The Indian state of Kerala, whose origin of the Christian population dates back to 52 AD, when St. Thomas the Apostale came to the region landing in the port of Cranganore near Cochin, is home to the Malankara Indian Orthodox Tewahido Church, a sister Church to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido. As we are witnessing it right now in Ethiopia, the Christian population of India is also targeted with cases of bribery to convert by the Wahabi Jihadists.
JANMABHUMI Newspaper
Aggressive conversion efforts by Muslims in a prominent region of India are being described as a "love jihad" with a little bribery thrown in.
A new report by a New Delhi, India-based think tank says that Kerala state's Muslim minority is getting ready for a power grab in India's southern-most state.
And one way they're planning on capturing control is through what International Christian Concern's Jonathan Racho calls "love jihad."
"The Muslim man will deliberately seduce a Christian or a Hindu girl. Once they have a relationship and the man marries the girl and they have children, the man forcibly converts the woman to Islam," Racho explained.
"Then the children are raised as Muslim children. In this way the Muslims believe they will be the majority of the population in Kerala in another 20 years," he said.
Racho said the Muslims also are resorting to bribery.
"They're dumping millions of dollars in Kerala and they're getting the money mostly from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. They're really bribing people to get them to convert to Islam," Racho observed.
Racho explained that 56 percent of Kerala's people are Hindu, about 24 percent are Muslim and only 19 percent are Christian.
New Delhi-based Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict founder Animesh Roul says Kerala Muslims can succeed because they are the state's richest people.
"Kerala Muslims are affluent in comparison to their north Indian brothers. They have very strong Gulf and Saudi links," Roul stated.
Roul added that a Muslim takeover in Kerala is also possible because of Saudi influence.
"The Saudi Wahhabi penetration is recent – probably in the last couple of decades due to diaspora and other commercial activities in the Gulf States," Roul added.
Racho said the militant Muslims in Kerala are also organized politically and with a guerilla group called the Popular Front of India.
"This group is willing to use violence, especially against the Christians in southern India. On July 4, this group chopped off the hand of a Christian professor and beat up his wife and 85-year-old mother," Racho said.
The ICC analyst says the PFI doesn't stop there.
"They're also running a Shariah law court that is dedicated to bringing Kerala state under Shariah [Islamic religious] law. They're trying to make the Muslims in Kerala stop going to the government courts and force them to come to the Shariah court," Racho explained further.
Roul's report confirms that the PFI aggressively has dumped money on the region to influence people to convert to Islam.
In a statement to the press, Kerala Chief Minister V. S. Achuthanandan said his government is trying to "crack down" on the PFI.
A report for India's Central Chronicle says Achuthanandan believes that the PFI is another identity of the older National Democratic Front, an active guerilla group that the Indian government believes has given money, weapons and training to young men who would oppose Kerala state's government.
Racho says the Indian government's response has been to educate the people about Islam and the PFI's goals.
Racho adds that Kerala's Christians also are trying to teach their people about Islam and to pray, because that's their best option.
"The Christian doctrine doesn't teach violence as a way to achieve your objectives, so prayer is really the only way," Racho said.
MORE
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Rapes of Christian girls in Pakistan reflect hidden trend
CDN
Sexual assault by Muslim extremists is commonplace but rarely reported.
The vulnerability of Christian girls to sexual assault in Pakistani society emerged again last month as a Muslim landowner allegedly targeted a 16-year-old and a gang of madrassa (Islamic school) students allegedly abused a 12-year-old in Punjab Province.
In Farooqabad, Shiekhupura district, three Muslim co-workers of a Christian man allegedly raped his 16-year-old daughter at gunpoint the night of July 21; the following evening in Gujar Khan, Rawalpindi district, more than a half dozen madrassa students decided to “teach these Christians a lesson” by allegedly gang-raping the 12-year-old girl.
The students at Jamia Islamia Madrassa had been harassing Christians in the villages around Gujar Khan, said the pastor of the church to which the girl’s family belongs, United Pentecostal Church.
“They openly announce that ‘the Christians are our enemies, we should not talk to them, eat with them or do business with them,’” Pastor Shakeel Javed told Compass.
The students often beat Christian children who come to play on the school grounds, telling them to convert or leave, he said, adding that on Sundays they throw stones at the church building.
A school teacher who said she was witness to the alleged rape told Compass that when she came across the madrassa students the evening of July 22, she overheard one saying, “We will teach these Christians a lesson they will never forget.”
MORE
Sexual assault by Muslim extremists is commonplace but rarely reported.
The vulnerability of Christian girls to sexual assault in Pakistani society emerged again last month as a Muslim landowner allegedly targeted a 16-year-old and a gang of madrassa (Islamic school) students allegedly abused a 12-year-old in Punjab Province.
In Farooqabad, Shiekhupura district, three Muslim co-workers of a Christian man allegedly raped his 16-year-old daughter at gunpoint the night of July 21; the following evening in Gujar Khan, Rawalpindi district, more than a half dozen madrassa students decided to “teach these Christians a lesson” by allegedly gang-raping the 12-year-old girl.
The students at Jamia Islamia Madrassa had been harassing Christians in the villages around Gujar Khan, said the pastor of the church to which the girl’s family belongs, United Pentecostal Church.
“They openly announce that ‘the Christians are our enemies, we should not talk to them, eat with them or do business with them,’” Pastor Shakeel Javed told Compass.
The students often beat Christian children who come to play on the school grounds, telling them to convert or leave, he said, adding that on Sundays they throw stones at the church building.
A school teacher who said she was witness to the alleged rape told Compass that when she came across the madrassa students the evening of July 22, she overheard one saying, “We will teach these Christians a lesson they will never forget.”
MORE
Islamic nations snub UN plea to help flood victims
THE TIMES
Western countries have rallied to Pakistan's aid, with the US and Britain the leading donors in the drive to raise $US460 million in the first 90 days. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, is expected to attend a special meeting of the UN General Assembly on Thursday to show solidarity with Pakistan, diplomats said.
Not a single Islamic nation appeared yesterday on the UN's latest list of donors, despite efforts to reach out to them.
The US had pledged $US62million, followed by Britain with $US26 million, bringing current commitments to $US204million - less than half of the UN's goal.
Japan came third with $US13 million, followed by lesser pledges from 18 other countries. The World Bank promised a $US900 million loan.
MORE
Western countries have rallied to Pakistan's aid, with the US and Britain the leading donors in the drive to raise $US460 million in the first 90 days. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, is expected to attend a special meeting of the UN General Assembly on Thursday to show solidarity with Pakistan, diplomats said.
Not a single Islamic nation appeared yesterday on the UN's latest list of donors, despite efforts to reach out to them.
The US had pledged $US62million, followed by Britain with $US26 million, bringing current commitments to $US204million - less than half of the UN's goal.
Japan came third with $US13 million, followed by lesser pledges from 18 other countries. The World Bank promised a $US900 million loan.
MORE
Where are Muslim nations?
Meanwhile, the non-Muslim world and Christian relief organizations show their usual generosity towards giving hands to the flood victims in Pakistan, rich Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, so glutted with petrodollars, have been slow or stingy in their response to a disaster that affects their non-Arab Muslim brethren. There was the tsunami, and the needs of the World Food Program. Even in one of the latest crises in Pakistan in 2009, their slowness to respond was noted.
FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE, By F. Hugh
Saudi Arabia is sitting on close to a one trillion dollar surplus. So is the U.A.E. Kuwait and Qatar and the other Muslim oil states have smaller amounts. And remember that Saudi Arabia's population -- not its declared, but its real population -- cannot exceed 20 million (exclusive of the foreign wage-slaves who do all the work, and without whom Saudi Arabia would collapse), while the native Arabs in the U.A.E. and Kuwait cannot total more than one million, or possibly two. And these are the people who year after year after year, receive hundreds of billions of dollars without lifting a finger to earn or merit it.
