Tommy Robinson of the English Defence League doesn't always do himself any favours. He needs to stay off the booze, at least in public. But watch him here (thanks to Gates of Vienna) at his most articulate. And compare and contrast the mealy mouthed appeasement of our so-called leaders Cameron and Clegg.
The Woolwich suspects were “hunting for soldiers” in the weeks leading up to the atrocity in which drummer Lee Rigby was killed, it was claimed today.
Neighbour Paul Ramsamy, 46, claimed the pair confronted him after apparently mistaking him for a squaddie because he was wearing combat trousers and boots.
The father of two said Michael Adebowale, 22, and Michael Adebolajo, 28, had followed him in the street in Greenwich as he walked home.
He claimed: "They followed me for about 50 metres and approached me together. They looked very serious, like they meant business. They looked at my camouflage trousers and boots. I then thought they just wanted me to buzz them into the flat block but that was obviously not the case.
"When I saw what happened in Woolwich I recognised them and realised how lucky I have been. They must have been hunting for soldiers to attack when they followed me.
“I realise now what a a lucky escape I had. They were obviously looking for a soldier to attack in the time before they struck. They were whispering to each other when they walked away, it was very scary.
"They obviously saw I was not a soldier and let me go. They could have followed me into the lift and attacked me. I feel lucky to be alive."
The alleged incident took place two months ago and suggests the pair may have been plotting their attack for some time.
"This was not just an attack on Britain – and on our British way of life. It was also a betrayal of Islam – and of the Muslim communities who are give so much to our country.
'There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.
'We will defeat violent extremism by standing together, by backing our police and security services and above all by challenging the poisonous narrative of extremism on which this violence feeds.
'Britain works with our international partners to make the world safe from terrorism. Terrorism that has taken more Muslim lives than any other religion.
'It is an utter perversion of the truth to pretend anything different. That is why there is absolutely no justification for these acts and the fault for them lies solely and purely with the sickening individuals who carried out this appalling attack."
-- David Cameron
Do you enjoy, do you find the slightest bit convincing, any of this? And what about the further statement that Cameron made, gushing with gratitude to Muslims for what he called all that they "give" to the United Kingdom, all the ways -- let's count the ways, shall we? -- that they make the United Kingdom a richer, more wonderful, more peaceful, more harmonious, place just by being here and making their wonderful contributions, which contributions are of course too numerous to mention.
But let's return to the main text posted above.
“There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act." This is completely false. There are more than one hundred Jihad verses, and many hundreds of ahadith, that support exactly such acts as these. The "poisonous narrative" is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira --- and how does David Cameron propose to modify, or interpret away, the "poisonous narrative" of the canonical texts of Islam? It can't be done.
“The people who did this were trying to divide us. They should know: something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger.”
No, they -- the two meat-cleavered butchers -- were not ":trying to divide us" -- with the implied corollary, according to Cameron's formulation, that we should not take a dim view of Muslims and Islam because if we were to do so, that would "only let the terrorists win." They want us, you see, the camerons of the world assure us, to take a dim view of Islam, to be suspicious of the ideology of Islam and of Muslims, and we mustn't do that for that would give those "terrorists" -- those "extremists" -- the very victory they so desire. This may remind some of Shimon Perest who, after every PLO attack, during and after the Oslo Accords, would mechanically repeat that "these were the enemies of peace" and that, therefore, Israel should make even more concessions so as to bring "peace" (in reality, a peace treaty, or rather, a hudna modelled on Hudaibiyya). It's hard to believe that Cameron is so ignorant and stupid, but I'm afraid he is.
The killers of Drummer Rigby had no need to "try to divide us."They were trying to punish, to inflict revenge, as they saw it, on the strange people, the enemy people, the non-Muslim English people, among whom they live and whom, for the moment, they must endure. There's no need to talk about preventing the "dividing of people." Islam divides the world in two, between Believers and non-Believers. Central to Islam is that distinction. And non-Muslims are not entitled to equal rights with Muslims, but rather are subject to a host of legal and financial disabilities..
That distinction, between Usand Them, Believers and Non-Believers, Muslims and Infidels. It's all over the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira. It's the very heart of the Sharia' -- the different treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims. It's how so many non-Muslim peoples, far more numerous than their Muslim conquerors, were converted to Islam, to escape from the many heavy social and economic and political disablities placed on them by Muslims. I don't expect Cameron to have read a lot about islam, but by this time, he and everyother leader in the Western world should know enough to refrain from such idiotric remarks, which merely invite ridicule, and certainly help to delegitimise his rule. And all over Western Europe, the rule of those who keep lying and lying about Islam is being deligitimised -- by those very lies. It's happening everywhere.
Nick Clegg Says Murder Of Drummer Lee Rigby 'Flies In The Face Of The Peace And Love That Islam Teaches"
“Over the last few days London has shown itself at its best: an unbreakable city once again refusing to bow to hatred and violence. Of all the groups and faiths represented here today, I would like to pay special tribute to London's Muslim community.
“An unspeakable act has been conducted in their name. Yet while this has provoked feelings of frustration and anger - it flies in the face of the peace and love that Islam teaches - Muslim organisations, Mosques, Imams and community leaders have responded with a call for unity and calm. They have set an example for us all.”
--- Nick Clegg, at a "community" meeting held after the most recent Muslim murders
Nick Clegg, spoiled and stupid and callow, like so many of those now running the United Kingdom, had a fvoreign policy, you may remember. It was based on Clegg's deep and vicious hostility to israel (such hostility tends, unsurprisingly, to accompany a deep unconcern for the behavior and attitudes of Muslims all over the world). Or have you forgotten that about Nick Clegg? On the other hand, for Nick Clegg the adherents of Islam are wonderful people, and not deserving of any scrutiny or criticism.
Here he is, on the killing, mutilation, dismemberment, of a British soldier in the middle of the day, in the middle of London, by someone who tells us, who makes clear, that he was prompted to do this by the texts of Islam, and he even quotes directly from Sura 9, the Surat Al-Tauba.
What does Nick Clegg know or understand about the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira? Will no one attempt to cross-question him about his knowledge of these texts, and about how they are received by adherents of Islam? Will no one point out to him thew 1350-year history of violent Islamic conquest of many different lands, and many different peoples, and how the histories, the languages, the memories of those peoples were, wherever possible, simply erased, as were their art, their artifacts, their other monuments. Will no one ask him, callow hollow Nick Clegg, what he makes of the figure of Muhammad, the Model of Conduct and the Perfect Man? Is it possible that among those ruling now in the U.K. are people who are ignorant (of Islam), cowardly (terrified of offending Muslims lest those peaceful Muslims erupt in even more violent ways) and unimaginative (because they cannot begin to figure out all the ways that the Camp of Islam can be divided, demoralized, weakened, and all the ways that the hold of Islam on the minds of at least its non-Arab adherents can be weakened, and how, too, the Muslim presence in the U.K. and other threatened Western lands can be diminished,if a policy of relentless hostility and containment is instituted, one that would be supported by all sane people in the United Kingdom, if only they could be given intelligent direction and someone, or some people, were to come to power who, unlike Nick Clegg, had intelligence, knowledge, wit, and imagination.
Here he is, Nick Clegg, this limited man, who with such pronouncements as he makes in this Telegraph article, invites contempt and ridicule.
You couldn’t make this up: As thousands of people in large swathes of the planet, including war-torn Syria, are dying daily for lack of adequate medical care, the one geographic area whose “health conditions” are slated for condemnation at the World Health Organization’s annual conference is, naturally, “the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan.” What makes this surreal isn’t just that the above areas enjoy far better “health conditions” than much of the rest of the world. It’s that the Palestinian Authority (Israel’s “peace partner”), together with Syria and other Arab countries, is seeking to condemn Israel at a time when it is actively providing medical services to both Palestinians and Syrians.
The denunciation of health conditions on the Golan is particularly surreal: Syrians in Syria, where medical care of any kind is often simply unavailable, would be thrilled to get the same state-of-the-art care as their brethren on the Golan–where, as in East Jerusalem, Israeli law applies, entitling residents to the same services as all other Israelis.
But thanks to Israel, some of those Syrians actually are getting such care–which is doubtless Syrian President Bashar Assad’s real gripe. Israel has quietly set up a field hospital on the Golan where dozens of Syrians wounded in the civil war have been treated; others, who need more intensive care, have been transferred to regular Israeli hospitals.
