incapable of realizing when they are supporting the communists' intentions.

Ironically, the dupes of, say, the 1950s, would have recognized the young Bolshevik for who he was, but I seriously doubt that the typical student in that crowd had any idea of the true loyalties of their comrade, or sensed that they were celebrating arm-in-arm with a Marxist: Hammer-and-sickle? What's that?

What's more, I would bet $100 that if some disgruntled conservative within the throng yelled out, "Hey, that guy is a communist!" one of the well-trained university brethren would have quickly denounced the conservative -- the anti-communist -- as the real villain in the mix. They have been carefully trained to view Joe McCarthy as more insidious than Joe Stalin.

This is an abbreviated way of explaining why Barack Obama's communist connections didn't matter in this election, and how the Ivory Tower paved the road to victory. We won the Cold War but seem to have lost the long-term, crucial ideological struggle at home. We lost not on the battlefield but in the classroom. On November 4, it finally came back to bite us, and at a time (economically and politically) that couldn't be worse.

Finally, I should add that I've received emails in the last couple of weeks from distraught conservative parents saddened to learn that their college-student children voted for Obama. They shouldn't be surprised; sadly, these parents have unwittingly paid for precisely this. In the vast majority of the nation's colleges, this is what their children are learning at a cost of the parents' lifetime savings. I'm reminded of the statement from the late atheist philosopher Richard Rorty, who said that the job of professors like him was "to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own" and "escape the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents."

This has been the personal mission of many professors for decades now -- in flagrant violation of the scandalously fraudulent mission statements of the colleges where they teach. They've been enormously successful. The left's gradual takeover of academia is complete -- the Long March a stunning success. Behold: the presidency of the United States of America.

The fruits of the left's dogged work were on display on November 4, 2008. And now, alas, to paraphrase the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, America's chickens have come home to roost.

Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004), professor of political science, and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).
9788  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education on: November 20, 2008, 09:24:50 AM
Charter schools are a start in the right direction.
9789  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: November 20, 2008, 09:05:53 AM
Sounds good to me.
9790  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 19, 2008, 04:19:47 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/19/german-outreach-to-muslims-backfires/

German outreach to Muslims backfires
posted at 3:17 pm on November 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey   


An attempt by German Academia to provide outreach to moderate Muslims may have significantly backfired, with its leading light becoming an apostate.  Muhammed Sven Kalish has written a paper asserting that the prophet Mohammed never existed at all, and that Islam started as a Christian heresy.  Needless to say, the same people who threatened death on editorial cartoonists merely for depicting Mohammed are not pleased:

Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany’s first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn’t like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.

So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.

Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn’t portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.

“We had no idea he would have ideas like this,” says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. “I’m a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I’m not a Muslim.”

Of course, Christians and Jews have dealt with critical research for many years on the historical accuracy of their scriptures.  Claims that Jesus, Moses, and David didn’t exist have been made, debunked, and made yet again so often that they no longer make news any more.  Christians and Jews express annoyance at times with these claims, but they don’t react to them with violence and rage.

Neither should Muslims, Kalisch says, and the reluctance to even offer such a hypothetical amounts to bigotry:

Most Western scientists turn down such an hypotheses out of respect for Islam or because they are afraid of the reactions of their Muslim friends or because they think it is speculative nonsense.

The word “respect” sounds wonderful but it is completely inappropriate here because one really refers to the opposite. Whoever thinks that Muslims can’t deal with facts puts Muslims on the same level as small children who can’t think and decide for themselves and whose illusions of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny one doesn’t want to destroy.

Whoever really bases his thoughts on the equality of all human beings must expect the same intellectual performance. Really treating Muslims with respect would imply that they are strong enough to deal with their religion on the basis of our modern level of knowledge. “Islamophobes” think we Muslims are barbarians, the “kind-hearted” take us for “noble savages”… The result is the same: Muslims are seen as different from the rest of the world — they either belong in a “petting zoo” or in cages for wild animals, but by all means they belong in a zoo.