Yet it is the Infidel nation-states that are spending a fortune to protect Afghans from the Taliban. It is the Infidel nation-states, or rather the United States, that spent or has committed two trillion dollars (see Stiglitz and Blimes, "The Three Trillion Dollar War") to make Iraq unified and prosperous -- vain hope, vain expenditure. It is the Infidels who give aid to Egypt -- $75 billion from Ameria alone, to Jordan, to the "Palestian" Arabs who, under Arafat or under his close collaborator and successor Mahmoud Abbas, keep receiving billions and billions, many of which they divert to the uses of their own warlords and those warlords' families.
Meanwhile, all that "social justice" that Muslim converts keep being taken in by? There is none. The elites in Muslim OPEC countries seize as much of the revenues for themselves as they can: see the Al-Saud, the Al-Nahyan, the Al-Thani, the Al-Sabah, the Al-This and the Al-That. In other Muslim countries or entities, such as Egypt, with Mubarak's Family-and-Friends plan, or in Jordan, where the Son-of-the-Plucky-Little-King now rules, or -- as just noted above - in the Fatahstan of the Slow Jihadists (the Hamastan of the Fast Jihadists are temporarily to get nothing, until they learn to lie like the Slow Jihadists, and tell the Western donors what they want to hear) the wealth they divert comes in the form of Western, chiefly American, aid.
And when there is a tsunami, and the hyper-Muslims of Aceh need aid, who sends it? The United States. Not Saudi Arabia, not the U.A.E., not Kuwait, not Qatar, not Libya, not Oman, not Iran. When Pakistan has an earthquake, who sends aid? The United States, not Saudi Araabia, not the U.A.E., not Kuwait, not Qatar, not Libya, not Oman, not Iran. When there are floods in Pakistan, meretricious Pakistan, the Pakistan whose national heroes are A. Q. Khan and Aafiya Siddiqui, who sends aid? The United States, not Saudi Araabia, not the U.A.E., not Kuwait, not Qatar, not Libya, not Oman, not Iran.
When the Americans, when James Baker, tried to get Iraq's foreign debt cancelled so as to help the country, the Americans, the British, the French, the Germans, all the Europeans, and Japan too, agreed to cancel nearly one hundred billion dollars in debt. Whey James Baker tried to get Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Kuwait to cancel the debt Iraq owed them, they refused -- and as far as I know, only the U.A.E. has given any sign of reconsidering.
The unity of the Umma, the Muslim community, does not include sharing of any wealth. The unity of the Umma exists only as against the Infidels, and then that unity is much on view.
Now is the time for the American government, or others, to call attention to the selfishness and greed of those rich Arab states, to list the amounts they have in reserve and to note how much could be done with a tiny fraction of those trillions. The amounts transferred to Muslim states and peoples by non-Muslim states and peoples should be brought up on every occasion. And especially with the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs, the American and other Western governments should keep raising the issue, in order to begin to get Musims thinking about all the ways that Islam, despite its universalist pretensions, has always been a vehicle for Arab cultural, lingustic, and other forms of imperialism -- that is, a vehicle for Arab supremacism.
That should be one of this decade's supreme themes: Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism. And don't let up on this theme for one minute.
FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE, By F. Hugh
Saudi Arabia is sitting on close to a one trillion dollar surplus. So is the U.A.E. Kuwait and Qatar and the other Muslim oil states have smaller amounts. And remember that Saudi Arabia's population -- not its declared, but its real population -- cannot exceed 20 million (exclusive of the foreign wage-slaves who do all the work, and without whom Saudi Arabia would collapse), while the native Arabs in the U.A.E. and Kuwait cannot total more than one million, or possibly two. And these are the people who year after year after year, receive hundreds of billions of dollars without lifting a finger to earn or merit it.
Yet it is the Infidel nation-states that are spending a fortune to protect Afghans from the Taliban. It is the Infidel nation-states, or rather the United States, that spent or has committed two trillion dollars (see Stiglitz and Blimes, "The Three Trillion Dollar War") to make Iraq unified and prosperous -- vain hope, vain expenditure. It is the Infidels who give aid to Egypt -- $75 billion from Ameria alone, to Jordan, to the "Palestian" Arabs who, under Arafat or under his close collaborator and successor Mahmoud Abbas, keep receiving billions and billions, many of which they divert to the uses of their own warlords and those warlords' families.
Meanwhile, all that "social justice" that Muslim converts keep being taken in by? There is none. The elites in Muslim OPEC countries seize as much of the revenues for themselves as they can: see the Al-Saud, the Al-Nahyan, the Al-Thani, the Al-Sabah, the Al-This and the Al-That. In other Muslim countries or entities, such as Egypt, with Mubarak's Family-and-Friends plan, or in Jordan, where the Son-of-the-Plucky-Little-King now rules, or -- as just noted above - in the Fatahstan of the Slow Jihadists (the Hamastan of the Fast Jihadists are temporarily to get nothing, until they learn to lie like the Slow Jihadists, and tell the Western donors what they want to hear) the wealth they divert comes in the form of Western, chiefly American, aid.
And when there is a tsunami, and the hyper-Muslims of Aceh need aid, who sends it? The United States. Not Saudi Arabia, not the U.A.E., not Kuwait, not Qatar, not Libya, not Oman, not Iran. When Pakistan has an earthquake, who sends aid? The United States, not Saudi Araabia, not the U.A.E., not Kuwait, not Qatar, not Libya, not Oman, not Iran. When there are floods in Pakistan, meretricious Pakistan, the Pakistan whose national heroes are A. Q. Khan and Aafiya Siddiqui, who sends aid? The United States, not Saudi Araabia, not the U.A.E., not Kuwait, not Qatar, not Libya, not Oman, not Iran.
When the Americans, when James Baker, tried to get Iraq's foreign debt cancelled so as to help the country, the Americans, the British, the French, the Germans, all the Europeans, and Japan too, agreed to cancel nearly one hundred billion dollars in debt. Whey James Baker tried to get Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Kuwait to cancel the debt Iraq owed them, they refused -- and as far as I know, only the U.A.E. has given any sign of reconsidering.
The unity of the Umma, the Muslim community, does not include sharing of any wealth. The unity of the Umma exists only as against the Infidels, and then that unity is much on view.
Now is the time for the American government, or others, to call attention to the selfishness and greed of those rich Arab states, to list the amounts they have in reserve and to note how much could be done with a tiny fraction of those trillions. The amounts transferred to Muslim states and peoples by non-Muslim states and peoples should be brought up on every occasion. And especially with the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs, the American and other Western governments should keep raising the issue, in order to begin to get Musims thinking about all the ways that Islam, despite its universalist pretensions, has always been a vehicle for Arab cultural, lingustic, and other forms of imperialism -- that is, a vehicle for Arab supremacism.
That should be one of this decade's supreme themes: Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism. And don't let up on this theme for one minute.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Why won't the Left defend Christians as fiercely as It defends Muslims?
FOX News
The battle over the proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero has sparked outrage and fury.
The argument from those who oppose it: it’s an incredibly insensitive move designed to deliberately provoke the nation from a radical Imam who says the U.S. is culpable for the attacks of 9/11. They’re correct.
What’s surprising is the level of outrage from the other side -- mostly those on the left – who argue we must allow the building of the mosque and community center in the name of tolerance of Islam. Where are these shrieking voices in defense when other religions like Christianity and Judaism are under attack?
There has always been a double standard when it comes to understanding and explaining the Muslim religion verses Christianity.
While many Muslim countries ban women from voting, driving a car, and threaten to kill anyone who speaks of Christ within their borders, you rarely hear those on the left invoke sharp criticism or shake their finger in fury.
Instead, they save the attacks and their selective attention span for the random “Christian” who blocks an abortion clinic.