Israel has also offered treatment to some Syrian refugees. Just this month, via Israel’s Save a Child’s Heart program, Israeli doctors saved the life of a four-year-old Syrian refugee with a serious heart condition. Similar treatment was offered to three other Syrian children in Jordan who have similar conditions, but their parents refused: Apparently, they fell victim to their own anti-Israel propaganda. Still, the doctors are hoping they will change their minds once the first girl returns to Jordan healthy and happy.
In the PA and Hamas-run Gaza, health care is also far better than in much of the rest of the world, though admittedly not up to Israeli standards. Of course, any deficiencies are their own fault: Both have had complete autonomy in civil affairs for years; Israel can hardly be blamed if they chose to invest in, say, military training for schoolchildren rather than better health care.
But more importantly, they have an advantage most other countries with similar health-care systems don’t: generous access to Israeli hospitals for any problems their own can’t treat. And you needn’t take my word for it: Just this month, after PA Health Minister Hani Abdeen visited Jerusalem’s Hadassah Ein Karem Hospital, the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadidareported that “30% of the patients who are children are Palestinians.” It also reported that Hadassah is now training some 60 Palestinian doctors, who will then return to serve the PA’s own population.
It’s disgraceful that an otherwise respectable organization like WHO would lend its countenance to a farcical resolution like this. But it’s an excellent lesson in why the positions of the “international community” are often deserving of derision rather than respect–especially when it comes to Israel.
It is Ramadan. The Chinese government has mandated all restaurants remain open for business during fasting hours. Regulations stipulate that state workplaces provide free lunches for their employees, and non-Muslims wait to see if their Muslim co-workers will sit down to eat with them. Schools tell students under the age of 18 that they cannot go to the mosque and pray during the holy month, or indeed at any time. The state has proscribed the communal and private religious education of children to the extent that affinities to Islam are becoming diluted. Imams, all of whom have undergone political education classes, sermonize to the only people eligible to enter the mosque, that is, men aged over 18 not employed by the government. Every Koran in public use is state approved. Any outward expression of faith in workplaces, hospitals, and some private businesses, such as men wearing beards or women wearing headscarves, is forbidden. In short, the state controls the smallest details of individual expressions of religious belief and practice.
This is the stark picture of restrictions placed on the religious freedom of the Uyghur people, documented by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) in a new report titled Sacred Right Defiled. The Uyghur are a Turkic Muslim people whose homeland, in China’s far northwest, is known as either Xinjiang or East Turkestan, depending on your politics. The distinct Uyghur cultural identity is besieged through a variety of state policies that include the exclusion of the Uyghur language in educational institutions, the demolition of traditional Uyghur neighborhoods, and a steady migration of Han Chinese into predominately Uyghur towns and cities. Sacred Right Defiled details how the Chinese state has implemented an array of ever-restrictive regulations on religion, a cornerstone of Uyghur identity. As scholar Arienne Dwyer states, “For both urban and rural Uyghurs, ethnic identity is linked with religious and linguistic identity.”
In 2005, Religious Affairs Regulations took effect across the People’s Republic of China. The regulations were the most comprehensive attempt to date to define the permissible aspects of religious expression across the nation, and marked the culmination of numerous regional regulations covering religious sites, government employees and religious leaders implemented since the late 1980s, especially in Uyghur and Tibetan regions. At the time the national regulations came into force, according to Ma Pinyan of the Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences, the Uyghur region already had more religious regulations than any other province, proving them to be a “powerful legal weapon” to control religion. Sensing the effectiveness of heavy regulation in managing religious affairs in ethnic minority areas, Chinese authorities moved to contain burgeoning religious groups countrywide through national measures.
In a hallmark of authoritarianism, the Chinese government is codifying its repression through the development of legal instruments. Since 2005, the policy with regard to religion has continued unabated on a national and regional level. More regulations, as well as revisions of existing regulations, have been passed in an attempt to further narrow the scope of religious expression. In the Uyghur region, this has resulted in further curbs on imams, religious publications, and undertaking the Hajj among many other controls. Ramadan in 2012 was widely viewed as one of the most restrictive in years. State work units assigned personnel to check that colleagues were not worshipping at mosques in accordance with the ban on mosque attendance for government employees. China often cites security concerns in implementing such limitations. As recently as April, Wang Zuo’an, head of the State Administration for Religious Affairs said, “religion can become a lure for unrest and antagonism.” Many of the regulations targeting Uyghurs, especially those aimed to confine the religious beliefs and practices of Uyghur children, are not seen in other regions of China. Coupled with the absence of the Uyghur language in education, restrictions on the religious practice of Uyghur children weaken connections to ethnic identity and create disincentives for their use and practice in wider society.
The even darker side of China’s regulatory body to curb religious freedom is that many Uyghurs interviewed by UHRP described their confusion over what religious expressions were permitted under Chinese laws, as there were such a bewildering number of regulations passed. According to UHRP research, while officials continue to emphasize the need to make legislation clearer and more accessible, the latest Religious Affairs Regulations remain difficult to find on government websites. Confusion or innocent ignorance of religious regulations tended to make Uyghurs err on the side of caution rather than risk trouble with the authorities. Rightfully so, as UHRP documents, those Uyghurs who have been convicted of “illegal religious activities” face long terms in prison and even torture, as in the case of the Uyghur Christian, Alimjan Yimit.
China does have articles protecting religious freedom in the Constitution and the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law; however, urging China to respect them is only part of the picture. China implementation of harsh religious regulations against Uyghurs is one of many egregious violations of Uyghur human rights that also include abuses of political and economic rights. Yet it is through the Uyghurs’ faith in Islam that China is pressing hardest to validate an intensification of its repression on the Uyghur people. China’s recent attempt to equate a violent incident in Maralbeshi, near Kashgar, on April 23 with the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing illustrates how China is leveraging terrorism accusations to justify crackdowns on the Uyghur. In the murky case of Maralbeshi, where 21 people lost their lives in a clash between local police and alleged Uyghur terrorists, even the usually reticent U.S. State Department said China should “provide all Chinese citizens, including Uighurs, the due process protections to which they are entitled.” [Why? In China, does the writ of the U.S. Constitution ru? When did the American government start thinking that that the First and Fourteenth Amendments were universal in their application?]
While launching the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 2013 Annual Report, USCIRF Chair Katrina Lantos Swett remarked on the importance of religious freedom to security. She concluded religious freedom encourages moderate factions to flourish and saves religious minorities from the dangers of marginalization. China’s future stability faces this challenge stemming from its current treatment of religious minorities within its borders. If China is to realize its potential as a global power, it must abide by its international standards; however, China also needs to appreciate the value of religious freedom to its own prosperity. [China needs lessons from no one in how to control --i.e., constrain -- the forces of Islam]
Thanks to Kuperwasser al-Dura report, truth is on its way
By PHILIPPE KARSENTY 22/05/2013
I strongly recommend that the State of Israel establish another investigative committee to determine the problems which led to this situation.
For over 10 years, I’ve been fighting, along with many friends, to get out the truth about the al-Dura blood libel.
For many years, the strongest argument of our opponents has been the silence of the State of Israel when my efforts were sometimes undermined by Israeli diplomats. So getting the support of Israeli public diplomacy was an important objective.
On Sunday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received Moshe Ya’alon’s and Yossi Kuperwasser’s report, which confirms my accusation against French public TV.
It’s a milestone on the way to the truth.
Yesterday, a French court of appeals was expected to release its verdict on another episode of my defamation trial against France 2, but the verdict was postponed, for the second time. It is now due to be given on June 26.
My victory in that case could be an important step forward, but nothing is certain.
Five years ago, after I won the appellate court trial, France 2 denied the report was a hoax and appealed to the French Supreme Court on technicalities. Last year, they won and the verdict was annulled. The highest French court said we didn’t have the right to look at France 2’s raw footage to decide if I was right or wrong to accuse them of having staged their news report.
Kafka was back! If I lose, you can be sure Israel demonizers and France 2 will use the verdict to slander Israel, and me, even if I lose on technicalities.
Almost 13 years after the broadcasting of the Dura hoax, Israel is still trying to recover its good name, and this should be a reason to worry for the State of Israel and its citizens. Thirteen years and so many lives lost because of Israel’s silence, because of Israel’s incapacity to understand global anti-Semitism is fed by Israel’s reluctance to defend its point of view.
During all these years, I’ve been undermined by Israelis; ambassadors, politicians, journalists and by a prominent American Jewish organization which preferred to keep access to the French politicians over fighting for the truth. Nevertheless, I was confident because the truth has always been on my side.
NOW THAT the State of Israel has taken the official decision to fight for its good name, it is important to encourage it to continue and to analyze how this huge PR failure has been allowed to go on for so long.