I agree with Kalisch’s response, but I think he misplaces the blame.  Western intellectuals have this reaction because of the massive rage that comes not just from a few nutcases but millions of Muslims when the Koran or the Hadiths receive any sort of critical scrutiny at all.  The Prophet Cartoon outrage was particularly instructive, as the resultant demonstrations had millions of participants worldwide calling for death to the editorial cartoonists — and they just drew pictures of Mohammed.  It’s that predictable rage that makes Western academics place Muslims in general in the category of ill-tempered children.

However, I’d take his hypothesis with a large, Lot’s wife-sized grain of salt.  Modern academics show little respect to the value of oral traditions in these revisionist theories.  It’s certainly possible that Mohammed never existed, but it strikes me as extremely unlikely.  Just because his story didn’t get written in a traditional paper medium during his life doesn’t make him a fable.  It could certainly impact the veracity of his quotes and the stories told in the Koran, but his existence?  Especially given the disputes over his succession that broke out after his death — all of which have fairly clear records and resulted in the Sunni-Shi’ite split within a generation or two — I’d call Kalisch’s theory a long shot.

Nevertheless, it’s precisely this kind of critical thinking that Islam requires to bring it into modernity and toleration.  Unfortunately, it’s also this kind of critical thinking that provokes the most reactionary behavior, which them shuts down critical thinking.  This will be a long process indeed, one I’m certain Germany’s academics had no intention of starting with such a controversial launch.
9791  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 19, 2008, 04:15:35 PM
Funny enough  huh = Arabic script

9792  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 19, 2008, 01:40:04 PM
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/general/deeming-shariah-islamic-law-as-incompetent-2.html

Deeming Shariah (islamic law) as incompetent       
 
Introduction:
As we know that He is our Creator and the reason behind our existence is submission to Him and to His Laws whether we understand the wisdom behind each and every single one of them or not. Our role is not to question Allah as He says in Quran;
"He can not be questioned as to what He does, but they will be questioned" [1]
 Rather we say
"we hear and obey" [2]
We do not question the legitimacy of His Laws as they are built upon His vast Wisdom and our comprehension is limited to His Will as He says in Quran;
"And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills" [3]
Rather His Laws are perfect and are there for us as a test to see who will obey the message and who will turn back on their heels as Allah says in Quran;
"And we made the Qiblah which you used to face, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels" [4]
This is clearly illustrated in the story of satan and Adam. The reason why satan refused to prostate was because he used logic/analogy over submission. This is what has prevailed in this era. People have forgotten the submission and are heading towards logic and analogies as to claim that they know better than their Creator.
Those who deem Law of Allah as incompetent should read the conversation between Allah and His Angels when He disclosed to them the creation of Adam.
"And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) generations after generations on earth". They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, - while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You."
Look at the questions raised by the most noblest of creations. Those who are pure by essence and never disobey His commands. Even they were not able to comprehend the Wisdom of Allah behind creating humans whom are bound to shed blood, cause corruption, while they are there already praising Allah, sanctifying Him, glorifying Him. How would we, those who are drench in sins, away from Islam and its teaching - how could we ever comprehend His Wisdom? But look at the response of Allah!
"He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know" [5]
Questions & Answers