When the radical Islamic Fort Hood shooter claimed the life of twelve soldiers, the media dubbed him “troubled.”
A CNN.com article, along with many others, only identified him an “Army psychologist” and failed to make any reference to his ties to radical jihadism or make initial references to his religion – even after e-mails were found detailing his extremist views.
But when a Michigan-based militia group was indicted in an alleged plot to kill law enforcement officers with improvised explosive devices they were quickly – and inaccurately – labeled as a “Christian militia group” – not just in the body of an ABC News.com article, but in the headline, too.
In his book “Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," David Limbaugh details the double standard: The media portrays Christians as unreasonable and violent, charging them with violent acts against abortionists, abortion clinics or homosexuals while at the same time both Hollywood and the press downplay injustices and violent acts committed against Christians.
A favorite media tactic is the use of the pejorative term "religious right" to describe Christian conservatives, implying such believers are "intolerant” and “backwoods fanatics.”
It’s no big deal when newspapers dub Christians “The American Taliban.” And it’s okay for Ted Turner to call Catholics with ashes on their head “Jesus freaks.” But God forbid you refer to the guys crashing the planes into building as Allah freaks.
Comedian and commentator Dennis Miller offered an accurate explanation for why the left and the mainstream media seek to appease the Muslim community and have been defending the Ground Zero mosque so ardently on an August 4 episode of "The O’Reilly Factor": “People are afraid to say anything about radical Islam because they get blown up.”
Instead of staying true to our values so that we don’t let the terrorists win, many Americans (the president included) are shackled by fear or a belief that the nicer we are, the less they’ll come after us. They speak out on discrimination and freedom, except when it comes to defending Christianity.
That’s why the fervent defense of the Ground Zero mosque by those on the left was so unsurprising, and so nauseating. We are a nation of all religions, they chanted. We must stay true to our values, they screamed. Both of these statements are accurate. But why not defend Christianity or Judaism with that kind of passion?
If the Muslims who want to build the mosque for “bridge building” and an “interfaith dialogue” truly wanted to practice what they preach then they will move it or make it an actual interfaith center. Until then, the only bridge I see is the one that’s burning.
As Steven Schwarz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, wrote in the August 3rd edition of the New York Post, “Traditional, moderate Islam teaches Muslims living in non-Muslim-majority societies to obey the laws and customs of the country in which they reside. They must avoid conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors whenever possible.”
You see, tolerance isn’t a one sided thing. For the extremists that want to blow us up, it doesn’t matter what we say or do. They’ll still plot to destroy us. For the many millions of peaceful Muslims, they’ll respect us more if we equally defend and apply the same standard of tolerance to all religions that we do theirs.
MORE
The battle over the proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero has sparked outrage and fury.
The argument from those who oppose it: it’s an incredibly insensitive move designed to deliberately provoke the nation from a radical Imam who says the U.S. is culpable for the attacks of 9/11. They’re correct.
What’s surprising is the level of outrage from the other side -- mostly those on the left – who argue we must allow the building of the mosque and community center in the name of tolerance of Islam. Where are these shrieking voices in defense when other religions like Christianity and Judaism are under attack?
There has always been a double standard when it comes to understanding and explaining the Muslim religion verses Christianity.
While many Muslim countries ban women from voting, driving a car, and threaten to kill anyone who speaks of Christ within their borders, you rarely hear those on the left invoke sharp criticism or shake their finger in fury.
Instead, they save the attacks and their selective attention span for the random “Christian” who blocks an abortion clinic.
When the radical Islamic Fort Hood shooter claimed the life of twelve soldiers, the media dubbed him “troubled.”
A CNN.com article, along with many others, only identified him an “Army psychologist” and failed to make any reference to his ties to radical jihadism or make initial references to his religion – even after e-mails were found detailing his extremist views.
But when a Michigan-based militia group was indicted in an alleged plot to kill law enforcement officers with improvised explosive devices they were quickly – and inaccurately – labeled as a “Christian militia group” – not just in the body of an ABC News.com article, but in the headline, too.
In his book “Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity," David Limbaugh details the double standard: The media portrays Christians as unreasonable and violent, charging them with violent acts against abortionists, abortion clinics or homosexuals while at the same time both Hollywood and the press downplay injustices and violent acts committed against Christians.
A favorite media tactic is the use of the pejorative term "religious right" to describe Christian conservatives, implying such believers are "intolerant” and “backwoods fanatics.”
It’s no big deal when newspapers dub Christians “The American Taliban.” And it’s okay for Ted Turner to call Catholics with ashes on their head “Jesus freaks.” But God forbid you refer to the guys crashing the planes into building as Allah freaks.
Comedian and commentator Dennis Miller offered an accurate explanation for why the left and the mainstream media seek to appease the Muslim community and have been defending the Ground Zero mosque so ardently on an August 4 episode of "The O’Reilly Factor": “People are afraid to say anything about radical Islam because they get blown up.”
Instead of staying true to our values so that we don’t let the terrorists win, many Americans (the president included) are shackled by fear or a belief that the nicer we are, the less they’ll come after us. They speak out on discrimination and freedom, except when it comes to defending Christianity.
That’s why the fervent defense of the Ground Zero mosque by those on the left was so unsurprising, and so nauseating. We are a nation of all religions, they chanted. We must stay true to our values, they screamed. Both of these statements are accurate. But why not defend Christianity or Judaism with that kind of passion?
If the Muslims who want to build the mosque for “bridge building” and an “interfaith dialogue” truly wanted to practice what they preach then they will move it or make it an actual interfaith center. Until then, the only bridge I see is the one that’s burning.
As Steven Schwarz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, wrote in the August 3rd edition of the New York Post, “Traditional, moderate Islam teaches Muslims living in non-Muslim-majority societies to obey the laws and customs of the country in which they reside. They must avoid conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors whenever possible.”
You see, tolerance isn’t a one sided thing. For the extremists that want to blow us up, it doesn’t matter what we say or do. They’ll still plot to destroy us. For the many millions of peaceful Muslims, they’ll respect us more if we equally defend and apply the same standard of tolerance to all religions that we do theirs.
MORE
President Obama’s Ramadan delusions
FORNTPAGE MAGAZINE, by Robert Spencer
This year's Ramadan message from Barack Obama is the latest in a long line of warmly complimentary communications that he has addressed to the Islamic world over the last eighteen months. Reciprocally warm and friendly greetings have yet to arrive from those to whom Obama has addressed these messages, but the President appears undaunted. Eighteen months into his presidency, he seems to be clinging more determinedly than ever to the idea that soft words about Islam will turn away the jihad - despite the total lack of confirming evidence.
Just as he did in his June 2009 address to the Islamic world in Cairo, where he used the greeting by which one Muslim is to greet another, as-salaamu aleikum (peace be upon you), Obama in his Ramadan message adopted Islamic terminology. "Ramadan Kareem," he said near the beginning of the message, and ended it with "may God's peace be upon you." Clearly he is doing his best to give the impression that he comes in friendship. And he doesn't stop there.
Again characteristically, Obama then retails a few platitudes lifted straight out of a ninth-grade World Religions textbook: "Ramadan is a time when Muslims around the world reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God. This is a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But Ramadan is also a time of intense devotion and reflection - a time when Muslims fast during the day and pray during the night; when Muslims provide support to others to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere."
One may legitimately wonder how past Ramadans have resulted in any advancement of "opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere." In reality, it contravenes Islamic law to give zakat, the almsgiving that is one of the pillars of Islam and is required of every Muslim, to non-Muslims. That's why it is easy to find Western governmental agencies and Christian charitable organizations busy building and staffing schools and hospitals in impoverished parts of Africa and Asia, but oil-rich Muslim countries have never undertaken similar endeavors. With the sharp divide in Islam between believers and unbelievers, such that Muslims are commanded to be "merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers" (Qur'an 48:29), there simply is no basis in Islamic law for the idea that Islam fosters the advance of "opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere."