This Kuperwasser investigation committee has been important and productive. I strongly recommend that the State of Israel establish another investigative committee to determine the problems which led to this situation.
One day or another, Israel will face another lie, another blood libel or other false accusations during military operations. Israel was not prepared for this war, and Israel lost.
Since the creation of the State of Israel, Arabs, with the complicity of some Western countries, have tried to destroy this tiny nation by open warfare. They failed.
Then they tried terrorism. In the end, that also failed. So, they turned to media war – and here, unfortunately, they succeeded.
The result is that now, the wars Israel wins on the ground, while respecting international laws and treaties, are lost on the media battlefield, and then in the diplomatic arena.
The official Israeli report, which was issued on Sunday, shows a turning point in the Israeli authorities’ state of mind: they decided to fight for their good name. This is good news, and will be effective only if they are able to analyze their mistakes and draw conclusions in order not to repeat past mistakes.
As in every previous war, Israel has no choice but to win. It’s a question of survival, and I’m sure Israel will succeed.
The writer has been a truth fighter on the Dura case for more than 10 years.
The Usual Nonsense Offered Up To Explain Muslim Rioters In Sweden
NBC news misleadingly identifies the Muslims riotiing in Sweden and destroying property both of individuals and the state as "immigrants' or as "youths" but never as Muslims. But these "youths" are not just any "youths" of all ethnicities and religions. And these "immigrants" are not a representative sampling of immigrants -- there's not a single Chinese or Hindu among them, but Muslims, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, the same Muslims whose Qur'an teaches them that they are the best of peoples, that they should not take Christians and Jews as friends, that when the holy months pass, they should make war on the Infidels, that the Infidels owe them support -- the Jizyah which, in lands where Muslims do not yet rule, should be taken by Muslims in the form of seizure -- theft -- or inveigling -- massive exploitation, through fraud, of whatever benfits the generous states of the Western world so trustingly offer.
What is never asked is: why is it that in every country of Western Europe, no matter that country's history, or its political regime, that the Muslim immigrants are always unable to integrate, despite the best efforts -- and in Sweden the entire country has fallen all over itself not only to offer "asylum" to undeserving Muslims, but to provide them with free or heavily subsidized housing (and the housing, with the nursery schools and kindergartens attached, and the stores, and everything else the Swedish state so unstintingly has provided for so long), and free language-training, and education, and subsidised transportation, and free health care, and all the rest of it, for people who come from Islamic lands of misrule where they get nothing. And instead of overwhelming gratitude toward Sweden and the Swedes, the Muslims demonstrate resentment, and ill-concealed -- or sometimes unconcealed -- hatred toward the non-Muslims who still insist on treating Sweden as a country where their Infidel laws and customs should prevail, and where Muslims feel they are not given their due - but their due is clearly that of superior status, whiich is their right because, you see, they are Muslims, and any other status -- equality or inferiority, in economic or social or political status, to non-Muslims is siimply intolerable, contra naturam, against the Will of Allah. It cannot be accepted.
Look not only at Sweden, but at all the other countries of Western Europe. People of substantially lower I.Q. than the indigenous non-Muslims arrive. Many of them are the products of cousin-marriage, so favored in Muslim socieites because the level of aggression and mistrust is high, so that one favors marriage within families -- and that of course has its effects,in the large number of congenital defects, now to be paid for by the non-Muslim taxpayers, and also has effects on I.Q. Education, in the Western sense, about the language, history, literature, and laws of Infidels, is of little or no interest to Muslims, who have everywhere disrupted classrooms and refused to listen, or allow non-Muslims to listen, to those topics that Muslims find offesnive (includiong, of course, any discussion of local kings, or the history of Christianity, or sympathetic study of the artifacts of Western Christendom, or of antisemitism in any of its manifestations, including the industrial-strength murders, by the Nazis and their collaborators all over Europe, of Jews)/ And when it comes to science, which requires training in skepticism and questioning, how can those raised up in a fanatical faith that is based on punishment of any questioning of that faith, and of its central figure, not Allah but, rather, Muhammad -- no wonder that despite the trillions of dollars that have flowed to Muslim oil-and-gas countries, the contribution of Muslims to modern science has been negligible, practically invisible, and it is only here and there, and in a very few fields, working in the West, that a handful of Muslim researchers have gone beyond the mediocre.
And the Muslims in Sweden resent this state of affairs. They think they deserve not only whatever they get -- and they get so much -- from the Swedish taxpayers, but that they deserve more and more. They should not be expected to simply accept their comfortable state-supported conditions which, in fact, are superior to anything they could obtain on their own, or enjoy at home, in their own dreadful and dreadfully-governed countries. They want more, more, more.
But that's not how the pious reporters of NBC News see it. Just read, below, their report on the sixth day of rioting in Stockholm by "youths" and "immigrants" whom you know, and I know, are nothing but Musliims rioting against the Infidels:
Sweden riots: Cops seek reinforcements, US citizens warned
Fredrik Sandberg/Scanpix via Reuters
Firefighters extinguish a row of burning cars in the Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby Thursday after youths rioted for a fifth night.
By Simon Johnson and Patrick Lannin, Reuters
STOCKHOLM - Police in the Swedish capital are to seek reinforcements after youths again set cars ablaze and threw stones at police for a fifth night running, officials said on Friday.
The unrest has led the United States embassy to warn U.S. citizens this week not to go to areas hit by rioting.
"I can confirm we have sent out a Warden message," embassy spokeswoman Danielle Harms said, referring to alerts by the Department of State with safety or travel information.
Around 30 cars were set on fire in poorer neighborhoods in northwestern and southwestern parts of the capital on Thursday night and rioters caused widespread damage to property, including schools, police said.
Despite Sweden's reputation for equality, the rioting has exposed a fault-line between a well-off majority and a minority, often young people with immigrant backgrounds, who cannot find work, lack education and feel marginalized.
"In terms of extent, it is a little less, a little quieter," police spokesman Kjell Lindgren said of the disturbances on Thursday night. Eight people, mostly in their early 20s, had been detained during the night.
He said police were planning to request reinforcements from other areas to help deal with the rioting, upcoming football matches and the wedding of Princess Madeleine, third in line to the throne, on June 8.
He said the police needed to be prepared to maintain a heavy presence on the streets. "We will do that for days, weeks, as long as it is necessary," he said.
The violence of recent days appears to have been sparked by the death in Husby - the centre of the rioting - of a 69-year old, shot by police earlier this month.
One recent government study showed up to a third of young people aged 16 to 29 in some of the most deprived areas of Sweden's big cities neither study nor have a job.
The gap between rich and poor in Sweden is growing faster than in any other major nation, according to the OECD, though absolute poverty remains uncommon.
Two arrested after RAF diverts Pakistan jet to Stansted
The two men were arrested by police on suspicion of endangering an aircraft. An RAF typhoon jet was launched after an incident on board the Pakistani passenger aircraft within UK airspace.
Manchester Airport said the aircraft was a Pakistan International Airlines passenger plane which was flying from Lahore to Manchester.
The incident is understood to have happened around 10 minutes before the plane, flight number PK709, was due to land in Manchester at 2pm. The plane has now landed at Stansted Airport in Essex and is in an isolated stand, away from passenger areas. The Essex airport is the UK's anti-terrorism base, where planes can be safely isolated.
Channel 4 News understands that Essex police are now carrying out security checks on the aircraft.
And from Sky News: A witness speaking in Urdu to Pakistani station Geo TV, said that two men over 6 feet tall tried to enter the pilot's cabin.
Mashood Takwar, from Pakistan International Airlines, told Sky News that 25 minutes before landing Manchester air traffic control contacted the pilot after apparently receiving some information from British security services.
The second suspect in the killing of drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich was today identified as a former London schoolboy who attended the same university as his accomplice. Michael Adebowale, 22, was shot by police along with his accomplice Michael Adebolajo, 28, during the attack outside the Army barracks on Wednesday.
The pair are throught to have plotted the attack in Adebowale’s flat in Greenwich which was raided by up to 20 heavily armed police yesterday. Neighbours said both men were regularly seen at the address where Adebowale was living with his mother Juliet.
He and Adebolajo - said to have also been a drug dealer and robber - both attended Greenwich University, though it is not known how they met.
A man and a woman, both 29, were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to murder during a series of raids on six addresses in London, Essex and Lincolnshire yesterday.