Q1)  what is the Islamic ruling on statements stating the shariah law as barbaric and what is the ruling on saying Hudood are incompatible wit contemporary life?
As a Muslim we should know that our religion is perfect without any imperfection as Allah says;
"this day, I have perfected your religion for you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion" [6]
Therefore, belittling them or calling them as out-of-date constitutes disbelief as Allah says;
"Then do you believe in part of the scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do."[7]
It is mentioned in the book by Al-Haafiz Abil Hassan Ali bin Al-Qittan Al-Faasi  he says:
? Huh? Huh HuhHuh? Huh? ? Huh?? ?? ?? Huh? ? Huh Huh? HuhHuh Huh?? HuhHuh? Huh ?? HuhHuh Huh? Huh?? Huh? Huh Huh?? ?? Huh? Huh Huh HuhHuh
"and the people of Islam have agreed upon from the Jinn and humans in every time and in every place with sound confirmed agreement that the Quran which has been sent down by Allah upon His prophet is the truth and a necessity for every person to follow it"[8]
Leaving any part of Quran or changing it is going against the consensus of entire Muslim nation. The author mentions another consensus in his book;
? HuhHuh ?? ?? Huh Huh?? Huh?? ? HuhHuh ? Huh ?? Huh ?? Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh? ? ?? Huh ?? HuhHuh? ?? ?? HuhHuh ?? ?? Huh? ?? Huh Huh Huh ?? ?? ?? Huh?? Huh Huh ?? Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh? Huh ?? Huh Huh? Huh Huh?? ?? ?? ?? ?? Huh ? Huh Huh Huh Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? ?? Huh Huh? Huh??
"and they all have agreed (unanimously) that whosoever believes in Allah and His prophet and in all that which has been reported from him authentically and did not have doubt in Tawheed of Allah (Lordship, Worship & Names and Attributes) or in prophethood or in Muahmmed (himself) or in any single letter which he has come with or in the shariah which he has come with narrated from him authentically, so whosoever negates in any of the things which we have mentioned or have doubt in anything from them and he dies upon that state then he dies as a disbeliever mushrik, inhabitant of Hellfire forever" [9]   
If you were to ask: "is every single shariah law unchangeable"? We say that shariah law is constituted in two segments:
1) Laws which are fixed for certain crimes such as adultery, murder, theft etc
2) Laws which are not fixed and are executed based up liaising between individual and society such as drinking wine etc. These laws or punishments are initiated by religious scholars or supreme leader who can choose to implement various methods for such actions such as either to lash them, or expel them from country or imprison them etc
Now the question is asked whether these laws are barbaric or not?
Barbaric is truly a conformist word where they emulate certain punishments of the old and replicate them in modern day society to symbolize how cruel they were for mankind. However, if one was to look at modern day warfare, it is evident in their usage of artillery being more barbaric and leaving no mercy at all for the enemy. Countries are accumulating atomic warheads, chemical arsenal etc for their so called "peace" missions whereas they are causing more havoc, destruction, and cruelty to people than others.   
So who determines what is barbaric and what is not? Rather Allah says in Quran
"And there is (a saving of) life for you in Al-Qisas (the law of equality in punishment), O men of understanding that you may become the pious" [10]
So the underlining factor behind laws are to deter criminals from committing crimes and we know that not all will adhere to them so which system is applicable? Look at the current systems in placed and see their results and compare them to those countries using Islamic criminal law. The results are overwhelmingly supporting for the implementation of shariah law. 
There are statements of companions and their students (Tabieen) collected regarding those who denied the law of stoning by Huh? Huh Huh Huh? ?? HuhHuh HuhHuh:
Huh- HuhHuh? ?? Huh?? Huh?? HuhHuh HuhHuh Huh Huh Huh HuhHuh?? HuhHuh? Huh
?? Huh ?? Huh ?? Huh? ?? Huh?? Huh: Huh?? Huh Huh? HuhHuh?? Huh?: Huh Huh? Huh ?? HuhHuh Huh? HuhHuh?? Huh?: "Huh? Huh?? Huh Huh?? ?? Huh Huh?? Huh?? HuhHuh HuhHuh ? HuhHuh HuhHuh? ? HuhHuh HuhHuh ? HuhHuh HuhHuh?? ? HuhHuh HuhHuh? Huh?? ? HuhHuh Huh? HuhHuh ?? Huh?? Huh?? HuhHuh?"