Heedless, however, of the inaccuracy of his words, Obama charged ahead and compounded it. Ramadan's rituals of fasting and prayer, he said, "remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings."
Here again, one wonders how the designation of non-Muslims as "the most vile of created beings" (Qur'an 98:6) advances human dignity, much less tolerance or justice. The command that Muslims must fight against Jews and Christians until they pay a religion-based poll tax, jizya, "with willing submission and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29) likewise seems to militate against the idea of universal human dignity that Obama professes to have discovered in Islam.
Yet still his flights of fancy weren't over. "Ramadan," he claimed, "is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality." Diversity? While it is undoubtedly true that people of all races and nations have embraced Islam, when they do so, they at least partially Arabize. Islam is an Arabic religion; the Qur'an, as it tells us about itself repeatedly, is an "Arabic Qur'an." Muslims must pray in Arabic, and recite the Qur'an in Arabic, whether they're weathermen from Minnesota or fishermen from Indonesia. Conversion to Islam led a black American to change his name to Muhammad Ali, a name he undoubtedly shares with innumerable Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghans, and others. A recent meeting of Southeast Asian dignitaries showed participants with names indigenous to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the other countries in the region. Only the Indonesian participant had a name that had nothing to do with the indigenous culture of the country of his birth, and everything to do with Arabia. What's more, throughout Islamic history Arabs have claimed for themselves a privileged position within the Islamic community, and have regarded non-Arab Muslims as second-class. Racial equality? Not by a long shot.
"And here in the United States," Obama continued, "Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country." Islam has always been a part of America? Really? Maybe Robert Gibbs will be so kind as to provide us with a list of the Muslim Founding Fathers, the Muslim heroes of the American Revolution, the names of the Muslims killed fighting in the Civil War (for the North, no doubt - you know, "racial equality"!), the Muslim Senators and Congressmen who served with distinction in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - I'm sure the Obama Administration will have no trouble coming up with all that, will they? And I trust it will also contain a list of those "extraordinary contributions" that Muslims have made to our country. Aside from being the impetus for some extraordinary innovations in airport security, I can't think of any.
But I doubt that one will be on Obama's list.
This year's Ramadan message from Barack Obama is the latest in a long line of warmly complimentary communications that he has addressed to the Islamic world over the last eighteen months. Reciprocally warm and friendly greetings have yet to arrive from those to whom Obama has addressed these messages, but the President appears undaunted. Eighteen months into his presidency, he seems to be clinging more determinedly than ever to the idea that soft words about Islam will turn away the jihad - despite the total lack of confirming evidence.
Just as he did in his June 2009 address to the Islamic world in Cairo, where he used the greeting by which one Muslim is to greet another, as-salaamu aleikum (peace be upon you), Obama in his Ramadan message adopted Islamic terminology. "Ramadan Kareem," he said near the beginning of the message, and ended it with "may God's peace be upon you." Clearly he is doing his best to give the impression that he comes in friendship. And he doesn't stop there.
Again characteristically, Obama then retails a few platitudes lifted straight out of a ninth-grade World Religions textbook: "Ramadan is a time when Muslims around the world reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God. This is a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But Ramadan is also a time of intense devotion and reflection - a time when Muslims fast during the day and pray during the night; when Muslims provide support to others to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere."
One may legitimately wonder how past Ramadans have resulted in any advancement of "opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere." In reality, it contravenes Islamic law to give zakat, the almsgiving that is one of the pillars of Islam and is required of every Muslim, to non-Muslims. That's why it is easy to find Western governmental agencies and Christian charitable organizations busy building and staffing schools and hospitals in impoverished parts of Africa and Asia, but oil-rich Muslim countries have never undertaken similar endeavors. With the sharp divide in Islam between believers and unbelievers, such that Muslims are commanded to be "merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers" (Qur'an 48:29), there simply is no basis in Islamic law for the idea that Islam fosters the advance of "opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere."
Heedless, however, of the inaccuracy of his words, Obama charged ahead and compounded it. Ramadan's rituals of fasting and prayer, he said, "remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings."
Here again, one wonders how the designation of non-Muslims as "the most vile of created beings" (Qur'an 98:6) advances human dignity, much less tolerance or justice. The command that Muslims must fight against Jews and Christians until they pay a religion-based poll tax, jizya, "with willing submission and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29) likewise seems to militate against the idea of universal human dignity that Obama professes to have discovered in Islam.
Yet still his flights of fancy weren't over. "Ramadan," he claimed, "is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality." Diversity? While it is undoubtedly true that people of all races and nations have embraced Islam, when they do so, they at least partially Arabize. Islam is an Arabic religion; the Qur'an, as it tells us about itself repeatedly, is an "Arabic Qur'an." Muslims must pray in Arabic, and recite the Qur'an in Arabic, whether they're weathermen from Minnesota or fishermen from Indonesia. Conversion to Islam led a black American to change his name to Muhammad Ali, a name he undoubtedly shares with innumerable Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghans, and others. A recent meeting of Southeast Asian dignitaries showed participants with names indigenous to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and the other countries in the region. Only the Indonesian participant had a name that had nothing to do with the indigenous culture of the country of his birth, and everything to do with Arabia. What's more, throughout Islamic history Arabs have claimed for themselves a privileged position within the Islamic community, and have regarded non-Arab Muslims as second-class. Racial equality? Not by a long shot.
"And here in the United States," Obama continued, "Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country." Islam has always been a part of America? Really? Maybe Robert Gibbs will be so kind as to provide us with a list of the Muslim Founding Fathers, the Muslim heroes of the American Revolution, the names of the Muslims killed fighting in the Civil War (for the North, no doubt - you know, "racial equality"!), the Muslim Senators and Congressmen who served with distinction in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - I'm sure the Obama Administration will have no trouble coming up with all that, will they? And I trust it will also contain a list of those "extraordinary contributions" that Muslims have made to our country. Aside from being the impetus for some extraordinary innovations in airport security, I can't think of any.
But I doubt that one will be on Obama's list.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Islamists in Tanzania demolish Christian foundation
(CDN) Compass direct news
On an island off the coast of East Africa where the local government limits the ability of Christians to obtain land, officials in one town have colluded with area Muslims to erect a mosque in place of a planned church building.
On the Tanzanian island of Zanzibar, Pastor Paulo Kamole Masegi of the Evangelistic Assemblies of God had purchased land in April 2007 for a church building in Mwanyanya-Mtoni, and by November of that year he had built a house that served as a temporary worship center, he said.
Masegi intended for the house to serve eventually as his family’s home within the church compound, but on Nov. 11, 2007, his congregation began to worship there.
Soon area Muslim residents objected, saying they didn’t like seeing the church in the area, said Pastor Lucian Mgaywa of the Church of God in Tanzania.
“This was the beginning of the church’s tribulations,” Pastor Mgaywa said.
In August 2009, local Muslims began to build a mosque just three feet away from the church plot, Pastor Mgaywa said. In November 2009, Pastor Masegi began building a permanent church structure. Angry Muslims invaded the compound and destroyed the structure’s foundation, the pastors said.
Church leaders reported the destruction to police, who took no action – and also refused to release the crime report for court purposes, Pastor Masegi said. When he would inquire about the case, he said, the station head would inform him that the district police chief had the crime report and therefore it was not available.
“So it’s not possible to take the file to the court, because doing so would amount to defending Christianity,” the station police chief told him, according to Pastor Masegi.
With the district police chief sealing off any possibility of a court hearing, the church was unable to proceed with plans for building a permanent structure. In the meantime, construction of a mosque was well underway. It was completed by the end of December 2009.