It came as MI5 also faced continued questions over whether they had let the two men slip through the net. Adebolajo was once intercepted by police as he tried to travel to Somalia to fight alongside Al-Shabaab and is also said to have served a jail sentence for violence. Both men were said to be known to the security services but were not classified as an active threat.
Anjem Choudary, the former leader of banned radical group al-Muhajiroun, said Adebolajo regularly attended meetings and demonstrations held by his group and successor organisations.
Omar Bakri Mohammed, a hate preacher banned from Britain, claimed he had converted Adebolajo himself.
At least two schools, a police station, and 15 cars were set ablaze in Stockholm on Thursday night as riots in the suburbs of the Swedish capital continued for the fifth straight night.
In Rinkeby a predominantly immigrant district in northern Stockholm, firefighters rushed to put out flames that engulfed six cars parked alongside each other. Three more cars were torched in the southern suburb of Norsborg, and a police station in Älvsjö, also on the city's south side, was set on fire but quickly extinguished, police said.
Eight people were arrested in Älvsjö, while four arrests were made in Norsborg.
Firefighters also reported a school in Tensta, another north Stockholm suburb, was set ablaze but quickly extinguished, while a Montessori school in the neighbouring Kista suburb was also on fire.
Meanwhile, police in Södertälje, a town south of Stockholm, said rioters threw stones at them as they responded to reports of cars set alight.
Car fires were reported in the suburb of Sollentuna, while a car fire in Jordbro had spread to a nearby shopping centre before being brought under control, police told the Aftonbladet newspaper.
The previous night, the fire brigade had been called to some 90 different blazes, most of them caused by rioters.
SEYDA ZEINAB, Syria—This town on Damascus's southern fringe, with a shimmering golden-domed shrine at its center and a heavily patrolled perimeter of berms and concrete barriers, has become the first stop for many foreign fighters entering Syria to battle alongside President Bashar al-Assad's forces.
Shiite fighters, primarily from Lebanon, Iran and Iraq, are now flowing into Syria in greater numbers to bolster government forces, say Syrians familiar with them. They are arriving to defend Mr. Assad's regime, but more fundamentally to protect the Shiite faith from what they see as a regional Sunni onslaught, say people in Seyda Zeinab and the fighters' hometowns.
Shiite mourners in Basra, Iraq, May 17. Relatives say Mohammed Aboud was killed defending Seyda Zeinab, Syria. His coffin reads 'Sigh in grief, Zeinab.'
The influx provides more concrete illustration of how Syria's conflict, long viewed as a civil war fought largely along sectarian lines, is now a full-fledged religious conflagration drawing its oxygen from across the region.
The dynamics have been most visible over the past week in the battle for rebel-held Qusayr, whose capture would bring the regime secure logistical lines in the center of the country, running from Damascus to the pro-Assad Syrian coast and into sympathetic territory inside Lebanon.
In Qusayr, Iran-backed Shiite Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon have battled openly alongside forces loyal to Mr. Assad, whose regime is dominated by the Shiite-linked Alawites. On Thursday, Hezbollah's media arm said regime forces were in control of roughly the southern half of Qusayr and were pressing ahead with an air and ground offensive to take the whole town.
But Shiite militants are increasingly involved in combat elsewhere in the country as well. These include fighters from Hezbollah, from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and from Iraq's Asaib Ahl al-Haq—an Iran-backed group that was responsible for some of the most sophisticated and lethal attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq—according to militia members and Syrians familiar with the fighters.
Such fighters have been active in campaigns launched this year to wrest control of Damascus suburbs from the rebels, said Maher Ajeeb, the commander of a Syrian pro-regime militia in Seyda Zeinab. Many Shiite warriors have answered calls to protect important shrines like the one here, a mausoleum where Shiites believe Zeinab, a saint-like granddaughter of Prophet Muhammad, is buried.
Mr. Ajeeb said he faced a dilemma when Syrian rebels launched an assault here on New Year's Day this year. His brother was battling on one front, he said. Pressing against rebels on a second front, he said, was a group of fighters he called "the friends"—members of Hezbollah.
Mr. Ajeeb, whose group was mustered the previous month, backed up the Hezbollah fighters. The town's defense proved successful. But his brother Hussein was killed, he said.
"They are my brothers, too," said Mr. Ajeeb of his choice to battle alongside Hezbollah. "And we are all servants of Seyda Zeinab."
The number of Shiite foreign fighters in Syria isn't clear. President Assad told an Argentine newspaper last week that only senior Iranian and Hezbollah military experts with long-standing ties to the Syrian army are in the country. But Syrians and Iraqis fighting alongside the regime say hundreds of foreigners have come this year, compared with dozens late last year.
"I personally get dozens of calls each day from people in the provinces and Baghdad who want to go," said a commander of Asaib, the Iraqi militia. "We send well-trained ideological fighters."
These Shiites form a counterpoint to similarly religiously motivated fighters who have entered the country to aid the predominantly Sunni rebels. Many Syrian rebels are increasingly under the sway of al Qaeda fighters, clerics and benefactors from Gulf Arab states who extol the eradication of "heretic" communities of Shiites and Alawites.
Foreign Sunni fighters represent more than two dozen nationalities, from Saudi and Turkish to Chechen, Mr. Assad and other Syrian officials have said. Some 500 to 700 Europeans are among the nearly 6,000 Islamist foreign fighters who have come to Syria to support the rebels since the start of the war, a European diplomat said. In April, the London-based International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation placed the number of European rebel fighters at 135 to 590, with the largest numbers from the U.K., France and the Netherlands, basing its count on media reports and martyrdom notices.
The religious fervor extends to fighters' communities as far away as Kuwait, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia—on dueling satellite channels, online chat forums and social-media websites. Some Shiite clerics are propagating the idea that the war in Syria is laying a foundation for the imminent return of the Messiah-like Imam Mahdi, who Shiites broadly believe will wage an end-times battle against evil on Syrian soil.
"We must be ready for the reappearance and committed to its aftermath because the process won't be easy," Jalaleddin al-Saghir, an Iraqi Shiite cleric and politician, said in October in one of his many sermons in Baghdad about the topic.
The influx of Shiite fighters to Syria has triggered calls, particularly from Syrian rebel backers and clerics in Gulf Arab Sunni states, for all-out jihad against Iran and its allies in Syria. Faisal bin Jasim al-Thani, a member of Qatar's royal family, warned on his Twitter account Tuesday that Shiites in the region would now face revenge attacks. "Iran and its tails will be crushed in Syria," he wrote.
This regional reach makes a political compromise to end fighting that much more elusive.
"I have every right to ask a Lebanese military expert to help me with my just cause," said Fadi Burhan, a Syrian Shiite cleric in Seyda Zeinab. Mr. Burhan heads public relations at a local office of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader who also conveys religious guidance through offices serving Shiite communities around the world.
Mr. Burhan, a tall and imposing figure in his 30s, lifts his shirt to show scars on his stomach from three bullets that he says were from a failed assassination attempt in Seyda Zeinab in April 2012. His assailants, he said, were two Sunni teenagers—members of the many Sunni families who had sought refuge here because, at the time, it was safer than other areas. The attempt on his life came two weeks after another Syrian Shiite cleric, Naser al-Alawi, was killed here in a similar manner.
By July, most Sunnis had left Seyda Zeinab. At the same time, Shiites and Alawites were brutally chased from a neighboring district, Hajeera, that is now under the control of extremist Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, according to residents.
Seyda Zeinab is now a virtual fortress accessible only through army checkpoints. The shrine's perimeter is sealed off with concrete walls. Rebels recently fired mortar shells that narrowly missed the shrine. They have also threatened in text messages sent this year to some residents to level the shrine and turn it into an ice-skating rink, said residents.
Hundreds of male residents have joined government-sponsored paramilitary groups tasked with securing the town and participating in operations against rebels around Damascus.
The very name of Mr. Ajeeb's militia, the Abu al-Fadhel al-Abbas Brigade, positions it within the sectarian drama: Al-Abbas was the half-brother of revered Shiite Imam Hussein, the grandson of Muhammad. The brothers were among the Shiites slaughtered more than 1,300 years ago in Karbala, in present-day Iraq, by forces dispatched by the Damascus-based Sunni caliph. The shrine here to the men's sister is one of Shia Islam's holy sites.
The brigade's creation, coupled with the threats against the shrine, have attracted volunteer fighters. especially from Lebanon and Iraq, Mr. Ajeeb said. Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah both issued in April what amounted to religious justification to Shiites fighting in Syria.
"To be martyred in Syria is like being martyred in Karbala" 1,300 years ago, said Mr. Ajeeb, a bearded and stocky 30-year-old in a military uniform, who said that before the conflict he owned a fruit and vegetable stand in town.