"Chapter: Warning from school of thoughts of those people who deny the shariah which is a compulsory upon Muslims to have certainty in:
Ali bin Zayd reported from yusuf bin mahraam who said; ibn Abbas gave us a sermon in Basra so he said, Omar bin Khattab the leader of Muslims stood within us so he said:
                "O people! Verily there will be people from this nation who will deny Rajm (stoning) and deny Dajjal and deny the pond of prophet and will deny the intercession of prophet and will deny the punishment in the grave and will deny that some people will be taken out from the hellfire after they have been punished" [11]
In another place.........
?? Huh ?? Huh ?? Huh? ?? Huh?? ?? Huh Huh? ? Huh: Huh Huh ?? HuhHuh :"Huh Huh? Huh? ? Huh Huh Huh ? Huh? Huh' ? Huh? Huh HuhHuh HuhHuh ? HuhHuh HuhHuh? ? HuhHuh HuhHuh ? HuhHuh HuhHuh?? ? HuhHuh HuhHuh? Huh?? ? HuhHuh Huh? HuhHuh ?? Huh??
"ali bin zayd narrated from yusuf bin mihraan who narrated from ibn Abbas who said that Omar bin Khattab said;
                "O people! Indeed rajm (stoning) is truth, so do not deviate from it and the proof is that the prophet stoned and abu bakr stoned and I also stoned. Hence there will be people from this nation who will deny stoning, who will deny dajjal......"[12]
In another place he mentions
?? Huh Huh?? HuhHuh? Huh? ? ?? Huh ? Huh Huh HuhHuh  ? ?? Huh Huh ? ?? Huh Huh Huh Huh? Huh?? ? Huh? ?? Huh ? ?? Huh HuhHuh Huh HuhHuh ? Huh?? Huh Huh?? ? Huh (( HuhHuh Huh?? Huh? ?? ? ?? ? HuhHuh Huh? Huh? Huh?))
"verily the prophet stoned two Jews who fornicated and verily abu bakr stoned and omar bin khattab stoned and Ali bin abi taalib stoned a woman called Shuraaha who committed fornication while she was a divorcee/widow so he lashed her on Friday and stoned her on Saturday and said;
                "I stoned her in accordance to the Book of Allah and upon the sunnah of prophet Muahmmad"[13]
Now by looking at all these statements of the companions, there remains no doubt that they never saw such laws as barbaric because they knew that it has come from the Most Wise the Most Merciful and He would never do injustice upon His slaves.
Q3)  what is the ruling who denies the Sovereignty of Allah as lawgiver and ruling on the concept that Islamic state is alien to Islam?
Denying Allah the right of Lawgiver means he has taken someone else as partners besides Allah who has the right to determine how this individual should conduct his life. The one who does not recognises Allah as his Master to govern him then surely he has found another god to administrate him. He is a clear disbeliever outside the fold of Islam.
"the Hukm is for Allah alone. He declares the truth and He is the best of judges" [14]
"and whomsoever does not judges according to what Allah has revealed then surely they are the disbelievers"  [15]
"say O people of the scripture,! You have nothing (as regards guidance) till you act accordance to the Torah, the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord (the Quran)". Verily that which has been sent down to you (Muhammed) from your Lord increases in most of them (their) obstinate rebellion and disbelief. So be not sorrowful over the people who disbelieve"[16]
"[say (O Muhammad):] "shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (the Quran), explained in detail."[17]
As for the second question that is Islamic state alien to Islam? Lets look at scholars and see how they defined Islamic state
Imam abu yusuf said;
"a place is recognised as Islamic state by manifesting Islamic law, even if majority of the people are non-Muslims. Similarly a non Islamic state is in her manifestation of non Islamic law even if most of the people living there are Muslims. [18]
Another hanafi scholar called al-kisaani said;
"there is no disagreement between our companions (within their school of thought) that a dar ul kufr becomes dar ul islam with the manifestation of Islamic rules"[19]
So in the light of these two definitions given by the scholars and generally most of the scholars agree that Islamic state has to manifest Islamic shariah if not then it will not be considered as Islamic state. Hence, those who say that Islamic is alien to Islamic state need to be educated.     
Q5)  Ruling on those who search for rare opinions to provide modernist interpretation of Islam?
Sheikh ul islam ibn taymiyyah said;
Huh Huh?? HuhHuh? ?? Huh? Huh? ? Huh?? Huh? HuhHuh? Huh Huh Huh? "Huh?? Huh? ?? HuhHuh?" ? Huh Huh?? "Huh HuhHuh Huh? Huh?? Huh ?? HuhHuh?" ? HuhHuh ?? Huh? Huh? Huh HuhHuh Huh?? HuhHuh ?? HuhHuh ? HuhHuh ? Huh Huh HuhHuh? ? Huh ?? HuhHuh Huh? Huh Huh?? Huh Huh? ? Huh? HuhHuh HuhHuh Huh??  Huh? Huh Huh?? Huh? ?? Huh??  HuhHuh Huh?   Huh? Huh Huh?? Huh? ?? Huh?? HuhHuh Huh? Huh Huh? Huh? Huh Huh?? HuhHuh HuhHuh? ? HuhHuh? ? Huh?? HuhHuh? ? HuhHuh?