The planned church building’s fate appeared to have been sealed earlier this year when Western District Commissioner Ali Mohammed Ali notified Pastor Masegi that he had no right to hold worship in a “residential house.” The Feb. 16 letter from the commissioner to Pastor Masegi forbidding him to convert his house into a worship center confirmed the decision by the district chief of Bububu police station not to prosecute those who destroyed the foundation of the planned church building, he said.
“Now the Christian faithful are feeling targeted even by the government officials,” said Pastor Masegi. “The region is predominantly Muslim, and attempts at evangelizing are always met with brutal resistance.”
Since the prohibition to conduct worship services in his home, both police and area Muslims monitor Pastor Masegi’s movements, he said, and the congregation has no place to worship.
In predominately Sunni Muslim Zanzibar, churches face other hurdles. There are restrictions on getting land to build churches, open preaching is outlawed and there is limited time on national television to air Christian programs. In government schools, religion classes are limited to Islam.
Zanzibar is the informal designation for the island of Unguja in the Indian Ocean. The Zanzibar archipelago united with Tanganyika to form the present day Tanzania in 1964.
Muslim traders from the Persian Gulf had settled in the region early in the 10th century after monsoon winds propelled them through the Gulf of Aden. The 1964 merger left island Muslims uneasy about Christianity, seeing it as a means by which mainland Tanzania might dominate them, and tensions have persisted.
On an island off the coast of East Africa where the local government limits the ability of Christians to obtain land, officials in one town have colluded with area Muslims to erect a mosque in place of a planned church building.
On the Tanzanian island of Zanzibar, Pastor Paulo Kamole Masegi of the Evangelistic Assemblies of God had purchased land in April 2007 for a church building in Mwanyanya-Mtoni, and by November of that year he had built a house that served as a temporary worship center, he said.
Masegi intended for the house to serve eventually as his family’s home within the church compound, but on Nov. 11, 2007, his congregation began to worship there.
Soon area Muslim residents objected, saying they didn’t like seeing the church in the area, said Pastor Lucian Mgaywa of the Church of God in Tanzania.
“This was the beginning of the church’s tribulations,” Pastor Mgaywa said.
In August 2009, local Muslims began to build a mosque just three feet away from the church plot, Pastor Mgaywa said. In November 2009, Pastor Masegi began building a permanent church structure. Angry Muslims invaded the compound and destroyed the structure’s foundation, the pastors said.
Church leaders reported the destruction to police, who took no action – and also refused to release the crime report for court purposes, Pastor Masegi said. When he would inquire about the case, he said, the station head would inform him that the district police chief had the crime report and therefore it was not available.
“So it’s not possible to take the file to the court, because doing so would amount to defending Christianity,” the station police chief told him, according to Pastor Masegi.
With the district police chief sealing off any possibility of a court hearing, the church was unable to proceed with plans for building a permanent structure. In the meantime, construction of a mosque was well underway. It was completed by the end of December 2009.
The planned church building’s fate appeared to have been sealed earlier this year when Western District Commissioner Ali Mohammed Ali notified Pastor Masegi that he had no right to hold worship in a “residential house.” The Feb. 16 letter from the commissioner to Pastor Masegi forbidding him to convert his house into a worship center confirmed the decision by the district chief of Bububu police station not to prosecute those who destroyed the foundation of the planned church building, he said.
“Now the Christian faithful are feeling targeted even by the government officials,” said Pastor Masegi. “The region is predominantly Muslim, and attempts at evangelizing are always met with brutal resistance.”
Since the prohibition to conduct worship services in his home, both police and area Muslims monitor Pastor Masegi’s movements, he said, and the congregation has no place to worship.
In predominately Sunni Muslim Zanzibar, churches face other hurdles. There are restrictions on getting land to build churches, open preaching is outlawed and there is limited time on national television to air Christian programs. In government schools, religion classes are limited to Islam.
Zanzibar is the informal designation for the island of Unguja in the Indian Ocean. The Zanzibar archipelago united with Tanganyika to form the present day Tanzania in 1964.
Muslim traders from the Persian Gulf had settled in the region early in the 10th century after monsoon winds propelled them through the Gulf of Aden. The 1964 merger left island Muslims uneasy about Christianity, seeing it as a means by which mainland Tanzania might dominate them, and tensions have persisted.
Friday, August 6, 2010
British parents’ fury at plans for halal-only menus in primary schools
THE DAILY MAIL (UK)
Parents have expressed fury at plans to serve pupils halal-only menus for school dinners. In a move which has also enraged animal welfare groups, only meat from animals killed and prepared using Islamic teaching may be allowed at 52 primaries in Harrow.
The local authority is thought to be the first in England to consider insisting on a halal-only menu apparently after recommendations of dietitians.
Using the halal method, animals are slaughtered by being slashed across the neck and being left so that the blood drains from the carcass.
The religious ritual, which does not allow the animals to be stunned beforehand, is considered cruel by campaigners and is exempt from animal welfare laws.
Harrow resident Sheila Murphy told the Harrow Observer: 'I am appalled at Harrow Council’s decision to serve only Halal meat in the borough’s schools.
'The Farm Animal Welfare Council has lobbied the government in the past to get the Kosher and Halal method of slaughter banned.
'The Halal method, in which animals are slaughtered by a single slit to the throat, is the only way of killing livestock allowed under Islam but this method is deemed cruel by some animal-lovers, who object to the slow death it involves.
'Harrow Council’s decision is also taking away the choice of children and their parents over what meat they eat and I urge Harrow residents to make their views known to Harrow Council and get this decision overturned.'
MORE
WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD AVOID HALAL FOOD
U.S. charges 14 with giving support to Somali insurgent group
THE WASHINGTON POST
Federal authorities unsealed terrorism-related charges Thursday against 14 people accused of providing funding and recruits to a militant group in Somalia with ties to al-Qaeda, part of an expanding U.S. effort to disrupt what Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called a "deadly pipeline" of money and fighters to al-Shabab.
It is the first time that the Justice Department has publicly revealed criminal charges against two U.S. citizens, Omar Hammami and Jehad Mostafa, who have risen through al-Shabab's ranks to become important field commanders for the organization.
The indictments were unsealed in Alabama, California and Minnesota, the latter being home to the largest Somali population in the United States.
In Minnesota, officials said, FBI agents arrested two women on Thursday on charges that included soliciting donations door-to-door for al-Shabab, which the United States designated a terrorist organization in 2008. The other 12 suspects were in Somalia or were otherwise at large.
The indictments "shed further light on a deadly pipeline that has routed funding and fighters to al-Shabab from cities across the United States," Holder said. "We are seeing an increasing number of individuals -- including U.S. citizens -- who have become captivated by extremist ideology and have taken steps to carry out terrorist objectives, either at home or abroad."
For years, al-Shabab was seen primarily as an insurgent group struggling to topple Somalia's weak government and to impose strict Islamic law. But the group's focus "has morphed over time," a senior FBI official said. Al-Shabab has attracted a growing number of foreign fighters to its camps and has demonstrated a new ability to export violence, and it has been praised by Osama bin Laden.
Last month, the group claimed responsibility for bombings in Uganda that killed at least 76 people. A State Department terrorism report released Thursday said al-Shabab and al-Qaeda "present a serious terrorist threat to American and allied interests throughout the Horn of Africa."
Holder said none of those charged is accused of plotting attacks against U.S. targets. Most are accused of sending money or signing up for a war aimed at ousting the U.S.-backed government in Mogadishu. Even so, al-Shabab's ties to al-Qaeda and its ability to tap support inside the United States have caused concern that the group could be used to carry out a domestic attack.
"What it reaffirms is that we do have a problem with domestic radicalization," said Frank J. Cilluffo, an official in the George W. Bush administration who heads the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University.
The indictments follow the arrest last month of Zachary Adam Chesser, 20, of Fairfax County, who was detained in New York while attempting to depart for Africa. Authorities said he planned to join al-Shabab.