In Lebanon and Iraq, funerals for fighters slain in Syria are now an almost daily occurrence.
"At your service, Zeinab!" read one of the banners carried in the southern Iraqi city of Diwaniyah on Saturday at the funeral of Muthana al-Karawi, whom a local news website identified as a fighter killed in Syria a week ago.
Taj Hargey, Oxford Imam, Tries Out His Taqiyya To See If Anyone Salutes
‘There was no Muslim terrorism in the UK until Iraq’ – Oxford imam
May 23, 2013
A police forensics officer investigates a car at a crime scene where one man was killed in Woolwich, southeast London May 22, 2013.(Reuters / Stefan Wermuth)
British Muslims “disown” the Woolwich murderers, and such extremists should be “totally demolished” in UK society – but in order to do that, the UK must change its “illegal” foreign policy, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation Dr. Taj Hargey told RT.
The beheading of a UK soldier near the Woolwich army barracks in southeast London on Wednesday has shocked the country, and was condemned as “horrific” and “sickening” by UK officials. “Strong indications” the murder was connected to terrorism and Islamic extremism were also noted by UK Prime Minister David Cameron.
But the Muslim community in the UK had never known such brutal terrorist attacks until the UK’s previous government drew Britain into overseas conflicts in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and started “slavishly following” US policies, Dr. Hargey explained.
RT:Do you agree with the allegations that the attackers’ actions were inspired by radical Islam?
Dr. Taj Hargey: We need firstly to condemn this murder in the strongest possible terms, and to send condolences to the victim’s family and the loved ones. Yes, I think there is an element of that… But it’s not just Islamic fundamentalism, there is also a linkage, I believe, between what Tony Blair did with his illegal war in Iraq and subsequent slavish following of US policy. I mean, there was no Muslim terrorism in the United Kingdom until Blair went illegally into Iraq. And I think we need to admit and to acknowledge that fact… not just to blame it on Islamic fundamentalism.
RT:One witness report is saying one of the meat cleaver killers was seen in the local community days before “preaching hatred.” From what you see and hear around you – how widespread are radical sentiments among Muslims in Britain?
TH: I think, they are most probably recent, or new Muslim converts, they are fundamentalists, this brand of Islam is attractive to them. I don’t think they were born Muslims, these two people, I would be very surprised if they were. But what is important to remember is that they are being breast-fed on this… Islamic extremism and radicalism – that the only way to deal with the situation is by violence. All integrated British Muslims know that, although we are against British foreign policy, we can protest legitimately and through democratic means – you do not have to slaughter someone in the streets of London.
RT:When it comes to the Muslim community in the United Kingdom, some refer to an ‘outspoken minority but a silent majority.’ Isn’t there a responsibility for the majority to step up and do something about this?
A woman looks at floral tributes placed near the scene of the killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, southeast London May 23, 2013.(Reuters / Luke MacGregor)
TH: Absolutely, and I think it’s high time that the majority came out of the woodwork, so to speak. They have to put their heads above the parapet, we need to confront these radicals and extremists. Now, where is this extremism coming from? It is coming from the philosophies, like the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the Salafis in Syria.
We need to tackle this – this type of imported virus is coming from the Muslim heartland, it’s got no place in a Western society, or in the United Kingdom. So yes, it is up to the majority to take on this minority. The minority is very few – I wouldn’t put them more than 1 or 2 percent of the population, and their ideology and philosophy must be totally demolished. It must be shown not have anything to do with Islam.
RT:What can the UK authorities do to protect the people and to prevent such attacks from happening in the future?
TH: The United Kingdom must look at the causes of this. I think that for us just to deal with the aftereffects of this slaughter in Woolwich is nonsense – we need to look at what is causing this. It is clearly UK forces in places like Afghanistan, and the UK’s blind support for US policy with the Somalia, or Yemen, or Syria, or wherever else. We need to take stock of that, we can’t just expect that we are blameless. And I think once the United Kingdom takes stock of this and sees how to be an impartial actor on the world’s stage, that would be a big step forward.
RT:We’ve already seen anti-Muslim protests in London in the aftermath of the attack, do you think there’s a danger of a significant growth in anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment?
TH: Absolutely. Last week, as you know, we had this issue of Muslim pedophile gangs… in Oxford – they were convicted, thankfully. So, last week it’s pedophilia, this week it’s terrorism – so there is an escalating tendency to label all Muslims either as terrorists or pedophiles. So the right-wing British national party, and English Defence League, and other fascist groups are obviously taking advantage of this.
So it’s incumbent on the mainstream majority Muslims to tackle this, and say, firstly, we disassociate ourselves totally from all forms of pedophilia, and, secondly, terrorism is not part of Islam. And whatever is engaging in violent bloodshed and terrorist activities – we disown you, and you can’t do that in our name… You don’t kill someone in the name of God, Islam condemns that… it’s pure blasphemy.
From Kinana of Khaybar --five postings on a thread at another site, on the Matter of England, or rather, On What's The Matter With England, and Why Is Mehdi Hasan and his ilk allowed to disseminate his nonsense and lies?
British mainstream media:
"Uh oh! A British soldier has been killed by an Islamic extremist who has nothing to do with Islam. Quick--we must save Islam! Let's get as many Muslim apologists as we can to come on and deluge the general public with Islamic propaganda."
The Idiot Uri Savir, And His Grand Plans For Helping Syria Out Of Its Mess
I don't know anything about this Uri Savir save that he was an Israeli negotiator of the disastrous Oslo Accords, and is president of the Peres Center for Peace. That's all I need to know. That explains everything. Instead of wanting to see Syria sink into a long-term morass, instead of seeing what profit can be derived from world-without-end conflict in Syria, this Uri Savir wants the West (and of course Israel) to end the conflcit, and what's more, to "reconstruct" Syria. He's mad. How are such people created? What gives them their mental makeup?
No Syrian regime can be worse than this one, with the biggest chemical and non-conventional arms arsenals in the Arab world.
A fighter from the Islamist Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra Photo: REUTERS
Yemen produces coffee, Egypt cotton... Palestine oranges, and Syria trouble.
This understatement comes from John Gunther, the American author of the popular series Inside Asia. Since its independence in 1946, Syria has been a theater of confrontation between ethnic and religious groups and a battlefield for outside Arab powers to gain influence in the socalled “mother of Arab nationalism.”
Syria has been governed since 1971 by the Alawite minority that constitutes only 10 percent of its population. The Assads – father and son – while propagating a blend of Arab socialism (the Ba’ath) and nationalism, enforced one of the most brutal dictatorial regimes, not only abusing human rights, but committing massive atrocities and massacres against their own population.
In February 1982, Hafez Assad had more than 20,000 of his countrymen killed, supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, in Hama, in a period of one month. Few would have predicted that his Western-educated son, Bashar, would become an even more horrendous murderer – close to 100,000 Syrians have lost their lives in the current civil war, many if not most at the hands of Assad’s military.
The opposition to Assad, which first expressed itself in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring but was then confronted by the Syrian Army, has not been able to bring down this dictator, unlike in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. Today we are witnessing a bloody battle without a winner or an end in sight, with a world community standing by in paralysis.
Syria is indeed too fragmented a society to look for a clear-cut solution. Yet this bloodletting must stop, and this dictatorship must go. The endgame to this war is of great importance to the future of Syria and the region.
The West, led by the United States, must look for a sustainable solution for the day after, taking into consideration the complexity of Syrian society. The Syrian battlefield is clearly not a “Western” bad guy/good guy story, but a Byzantine Middle Eastern gambit. On this Levantine field of confrontation, the Alawite ruling minority is still backed by most of the army (although hundreds of officers have defected), most of the army leadership is Alawite and most will not jump ship for fear of revenge. Although Assad’s regime is relatively secular, its main backing comes from fundamentalist Islamic forces, led by Iran (Hezbollah) and the Shi’ites of Iraq. Iran sees in Syria its principal ally in its aspiration for regional dominance also vis-à-vis Lebanon and the Gulf.
Assad is still backed by Russia and China, which veto Security Council resolutions against Damascus and refuse to join in the international community’s sanctions. The Russians even continue to supply sophisticated missiles to Assad.
Most of the Arab world rejects Assad and has expelled his government from the Arab League. The opposition to Assad is mostly Sunni (70% of Syrians with 10% of Kurds) and is today organized as the Syrian National Coalition, which was already recognized by the Gulf states as the legitimate government.