"Ahlul sunnah strive hard in serving Allah and His prophet in accordance to their ability as Allah said
"Fear Allah as much as you can"[20]
And the prophet said,
"When I have commanded you with something then do that as much as you can"[21]
And they know that Allah has sent Muhammad with the welfare in people's livelihood and customs and that he ordered with conciliation and forbade us from corruption. So if there was an action containing welfare and corruption, we would give preference to the predominant. So if its welfare outweighs corruption, we would give it precedence. And if its corruption outweighs the welfare, then we would leave that action. For indeed Allah sent His prophet to acquire welfare and to shun corruption and make it lesser any way possible" [22]     
This principal clearly outlines that any action agreed by majority will be for people's welfare and interest and any rare opinion will serve less interest for people and for their welfare. Thus, any opinion or interpretation which is rare can not be made as a mainstream view and compelled to be accepted. Example is one scholar going against the majority. If for instance the practice in a country is based upon majority opinion then suddenly to be changed for the rare opinion and made that as mainstream practice then it is incorrect. This illustrates that majority was in error and the rare view was rightly guided? This in itself by logic is absurd.

[1] Chapter 21 verse 23
[2] Chapter 2 verse 285
[3] Chapter 2 verse 255
[4] Chapter 2 verse 143
[5] chap 2 ver 29   
[6] chap 5 ver 3
[7] Chap 2 ver 85
[8] HuhHuh? ?? Huh?? HuhHuh?   volume 1 page 127
[9] HuhHuh? ?? Huh?? HuhHuh?   volume 1 page 126
[10] Chapter 2 verse 179
[11] Huh? HuhHuh? volume 3 page 1192
[12] Huh? HuhHuh? volume 3 page 1195
[13] Huh? HuhHuh? volume 3 page 1197
[14] Chapter 6 verse 57
[15] Chapter 5 verse 44
[16] Chapter 5 verse 68
[17] Chapter 6 verse 114
[18] Almabsoot lil sarkhasee volume 10 page 144
[19] Bada'eul sanaai'e volume 7 page 130
[20] Chapter 63 verse 16
[21] Narrated by Abu Hurayrah. Reported by Bukhari & Muslim
[22] Minhaaj us sunnah volume 4 page 527
9793  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 19, 2008, 01:20:40 PM
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/general/on-the-testimony-of-women-2.html

On the testimony of women:       
Asalaamu-Aleikum

I would like to know why two women are the equivalent on one man in an Islamic court. I thought we were different, but equal. Please reply with an in-depth explanation as to why this is.

Please bear in mind the following facts regarding this issue:
   
1. There are issues where only women's testimony is enough like those related to birth of a child, the period of suckling and weaning. In such cases, which are normally handled by the women, testimony of a single lady is accepted. For example, when a woman said, looking at a newly-wed couple: "I suckled you both", the Prophet (SAS) nullified their marriage and asked them to separate from each other.
 
2. Cases of serious nature, like that of fornication, adultery and rape attract a very hard punishment in Islam. Flogging a hundred times for unmarried couples and stoning to the married ones. To prove such an allegation, even two male witnesses are not enough, but four of them are required. Suppose those who witnessed were women alone. If the number of witnesses is doubled, less would be the chance for the implementation of this punishment. Many people do not object a lot to these ways of punishment but they do not realize how difficult it has been made in Islam, to prove such allegations.
   