As part of a multiyear FBI investigation, 19 people have been charged in Minnesota with supporting al-Shabab. Nine have been arrested, including five who have pleaded guilty; the others are not in custody.
But the most significant figures indicted are the two Americans who have emerged as battle-tested leaders of al-Shabab.
MORE
Federal authorities unsealed terrorism-related charges Thursday against 14 people accused of providing funding and recruits to a militant group in Somalia with ties to al-Qaeda, part of an expanding U.S. effort to disrupt what Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called a "deadly pipeline" of money and fighters to al-Shabab.
It is the first time that the Justice Department has publicly revealed criminal charges against two U.S. citizens, Omar Hammami and Jehad Mostafa, who have risen through al-Shabab's ranks to become important field commanders for the organization.
The indictments were unsealed in Alabama, California and Minnesota, the latter being home to the largest Somali population in the United States.
In Minnesota, officials said, FBI agents arrested two women on Thursday on charges that included soliciting donations door-to-door for al-Shabab, which the United States designated a terrorist organization in 2008. The other 12 suspects were in Somalia or were otherwise at large.
The indictments "shed further light on a deadly pipeline that has routed funding and fighters to al-Shabab from cities across the United States," Holder said. "We are seeing an increasing number of individuals -- including U.S. citizens -- who have become captivated by extremist ideology and have taken steps to carry out terrorist objectives, either at home or abroad."
For years, al-Shabab was seen primarily as an insurgent group struggling to topple Somalia's weak government and to impose strict Islamic law. But the group's focus "has morphed over time," a senior FBI official said. Al-Shabab has attracted a growing number of foreign fighters to its camps and has demonstrated a new ability to export violence, and it has been praised by Osama bin Laden.
Last month, the group claimed responsibility for bombings in Uganda that killed at least 76 people. A State Department terrorism report released Thursday said al-Shabab and al-Qaeda "present a serious terrorist threat to American and allied interests throughout the Horn of Africa."
Holder said none of those charged is accused of plotting attacks against U.S. targets. Most are accused of sending money or signing up for a war aimed at ousting the U.S.-backed government in Mogadishu. Even so, al-Shabab's ties to al-Qaeda and its ability to tap support inside the United States have caused concern that the group could be used to carry out a domestic attack.
"What it reaffirms is that we do have a problem with domestic radicalization," said Frank J. Cilluffo, an official in the George W. Bush administration who heads the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University.
The indictments follow the arrest last month of Zachary Adam Chesser, 20, of Fairfax County, who was detained in New York while attempting to depart for Africa. Authorities said he planned to join al-Shabab.
As part of a multiyear FBI investigation, 19 people have been charged in Minnesota with supporting al-Shabab. Nine have been arrested, including five who have pleaded guilty; the others are not in custody.
But the most significant figures indicted are the two Americans who have emerged as battle-tested leaders of al-Shabab.
MORE
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Islamic police smash 80,000 beer bottles in Nigeria
AFP
Islamic police smashed 80,000 bottles of beer in the Nigerian city of Kano on Tuesday to enforce a sharia law ban on consumption of alcohol that exists in much of the country's north.
Over a dozen veiled female sharia police, called Hisbah, destroyed the beer bottles with sticks amid shouts of "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) on the outskirts of the northern city in a ceremony.
The ceremony was attended by government officials as part of "efforts to rid the state of immorality," said Kano state Hisbah chief Saidu Dukawa. Kano city is the capital of the state by the same name."The sale and consumption of alcohol, like all forms of drugs and intoxicants, is illegal in Kano state, which practices sharia law and by this event we are enforcing that ban," Dukawa told AFP.
Thirteen trucks brought the bottles of beer to the venue.The alcohol had been seized at the weekend by sharia police as the bottles were being delivered to the city from the mainly Christian south, where most of the country?s breweries are located, Dukawa said.
Although the sale and consumption of alcohol is banned in Kano state, beer trucks find their way to taverns in the predominantly Christian Sabongari neighbourhood, which is practically exempt from sharia law.
Since 1999, when Nigeria returned to civilian rule after years of military dictatorship, around a dozen states in the predominantly Muslim north have reintroduced Islamic sharia law, though it has been selectively applied in many cases.
Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation, and roughly half of the 150 million population is Muslim.
Islamic police smashed 80,000 bottles of beer in the Nigerian city of Kano on Tuesday to enforce a sharia law ban on consumption of alcohol that exists in much of the country's north.
Over a dozen veiled female sharia police, called Hisbah, destroyed the beer bottles with sticks amid shouts of "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) on the outskirts of the northern city in a ceremony.
The ceremony was attended by government officials as part of "efforts to rid the state of immorality," said Kano state Hisbah chief Saidu Dukawa. Kano city is the capital of the state by the same name."The sale and consumption of alcohol, like all forms of drugs and intoxicants, is illegal in Kano state, which practices sharia law and by this event we are enforcing that ban," Dukawa told AFP.
Thirteen trucks brought the bottles of beer to the venue.The alcohol had been seized at the weekend by sharia police as the bottles were being delivered to the city from the mainly Christian south, where most of the country?s breweries are located, Dukawa said.
Although the sale and consumption of alcohol is banned in Kano state, beer trucks find their way to taverns in the predominantly Christian Sabongari neighbourhood, which is practically exempt from sharia law.
Since 1999, when Nigeria returned to civilian rule after years of military dictatorship, around a dozen states in the predominantly Muslim north have reintroduced Islamic sharia law, though it has been selectively applied in many cases.
Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation, and roughly half of the 150 million population is Muslim.
Hundreds of German-financed Somalia police officers go missing
Deutsch Welle (Germany)
Almost 1,000 Somali police have gone missing after their training was financed by the German government. It is feared these officers will now join forces with the Islamist militants Al-Shabaab.
In September 2009, the German government released $1 million (760,000 euros) of funding to train Somali police officers. The training took place in Ethiopia, and the new recruits were equipped with uniforms, weapons and knowledge with the aim of sending them back into Somalia to try and keep peace in the fractured country.
Two months after the completion of this training, almost 1,000 new police officers have reportedly disappeared en route to the Somali capital Mogadishu. It is thought highly likely that these deserters have left to join opposition Islamist militia in Somalia.
In a statement, the German Foreign Office confirmed that funds were released to train Somali police, and that in May 2010, 925 trained officers were transported to Somalia under Ethiopian surveillance. They did not comment on whether the police had deserted or not.
'Training the opposition'
Currently, the transitional Somali government is struggling to suppress the militia, including Al-Qaeda sympathisers Al-Shabaab, who control as much as two-thirds of the country.
Germany is one of several countries who have committed to training security personnel as in indirect method of trying to help, without military intervention. However, according to Ulrich Delius from the Society for Threatened Peoples, the problem is that most of these newly trained recruits "leave after a few months" to go and work for the armed opposition.
"You have to ensure that these people really stay in the official army or police," Delius told Deutsche Welle. "Otherwise you are just training the people you will be fighting in a few months."
A report published by the head of the UN monitoring group on Somalia, Dumisani Kumalo in 2008, said 80 percent of trained security officers deserted their posts, taking with them their weapons, uniforms and the acquired knowledge.
Reasons for desertion
At a time when the transitional government is barely keeping a hold on the north of Somalia, deserters may feel they are better off siding with the militants than the government.
"No one is sure who will be the government of tomorrow… so they are switching to survive," Delius said. "Also, you need a weapon and whether you get it from the police or from the armed opposition, it does not matter."
He added that money was another strong incentive for joining the militants, as "Somali warlords often offer more money than the official army or police."
In this case, German media reports that the Somali police were waiting for their pay from the German government before they disappeared.
Another reason for discontent may be due to the fact that the training took place in Ethiopia – a country with a long, bloody history with Somalia.