Its military wing is the Free Syrian Army, formed by various opposition factions and many defecting army officers. Its military activity is decentralized, yet has headquarters in Turkey. Many civilians have joined its ranks in order to defeat Assad and his army.
The opposition is also joined by radical Islamist forces, such as the Iraqi-linked Jabhat al-Nusra, among the most aggressive and violent fighters. The Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian Army are backed by most Arab countries, including Islamic Egypt, and by the international community.
While Assad’s army is armed by Iran and Russia, and helped by Hezbollah, the Free Syrian Army lacks arms and support. The West, led by the United States, is horrified by the humanitarian tragedy, bewildered by the complexity of civil war and paralyzed by a lack of clear strategy. There also seems to be no easy way, if at all, to intervene militarily, as was done in Libya, to overthrow the regime. Assad has proven more resilient and ruthless than predicted and threatens to use chemical weapons. His hold on Syria is shrinking but his coalition is more united than the opposition.
The onus is on the Obama administration.
It must forge a strategy, not only for “victory,” but for a sustainable solution for Syria’s future. For that it must look at the economy of the country, without which there can be no long-term stability.
Syria is completely devastated and its bigger cities are destroyed. All infrastructure has been severely damaged – roads and bridges, water pipes, the oil industry, hospitals and schools, etc. This has brought the economy to a standstill with over 50% unemployment, galloping inflation and a sharp depreciation of the Syrian pound.
The biggest cost is the human one – almost 100,000 killed, millions injured and maimed, approximately 1.5 million have become refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Much of the magnificent cultural heritage has been destroyed; mosques and churches have not been spared. The GDP of Syria decreases every year by 18%, the net foreign assets in Syria are down from $18 billion in 2010 to $2b. in 2012, also a result of the international sanctions. Today’s Syria is the Somalia of the Middle East.
If stability is to be restored in Syria, then, beyond the necessary regime change, there must be an international effort for the reconstruction of the country, with a new and appropriate governance structure.
This requires a long-term strategic outlook and policy by the West, led by the United States, to be agreed upon by the Syrian National Coalition. It should be composed of the following elements: • An internal pact by the Syrian National Coalition, bridging internal differences and reaching out to all ethnic groups and minorities in the country. Internal unity within the main opposition group is key. It must be based on a new commitment to a free Syria, with pluralistic governance, respect for women, religious minorities, economic transparency and accountability.
It should include a Syrian plan for the social and economic reconstruction of the country (the existing generic economic plan of the Syrian National Coalition is insufficient).
The Alawites should be included once Assad is out of power, and vengeance should not be tolerated. Syrian nationalism can and will coexist with Islam, but not the Iranian-exported fundamentalism. Simultaneously, terrorism and its perpetrators must be outlawed, Hezbollah and al-Qaida alike.
In favor of stability, government institutions must be planned, which should include professionals with economic and international know-how, of which Syria has plenty. This is particularly true for the establishment of a reconstruction agency and internal reconciliation body, learning from the South African model.
• On the basis of such a program for a new Syria, by Syrians, the international community has to plan its reconstruction program according to some basic guidelines: – Secret negotiations to be conducted with the Syrian National Coalition as to a plan of governance, with pluralism, transparency and accountability. Turkey should be involved as the Turkish model of more pragmatic Islam is the appropriate one. The Syrians must make a strategic chose between Turkey and Iran.
– Given an agreement on governance, the Syrian Free Army should be armed by NATO to assist in the downfall of Assad.
– In parallel, a donor mechanism should be established for the socioeconomic reconstruction of Syria. It should include the Friends of Syria framework together with Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing cannot be left out of the planning of Syria, despite current support for Assad.
– In parallel to the governments, the international private sector should be involved as an important partner to donor institutions.
Infrastructure and consultancy companies can assist in the planning of reconstruction efforts.
– The areas of reconstruction should include: a) Infrastructure repair and development, including energy, transportation and water; b) Rehabilitation of the education and health systems; c) Absorption and rehabilitation of refugees; d) Reconstruction of the tourism industry around Syria’s special archeological and coastal sites; e) The establishment of a Syrian investment agency that will be able to work with the international private sectors; f) Establishment of a chamber of commerce to reinvigorate international trade; g) Creation of professional training programs, especially to retrain fighters for civilian jobs and for the training of young women; and h) Establishment of more effective local government.
Such a plan and process that includes new governance and reconstruction should be presented publicly and in detail. The Syrian people should know the alternatives before them – either the continuation of dictatorial brutality by the minority regime, backed and infiltrated by fundamentalist radical Islamists, or an inclusive government, more modern, effective and open, with good relations with the West. There is little doubt what they will opt for. That will be the basis for a new program and partnership between the international community and Syria.
As for Israel, we can make no difference in the civil war, and should coordinate policies with the United States and Turkey. No Syrian regime can be worse than this one, with the biggest chemical and nonconventional arms arsenals in the Arab world, the arming of Hezbollah, the hosting of other terror groups, the alliance with Tehran and the mass murder of its own people.
The writer is president of the Peres Center for Peace and served as Israel’s chief negotiator for the Oslo Accords. Barbara Hurwitz edited this column.
Mehdi Hasan, Of The Huffington Post UK, A Tireless Deceiver And Apologist, Up To The Predictable Trick
In The Telegraph, that good old reliable apologist, the meretricious and oleaginous Mehdi Hasan (who has managed to make himself into that appetizing thing, the "political director of the Huffington Post UK) trots out the same verse from the Qur'an - (there are really less than a half-dozen deceptively soothing verses in the Qur'an , with the one about "there is no compulsion in religion" and 5.32 being the favorites)f) -- that is, 5.32, which appears to be a denunciation of killing. Now I won't bother to list all the verses, the more than 100 verses, in the sections of the Qur'an that are later, and hence not to be abrogated (that is, subject to "naskh" or abrogation, as the most peaceful verses, which appear in earlier suras, so often are), that are all about killing Infidels and seizing their property and women. I will stick here to the most obvious remark, which is that 5.32 can only be read with the verse that immediately follows, 5.33, which gives 5.32 a completely different significance.
Mehjdi Hasan in his Telegraph article does exactly what all the Muslim apologists do when they speak or write, for an audience of non-Muslims whom they hope are still uninformed about Islam -- the apologists who appear after every atrocity committed by Muslims. Apparently there may still be some non-Muslims who are still taken in. Why, the same invocation of 5.32 without 5.33 occurred just a few weeks ago, in Boston, after the Marathon atrocity, with the carefully-vetted for his "moderation" Muslim representative at an "Interfaith Service" quoting 5.32 and leaving out the key modifying clause of 5.33.
This has happened so many times, in the last decade or so, that one can hardly stand having to make the point yet again. But again it will have to be made.
Here's the re-posted article:
Qur'an 5.32 But Not 5.33, Or, Kitman At The Cathedral
The same text,but a different title. I'm trying to be Google's Little Helper, just in case someone uses "5.32 But Not 5.33." And though I think Taqiyya is perhaps more widely known, Kitman also characterizes the Muslim speaker's performance, and besides, it alliterates with "cathedral."
At That Interfaith Service In Boston, The Muslim Representative Clutches At His Deceptive Straw And His Taqiyya Should Be The Talk Of The Town
The Muslim representative who showed up at the Cathedral in South Boston -- I remember it well from when a friend of mine became a Deacon, and Sean O'Malley was the presiding bishop -- for the "Interfaith Service" -- had a hard row to hoe. How could he, after all, quote much from the Qur'an, or tell a tale from the Hadith, when so much of both are full of hatred toward non-Muslims, violence, and aggression? So he did what Muslims who are slyly defending the faith do when they want to pretend that Islam is "just like all other faiths." But Islam is not. It is an aggressive and warlike doctrine, and its hero worthy of emulation, its Perfect Man, was a warrior who took women and made them his sex slaves (and allowed his men to take their share), and attacked innocent farmers (the Khaybar Oasis) in order to seize their property (and allowed his men to take their share), and took part in military campaigns in order to subdue all those who refused willingly to be subdued.
So what's a sly Muslim to do?
Only this: repeat, over and over, Qur'an 5.32, a passage lifted entirely from the Mishnah of the Jews.
Had that been all, had 5.32 stood, unmodified, that at least would have been something, a straw to clutch at.
But the Qur'an, the Muslims, have a verse that immediately follows 5.32, which clearly modifies it. And that verse, 5.33, is the passage that gives all the exceptions to what has just been declared in 5.32.