3. The text (Surah Al-Baqara 2:282) which requires two female witnesses in place of one male witness, gives a clear reason for it i.e. "if one of them forgets, the other reminds her." Is this derogatory to the status of the women or is it a revealed secret about the nature of the women? Though much has been said about the difference between a man's brain and that of a women but I would rather like to quote the latest research made about this issue. According to a survey, as published in Los Angeles Times (U.S.A) , made involving fifty men and women for quite a considerable time, the out come was as follows:
 
Man's mind is uni-focal while the women's mind is multi-focal. In other words, a man would be fully occupied with the task he is involved with; he may not be distracted by anything else while being engaged in his activity. On the other hand, a woman may be busy in kitchen work and she will be easily alert to a phone buzzer or her infants cry from the cradle. In a way she is found to be more sensitive and active in her dealings. Thus she has got a very praise worthy character but that is not so good for a case of testimony which requires more attention and concentration. What is wrong then, if a second woman is needed, only to remind her is she fails to deliver her testimony completely. So it is a case of verification of the testimony, not that of degradation to the status of the women at all.
   
4. In many other matters, the nature of women are considered. For example, the right of divorce is vested in the hand of the man while she is allowed to ask for divorce either directly or through a Qadi (Judge). Why? Because the women are kind-hearted human beings who are governed by their emotions, a character strongly needed for bringing up the children. On the other hand, man is governed by his mind more than his emotions. He would think twice but more than that before uttering the word "Talaq" (divorce). Even if he misuses this word (as noticed again and again) a long procedure following a divorce i.e. the Iddat period of a woman, allows him to retract the step he has taken. He can revoke that Talaq within this cooling period of approximately three months time.
   
To deny the difference between the two genders is a denial of truth. Allah who created us, gave us rulings according to our nature. And all is well as long as we go by the nature.
9794  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 19, 2008, 01:05:12 PM
**Sharia is to equal protection under the law, what islam is to free speech.**

LONDON — The woman in black wanted an Islamic divorce. She told the religious judge that her husband hit her, cursed her and wanted her dead.

Suhaib Hasan spoke with a woman who was trying to divorce her husband in London. But her husband was opposed, and the Islamic scholar adjudicating the case seemed determined to keep the couple together. So, sensing defeat, she brought our her secret weapon: her father.

In walked a bearded man in long robes who described his son-in-law as a hot-tempered man who had duped his daughter, evaded the police and humiliated his family.

The judge promptly reversed himself and recommended divorce.

**What if this woman had no male relative to offer witness on her behalf? Remember that under sharia, a muslim woman's testimony is only half that of a muslim male's.**
9795  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: November 19, 2008, 12:55:56 PM
We're on the "Leaving Las Vegas" path to resolution to our "debtoholicism". Obama and congress can double up on the shots to "fix" the economy.
9796  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for Reps/Conservatives on: November 19, 2008, 11:00:43 AM
The nation, as a "debtoholic" probably has to hit rock bottom before facing reality. God help us.
9797  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Coming Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: November 19, 2008, 09:01:14 AM
I listened to that miserable c-sucker, Barney Frank on National People's Radio this morning, flacking for the UAW bailout. Not satisfied with burdening taxpayers with the Fannie/Freddie mess he helped create, now he's getting ready to saddle us with this mess. F-ing wonderful.  rolleyes
9798  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 18, 2008, 04:40:28 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/18/video-how-obama-got-elected/

Media malfeasance.
9799  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education on: November 18, 2008, 04:24:59 PM
Ideally, there should be no federal funding for schools, as it is state/local level issue. How do we make the leap to higher education 2.0? That's a good question I don't have an implementation plan for.
9800  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, et al, cf Yemen) on: November 18, 2008, 04:19:07 PM
Test run, or part of an AQ operation rather than ordinary piracy?
Pages: 1 ... 194 195 [196] 197 198 ... 237
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!