"There's a very strong feeling against Ethiopia in all parts of Somali society," said Delius.
Stabilization
The German government has come under fire for not only partnering with Ethiopia, but also according to some sources, bypassing the correct United Nations procedures and ignoring sanctions against Somalia.
However, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it had informed both the UN contact group on Somalia and the UN sanctions committee.
In recent weeks, the government has reconfirmed its commitment to aiding Somalia, most recently at the African Union summit in Kampala. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said that the training of police in Somalia was a "substantial contribution" to stabilizing the country.
Ulrich Delius argues however that all the projects for training security forces will continue to have no effect until politicians start to "understand the root of the problems in Somalia."
Almost 1,000 Somali police have gone missing after their training was financed by the German government. It is feared these officers will now join forces with the Islamist militants Al-Shabaab.
In September 2009, the German government released $1 million (760,000 euros) of funding to train Somali police officers. The training took place in Ethiopia, and the new recruits were equipped with uniforms, weapons and knowledge with the aim of sending them back into Somalia to try and keep peace in the fractured country.
Two months after the completion of this training, almost 1,000 new police officers have reportedly disappeared en route to the Somali capital Mogadishu. It is thought highly likely that these deserters have left to join opposition Islamist militia in Somalia.
In a statement, the German Foreign Office confirmed that funds were released to train Somali police, and that in May 2010, 925 trained officers were transported to Somalia under Ethiopian surveillance. They did not comment on whether the police had deserted or not.
'Training the opposition'
Currently, the transitional Somali government is struggling to suppress the militia, including Al-Qaeda sympathisers Al-Shabaab, who control as much as two-thirds of the country.
Germany is one of several countries who have committed to training security personnel as in indirect method of trying to help, without military intervention. However, according to Ulrich Delius from the Society for Threatened Peoples, the problem is that most of these newly trained recruits "leave after a few months" to go and work for the armed opposition.
"You have to ensure that these people really stay in the official army or police," Delius told Deutsche Welle. "Otherwise you are just training the people you will be fighting in a few months."
A report published by the head of the UN monitoring group on Somalia, Dumisani Kumalo in 2008, said 80 percent of trained security officers deserted their posts, taking with them their weapons, uniforms and the acquired knowledge.
Reasons for desertion
At a time when the transitional government is barely keeping a hold on the north of Somalia, deserters may feel they are better off siding with the militants than the government.
"No one is sure who will be the government of tomorrow… so they are switching to survive," Delius said. "Also, you need a weapon and whether you get it from the police or from the armed opposition, it does not matter."
He added that money was another strong incentive for joining the militants, as "Somali warlords often offer more money than the official army or police."
In this case, German media reports that the Somali police were waiting for their pay from the German government before they disappeared.
Another reason for discontent may be due to the fact that the training took place in Ethiopia – a country with a long, bloody history with Somalia.
"There's a very strong feeling against Ethiopia in all parts of Somali society," said Delius.
Stabilization
The German government has come under fire for not only partnering with Ethiopia, but also according to some sources, bypassing the correct United Nations procedures and ignoring sanctions against Somalia.
However, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it had informed both the UN contact group on Somalia and the UN sanctions committee.
In recent weeks, the government has reconfirmed its commitment to aiding Somalia, most recently at the African Union summit in Kampala. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said that the training of police in Somalia was a "substantial contribution" to stabilizing the country.
Ulrich Delius argues however that all the projects for training security forces will continue to have no effect until politicians start to "understand the root of the problems in Somalia."
U.S. Taxpayers funding constitution vote in Kenya?
CBN News
Voters in Kenya stood in long lines Wednesday to decide on a new constitution, even as religious leaders fear the document will take the country down a dangerous path.
Some Kenyans waited as many as five hours to cast their votes on the proposed new constitution which sets up an American-style presidential system.
The constitution drastically reduces the current powers of Kenya's president. It also includes controversial provisions on abortion and Sharia law, one reason why Christians are encouraging citizens to vote "No."
Under current law, abortion is allowed only when a mothers life is in danger. But religious leaders fear the new language in the document will allow abortion on demand.
The Obama administration and other leaders are encouraging Kenyans to approve the constitution. Rep. Smith was outraged to learn that more than $23 million in U.S. aid was sent to Kenya to promote "yes" votes.
"This is an administration that is very aggressive in promoting the killing of unborn children and the wounding of their mothers by way of abortion worldwide," Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said.
He said donations labeled as "civic education" were used to register tens of thousands of voters and to provide transportation to the polls to create an "overrepresentation" of the "yes" vote.
The constitution also allows Muslims to set up Sharia courts called "Khadi" - courts that will handle domestic issues like divorce, custody, and inheritance.
"The thought of the United States taxpayer paying money for Sharia courts in Kenya is unbelievable," Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va, said.
The new constitution protects Kenyans from discrimination based on race, gender, or religion. But it allows those rights to be limited to the extent necessary in Islamic courts.
Some fear that puts Muslim women at risk.
"You had the Islamic community actually threatening, that says, 'If we don't get the Khadi court system in the constitution, we'll break off from Kenya.' So there is a separatist movement being threatened on the proposed constitution," Jordan Sekulow, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, said.
Kenya's last national election erupted in deadly violence that left more than a 1,000 people dead. Supporters and opponents of the constitution have urged peace after the vote. To increase transparency, votes will be tallied on live television.
There's only one question on the ballot in Kenya: whether or not to replace the country's old constitution with a new one.
Voters in Kenya stood in long lines Wednesday to decide on a new constitution, even as religious leaders fear the document will take the country down a dangerous path.
Some Kenyans waited as many as five hours to cast their votes on the proposed new constitution which sets up an American-style presidential system.
The constitution drastically reduces the current powers of Kenya's president. It also includes controversial provisions on abortion and Sharia law, one reason why Christians are encouraging citizens to vote "No."
Under current law, abortion is allowed only when a mothers life is in danger. But religious leaders fear the new language in the document will allow abortion on demand.
The Obama administration and other leaders are encouraging Kenyans to approve the constitution. Rep. Smith was outraged to learn that more than $23 million in U.S. aid was sent to Kenya to promote "yes" votes.
"This is an administration that is very aggressive in promoting the killing of unborn children and the wounding of their mothers by way of abortion worldwide," Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said.
He said donations labeled as "civic education" were used to register tens of thousands of voters and to provide transportation to the polls to create an "overrepresentation" of the "yes" vote.
The constitution also allows Muslims to set up Sharia courts called "Khadi" - courts that will handle domestic issues like divorce, custody, and inheritance.
"The thought of the United States taxpayer paying money for Sharia courts in Kenya is unbelievable," Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va, said.
The new constitution protects Kenyans from discrimination based on race, gender, or religion. But it allows those rights to be limited to the extent necessary in Islamic courts.
Some fear that puts Muslim women at risk.
"You had the Islamic community actually threatening, that says, 'If we don't get the Khadi court system in the constitution, we'll break off from Kenya.' So there is a separatist movement being threatened on the proposed constitution," Jordan Sekulow, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, said.
Kenya's last national election erupted in deadly violence that left more than a 1,000 people dead. Supporters and opponents of the constitution have urged peace after the vote. To increase transparency, votes will be tallied on live television.
There's only one question on the ballot in Kenya: whether or not to replace the country's old constitution with a new one.
Kenya's Christian churches against Islamic Sharia
CNN
Voters in Kenya are due to decide Wednesday whether the new constitution goes through. It's designed to reduce political tensions in a country where the last national vote led to violence that left more than 1,000 people dead.
But the wholesale rewriting of the country's constitution has opened up a can of worms, according to the country's Christian churches.
Kenyans vote on new constitution
"We believe the constitution doesn't meet religious, moral, economic and justice concerns," said Oliver Kisaka, a top official with the National Council of Churches of Kenya.