Obama, and Bush, too, have in their time discussed or alluded to 5.32, without the slightest sign that they know -- do they know? -- about 5.33. Now either they were, and are, ignorant of 5.33, in which case they need to learn, at this point, with a world permanently convulsed by Islam, what exactly is in that Qur'an (and a good reader will have to understand both that 20% of the Qur'an is incomprehensible even to native speakers of Arabic, and that the Arabic version is far more violent than any of the translations into English or French, and very likely into other languages as well).
In 2009 Obama spoke about 5.32, and I commented on June 5, 2009:
Fitzgerald: When Obama Channels Bush, Or, Qur'an 5.32 Without 5.33
“The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” -- from the speech by Barack Obama
Is that really what the “Holy Koran” teaches? It’s true, there is a verse in the Qur’an, taken verbatim from an earlier Jewish text, that says “whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind,” etc.
But that verse, verse 5.32, in the Qur’an is followed by another verse, one that Barack Obama carefully or carelessly -- it hardly matters which -- chose to overlook, and by overlooking, mislead not his Muslim audience (who were no doubt pleased he left out, just as any Muslim apologist for Islam would have left out, the following verse 5.33) but rather, all of the world’s Infidels, which includes 99% of the American people, whose welfare he is supposed to keep foremost in mind, for the right instruction and the protection of the American people is his solemn duty.
We’ve been here before, of course. When Barack Obama quotes 5.32 and leaves out 5.33, he is merely channeling George Bush. For Bush, in his deep respect for the “religion” of Islam, liked to quote the same Qur’anic passage, that is, 5.32. The passage, of course, one of the more appealing ones in the Qur’an, was lifted wholesale from the Jewish text of the Mishnah. Barack Obama might have recognized that, but he didn’t dare -- for if he had said it, it would have infuriated Muslims. They don’t want to have the Qur’an’s sources in other, prior monotheisms, revealed, and they don’t even want the elements, such as the djinn, borrowed wholesale from pre-Islamic Arab pagan lore, connected to their original sources. For the Qur’an is for Muslims never to be subjected to the kind of historical analysis that was done for both Judaism and Christianity by the practitioners of what is called the Higher Criticism, beginning with Julius Wellhausen and other German and English Protestant scholars of the mid-to-late 19th century.
What Bush always left out, and what Obama left out today, was the following passage, 5.33, that was added by the composers of the Qur’an and that they did not lift from any Jewish text. This is 5.33:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land" (Qur'an 5:33).
And who do those who take their Islam most feelingly to heart and most thoughtfully to mind think are the people who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land”? Why, it’s non-Muslims, it’s the Infidels, the ones who do not submit to Islam but for some strange reason hew to their own non-Muslim beliefs, and their own legal and political institutions and founding documents (such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man in France, and the Constitution of the United States in this country). Those institutions and which founding documents are flatly contradicted by the letter and spirit of the Shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam, and thus those who continue to support them are people who, in the Muslim view, are not acting defensively but offensively. Anyone who resists Islam is making offensive war on Islam, and thus they are those who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land” -- so that, according to 5.33, that follows the appropriated Jewish text of 5.32, they should be “killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.”
Here is just one example, this one from the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the charge of “corruption” -- as in “spreading corruption in the land” -- is fleshed out in a real-life case:
Tehran, 28 Nov. 2005(AKI) - Iranian parliamentarian Kurosh Niknam, a member of Iran's Zoroastrian religious minority has been summoned to appear before the country's Revolutionary Tribunal after being accused of spreading false news and showing lack of respect for the authorities. The charges stem from comments Niknam made to protest against derogatory remarks against non-Muslims uttered by a close aide to Iran's Supreme Leader, Seyyed Ali Khamenei.
Non-Muslims "cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption." said Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati last week at a ceremony in north-eastern Iran to commemorate the 'martyrs' of the Revolutionary Guards and the war against Iraq (1980-88).
Nikam described the remarks as "an unprecedented slur against religious minorities."...
The Zoroastrian community in Iran is estimated to number some 22,000 - half the size of that in existence before the 1979 Islamic revolution.
One more time: Non-Muslims “cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption.” Who said that? A simpleton, untrained in Islam? Not at all. A full-fledged Ayatollah, that is, a learned Shi’a cleric, with a thorough knowledge of Islam.
Now, getting back to that so-often-unquoted 5.33, wouldn’t it be fair to say that if, in being told about 5.32, we were also told at the same time about the very next verse, 5.33, since that might make a difference in our understanding of 5.32? And don’t you think that George Bush, in quoting 5.32 but not 5.33, clearly misled us, his audience, and perhaps was also misled himself? Perhaps he was never told about 5.33 and didn’t think to ask.
There are two possible explanations for what Bush, and now Obama, have done in their highly selective, and indeed utterly misleading, quotation from the Qur’an. (They have, by the way, stayed well away from the Hadith and the Sira. Perhaps they don’t even know what the Hadith and Sira are. Perhaps they have failed to read even a few dozen of the former. Perhaps they do not know what the Banu Qurayza, and the Khaybar Oasis, and Asma bint Marwan, and Abu Afak, and little Aisha were all about, and the meaning that present-day Muslims give to those important events in the life of the Perfect Man, al-inan al-kamil, Muhammad.
The first explanation, for both Bush and Obama, is that neither is a great or a serious reader. At this point, too, their days are so overfilled with the hectic vacancy of office that they have lost the habit, if they ever had it, of studying for themselves, and so are easily manipulated by those who control what information they see, and what they even consider finding out about. If “everyone knows” or “everyone thinks” a certain way, why then, who is George Bush, and who even is Barack Obama, to seek knowledge elsewhere, to suspect that something might be deeply wrong with what “everyone knows” about the sources of Muslim hostility and aggression, not just toward Americans (the entire focus of Obama’s speech), but against all Infidels, everywhere?
It is hard, after all, to read the opaque, sometimes downright incomprehensible Qur’an. Christoph Luxenberg, Ibn Warraq, and other scholars of the Qur’an and early Islam insist that 20% of the Qur’an cannot be understood by anyone. And it is also difficult, if you are unwilling to put in the time, to quite grasp what the study of the isnad-chain is all about, and how it helps determine the rankings of “authenticity” assigned by the muhaddithin, such as Bukhari and Muslim, to the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Hadith that they winnowed down to a manageable number. And then there are the early Muslim biographies of Muhammad, the Sira, with the first one being composed some 150 years after his death. All of this is unlikely to have been quite understood by Obama, just as it was never quite explained to Bush.
And so both are creatures of, captives of, their advisers, their advisers “on Islam” (that sweetly-smiling confidently-hijabbed Ms. Mogahed, for example), and the others called in for special advice (those “Muslim heads” of “American corporations” referred to today in The Times). And perhaps even John Esposito still has managed to escape being declared a virtual agent of Islam and thus persona non grata for his complete dependence on the vast amounts of Arab money he has been able to attract, originally from a rich Lebanese contractor, and latterly from the same Saudi prince whose check was ostentatiously offered to Mayor Giuliani, and promptly, and correctly, torn up. John Esposito has never met a check he wouldn’t cash.
In Bush’s case, and in Obama’s too, perhaps each was made aware of 5.32 and never bothered to find out if there might be a “context” they should know about. Or perhaps one, or both, knew about 5.33, but also knew that the long-suffering American public would not know about 5.33, but would simply accept the quoting of 5.32 without its indispensable -- for meaning -- following verse. What reporter, after all, even nearly eight years after the 9/11/2001 attacks, and with thousands of Muslim terrorist attacks carried out, or thwarted, all over the globe against every kind of non-Muslim in every possible setting, knows anything about the Qur’an? What reporter knows anything about Islam, even after the colossal sums -- some two trillion dollars -- spent in pursuit, in Iraq, of the will-o’-the-wisp goals of “prosperity” and “national unity”? Such goals are not only hopeless of attainment, but from the viewpoint of intelligent long-term policy to protect Infidels everywhere and to weaken the Camp of Islam, are exactly the wrong goals.
I suspect that Bush didn’t really know about 5.33. I suspect that Obama, on the other hand, did. But he is so intent on currying favor with Muslims that he is quite prepared to mislead his own people, the American people, and all the non-Muslims who at present (but perhaps not for much longer) look to America as the strongest Infidel power. They still (but perhaps indeed not for much longer) look to America as the power most willing to stand up against, and to refuse in any way to yield to, those conducting Jihad by many means other than terrorism and qitaal or combat. These include diplomatic campaigns, the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da’wa, and demographic conquest. Perhaps Obama is deeply condescending to the American public, certain that it will not find out, and will not choose to inquire, into what the texts of Qur'an and Hadith and Sira say. And he may be right. After all, have you ever seen, once, in major newspapers or on television ever, a single mention of Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, the Khaybar Oasis, the Banu Qurayza, little Aisha? You haven't? No, I didn’t think you had.
Muslims, by contrast, know all about 5.33 and a great deal more about the “Jihad verses” of the Qur’an. They know, in fact, all about what the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira say about Infidels, for Islam is a faith that was cobbled together in order, precisely, to offer an alternative to the Christians and Jews (and then the Zoroastrians). These were the inhabitants of the first lands conquered by Muslim Arabs. They were to be presented not with an entirely new faith, but with one that seemed a little bit familiar, for it incorporated, though in greatly distorted form, many of the main personages, and stories, of both Judaism and Christianity. Those two prior-in-time monotheisms were not denounced outright as completely false, but rather presented by Muslims as illegitimate because greatly distorted versions of Islam, of the true Message that had been received by Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets.
Among Muslims, many will think to themselves that he, Barack Obama, can be counted on to carefully ignore those passages that provide the essential “context” -- the absence of which “context” Muslims are always complaining about. He doesn’t want Muslims to think he cares, or perhaps even that he knows, what immediately follows 5.32. And what’s more he, Barack Obama, doesn’t care if by such selective quotation he furthers the ignorance and the misconception of the people whose understanding of Islam he claims to wish to further, and whose safety is his primary responsibility, and not the self-esteem of Muslims, in Cairo or anywhere else.
Oh, there is so very much that is wrong with this speech, that it will be seen as a defining moment -- a moment downwards, so that many in this country, including many dismayed by the impenetrable stupidity of Bush and so many around him, will now feel as if they are abandoned and forlorn, because they put their faith in Barack Obama, and he turned out to be, quite quickly in fact, someone with far less to offer than met the eye. But there will always be those who will still sing his praises, and ask, obliquely, when the subject of the recognition of Barack Obama’s deep deficiencies is raised, in order to deflect such talk, “who you gonna believe -- me, or your lying eyes?”
Bush and Obama have a great deal in common. Both appear to be deeply impressed with the notion that something called a “religion” deserves, for that reason alone, immediate respect. Bush thought that “religions” were always and everywhere a Good Thing. Obama may not truly believe that (it’s hard to get a handle on what he truly believes, except in himself and his Personal Journey, or in the Personal Journeys of others, especially if they are akin to his in being, as he liked to call it, “improbable”). But Obama suggests that criticism of Islam is illegitimate, and that those who would, for example, criticize the imposed restrictions on what women wear as using “the pretence of liberalism” to “criticize Islam.” Instead, he should see that the true liberals are those who will not allow Islam to remain immune from the same kinds of criticism that we should all be free to level against any religion, or any ideology, or any Total Belief-System, even one that we make the mistake, faute de mieux, of calling too carelessly a “religion” when it clearly contains a politics and a geopolitics.
I ran across two quotes just today, made by a recent American President. Here they are:
"Islam, itself, is a peaceful religion, and those who adhere to Islam are people that respect the rights of others... we cannot allow... these totalitarians, these Islamic extremists to distort a great religion and define the nature of that religion."
"There needs to be more understanding between the Muslim world and the Western world. There needs to be a better understanding of the true beliefs of their respective religions."
Both were made by George W. Bush. But both could easily, in the sentiment they expressed and in their wording, both treacly and untrue, have appeared in the Cairo Declaration of Barack Obama that was delivered on Thursday morning, June 4, 2009. That shows us how far we’ve come: we haven’t come far at all. We haven’t made a step beyond the misunderstanding of Islam, and the messianic sentimentalism, of the Bush Administration.
Obama is better at playing the role, or role-playing, as the Messiah who will bring Peace On Earth. It’s a tall order, but he’s a well-pleased pleaser, and thinks if anyone is up to it, he is.
So we are still colossally squandering men, money, and materiel, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan. And Obama would like Americans to spend still more on those people, Muslims, who have been the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history, and one which came about not through any effort on the part of those Muslim, chiefly Arab, recipients, but purely as the result of an accident of geology.
What does he say the Task of Americans now is, those Americans suffering from economic desarroi that is not temporary but permanent, and that threatens Social Security and Medicare? Oh, our new task, should we choose to accept it -- and Obama assumes we will choose to accept it -- is to be here to help the world’s Muslims, lest they think we are insufficiently caring and sharing. We are here to supply -- can that favorite English phrase of so many Arabs, “Marshall Plan,” be far behind? -- still more money, and more money, despite the fact that the rich Arab states have received more than twelve trillion dollars in revenues from the sale of oil and gas since 1973 alone, and now sit collectively on far more than a trillion dollars, while America is the greatest debtor nation on earth. And we will mislead ourselves, or our leaders will do it for us, telling us what Islam stands for, and what the history of Islam, and of Muslim conquest of vast non-Muslim lands and peoples, has meant. Barack Obama does not recognize Islam as a vehicle of Arab imperialism, in which the conquered peoples were, quickly or slowly, forcibly converted -- most often to avoid the onerous condition of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity that was the lot of all dhimmis, even if sometimes an unusual Muslim ruler, such as the syncretistic Akbar, might temporarily soften the effects of Muslim rule. Akbar even lifted the payment of the Jizyah, but after Akbar came Aurangzeb with all his ferocity. He has given no thought to how, in Islam, all pre-Islamic and non-Islamic elements that have gone into the making of a people are ignored, belittled, forgotten, or destroyed, as examples of Jahiliyyah, of the Time of Ignorance before Islam arrived.
Bush and Obama are showing themselves to be very much alike. But Bush, as everyone knew, was a dope. What, many would like to know, is Obama’s excuse?
Update on April 18, 2013:
And what will be the excuse now, for all those who report on the Muslim who spoke at that Interfaith Service, if they say nothing of his deliberate act of deception, and fail to take the opportunity, as I have not, to point out that the Qur'an 5.32 requires the reader, or listern to its recitation. to immediately modify its contents with what is in Qur'an 5.33.
EXCLUSIVE:A new Department of Homeland Security intelligence bulletin warns it could be "impossible" to stop 3D-printed guns from being made, not to mention getting past security checkpoints.
A May 21 bulletin distributed to numerous state and federal law enforcement agencies and obtained by FoxNews.com states that the guns, which can be made by downloading blueprints into cutting edge computers that mold three-dimensional items from melted plastic, "poses public safety risks" and are likely beyond the current reach of regulators. The guns threaten to render 3D gun control efforts useless if their manufacture becomes more widespread.
"Significant advances in three-dimensional (3D) printing capabilities, availability of free digital 3D printer files for firearms components, and difficulty regulating file sharing may present public safety risks from unqualified gun seekers who obtain or manufacture 3D printed guns," warns the bulletin compiled by the Joint Regional Intelligence Center.
The bulletin refers specifically to Defense Distributed, a nonprofit company started by a University of Texas law student, which has successfully made and fired a 3D gun whose only metal parts are the bullets and a small firing pin. Some 100,000 plans for a gun called "The Liberator" were downloaded in just a few days before May 3, when a branch of the U.S. State Department told it to stop sharing the file. But the government bulletin seems to acknowledge that the genie is out of the bottle.
"Limiting access may be impossible," concludes the three-page bulletin.
A source tells FoxNews.com the potential problems faced by government authorities involve securing large, high-profile events or those attended by the President, where magnetometers used to screen for weapons would not pick up a 3D printed gun.
"This is a serious threat," the law enforcement source said. "These could defeat magnetometers. The only security procedure to catch [the 3D firearms] is a pat down. Is America ready for pat-downs at every event?"
In a section called "Liberator design poses Public Safety Risks," the bulletin explains:
"Magnetometers may fail to detect the Liberator, depending on device sensitivity. Though it is prohibited by federal law, manufacturers may deliberately omit the unnecessary metal insert, leaving only a small nail and ammunition as the sole metal component. Future designs could further reduce or eliminate metal entirely.
"Unqualified gun seekers may be able to acquire or manufacture their own Liberators with no background checks."
Other concerns mentioned in the bulletin include: that 3D-printed firearms can be made without serial numbers or unique identifiers, hindering ballistics testing. And improvements in technology and decreasing 3D printer costs are likely to mean even more sophisticated printed guns will become easier to acquire.
"Proposed legislation to ban 3D printing of weapons may deter, but cannot completely prevent their production," the memo says. "Even if the practice is prohibited by new legislation, online distribution of these digital files will be as difficult to control as any other illegally traded music, movie or software files."