"It privileges one religion over another. It allows abortion on demand. It has strong socialist tendencies," he said, also objecting to the provision for international law to take precedence over Kenyan law.
Kenya's Catholic bishops put it more bluntly, putting out a full-color leaflet with a red traffic light over the words "Stop!!! Think.... Choose life."
Why Kenya's referendum is important
The Anglicans issued a measured statement, but the message was equally clear: "We say NO to the proposed constitution as it is" unless it's amended to answer their concerns about "justice and equality for all religions, the limitation of fundamental rights based on religion, the protection of the right to life and the supremacy of our constitution in the light of International conventions and treaties."
The draft constitution defines life as beginning as conception and outlaws abortion, but includes exceptions for "emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law."
Opposition from the churches in Kenya is potentially a big deal.
"Kenya is an overwhelmingly Christian nation," said Greg Smith, of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington, D.C.
Some 88 percent of Kenyans identify themselves as Christian, he said.
And they're not casual about religion either, he said.
"Among Kenyan Christians, 86 percent said religion is very important in their lives," compared to about six in 10 Americans who say that, he said.
"About eight in 10 say they attend religious services at least once a week. A similar number say they pray every day," he said.
The Pew Forum recently published a huge study of religion in Africa, the result of 25,000 interviews in 19 sub-Saharan countries.
"People that we interviewed in Africa tended to express high levels of religious commitment. We see the same high levels of religious commitment among Muslims," Smith said.
Kenya is about 7 percent Muslim, according to the Pew Forum.
Many Christians in Kenya object to the enshrining of Islamic courts as part of the country's legal system.
Known as kadhi courts, they would be an alternative to the civil courts "for matters such as law relating to personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance in proceedings in which all the parties profess the Muslim religion and submit to the jurisdiction of the Kadhi's courts," according to the draft constitution.
Close to 40 countries use the kadhi court system, said Prof. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im of Emory University. Kadhi is Arabic for "judge," he explained.
If they become law in Kenya, Muslims will use them even if they would prefer to go to civil courts, he predicted.
"In Kenya according to the proposal they do have a choice, but in reality it's not going to happen because of social pressure and stigma," he said. "If kadhi courts are available, Muslims will feel compelled to go to them no matter what they want."
About 50 countries have some provision for religious courts to act as an alternative to civil courts for matters of personal status, the Pew Forum says.
Most polls suggest that Kenya's constitution will pass, but political analysts believe that either outcome is possible.
Many of those supporting a "yes" vote -- which includes most of Kenya's political leadership -- are looking not just for a win, but a win by a large margin, so they can have a strong mandate to move forward with reforms.
A win by just a small margin could provide the "no" camp with a moral victory, allowing it to stall implementation of the constitution.
Voters in Kenya are due to decide Wednesday whether the new constitution goes through. It's designed to reduce political tensions in a country where the last national vote led to violence that left more than 1,000 people dead.
But the wholesale rewriting of the country's constitution has opened up a can of worms, according to the country's Christian churches.
Kenyans vote on new constitution
"We believe the constitution doesn't meet religious, moral, economic and justice concerns," said Oliver Kisaka, a top official with the National Council of Churches of Kenya.
"It privileges one religion over another. It allows abortion on demand. It has strong socialist tendencies," he said, also objecting to the provision for international law to take precedence over Kenyan law.
Kenya's Catholic bishops put it more bluntly, putting out a full-color leaflet with a red traffic light over the words "Stop!!! Think.... Choose life."
Why Kenya's referendum is important
The Anglicans issued a measured statement, but the message was equally clear: "We say NO to the proposed constitution as it is" unless it's amended to answer their concerns about "justice and equality for all religions, the limitation of fundamental rights based on religion, the protection of the right to life and the supremacy of our constitution in the light of International conventions and treaties."
The draft constitution defines life as beginning as conception and outlaws abortion, but includes exceptions for "emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law."
Opposition from the churches in Kenya is potentially a big deal.
"Kenya is an overwhelmingly Christian nation," said Greg Smith, of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington, D.C.
Some 88 percent of Kenyans identify themselves as Christian, he said.
And they're not casual about religion either, he said.
"Among Kenyan Christians, 86 percent said religion is very important in their lives," compared to about six in 10 Americans who say that, he said.
"About eight in 10 say they attend religious services at least once a week. A similar number say they pray every day," he said.
The Pew Forum recently published a huge study of religion in Africa, the result of 25,000 interviews in 19 sub-Saharan countries.
"People that we interviewed in Africa tended to express high levels of religious commitment. We see the same high levels of religious commitment among Muslims," Smith said.
Kenya is about 7 percent Muslim, according to the Pew Forum.
Many Christians in Kenya object to the enshrining of Islamic courts as part of the country's legal system.
Known as kadhi courts, they would be an alternative to the civil courts "for matters such as law relating to personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance in proceedings in which all the parties profess the Muslim religion and submit to the jurisdiction of the Kadhi's courts," according to the draft constitution.
Close to 40 countries use the kadhi court system, said Prof. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im of Emory University. Kadhi is Arabic for "judge," he explained.
If they become law in Kenya, Muslims will use them even if they would prefer to go to civil courts, he predicted.
"In Kenya according to the proposal they do have a choice, but in reality it's not going to happen because of social pressure and stigma," he said. "If kadhi courts are available, Muslims will feel compelled to go to them no matter what they want."
About 50 countries have some provision for religious courts to act as an alternative to civil courts for matters of personal status, the Pew Forum says.
Most polls suggest that Kenya's constitution will pass, but political analysts believe that either outcome is possible.
Many of those supporting a "yes" vote -- which includes most of Kenya's political leadership -- are looking not just for a win, but a win by a large margin, so they can have a strong mandate to move forward with reforms.
A win by just a small margin could provide the "no" camp with a moral victory, allowing it to stall implementation of the constitution.
Ground-Zero Green Light for Islamic Supremacism
AINA News, by Robert Spencer
On Tuesday morning, the New York City Landmarks Commission, as expected [1], voted unanimously to deny landmark status to 45 Park Place [2], thus clearing the way for the demolition of the building currently there and the construction of the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.
The Commission swept aside calls to landmark the Burlington Coat Factory building for its historical significance: into it crashed the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes. It ignored appeals to do this despite the fact that buildings of far lesser historical significance, like the Triangle Shirtwaist Company and the Stonewall Inn, have been designated as landmarks in New York. Never mind also that other buildings in the area that are architecturally similar have been landmarked. Who cares? Muslims need a triumphal mega-mosque at Ground Zero (and that is certainly how this mosque will be understood in the Islamic world, despite the deceptive moderate protestations of mosque organizers)! Make way!
Until the mosque is actually built, however, the game isn’t over — and with an increasing number of prominent politicians coming out against the mega-mosque, it can still be won in the court of public opinion.
What’s more, immediately after the Tuesday vote, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) characterized the Landmarks Commission decision as “deeply offensive to many of the victims and families of the 9-11 tragedy.” Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ explained: “The actions taken by the City of New York represent a blatant disregard for the city’s own procedures, while ignoring the fact that this is a historic and hallowed site that should not be destroyed to build an Islamic mosque. It has been clear from the beginning that the city has engaged in a rush to push this project through – ignoring proper procedure and ignoring a growing number of New Yorkers and Americans who don’t believe this site is the place to build a mosque.” As the ACLJ is representing a firefighter who survived 9/11 at the World Trade Center site, Sekulow announced: “We’re poised to file legal action on behalf of our client to challenge this flawed decision and put a stop to this project.”
The primary argument in favor of construction of the mosque, of course, is that it is a matter of religious freedom. We are endlessly told that if Muslims are denied permission to build this mega-mosque at Ground Zero, the door will be opened to the denial of the construction of synagogues and churches elsewhere. That argument advances in ignorance of the political and supremacist character of Islamic law, qualities that have no parallel in Jewish or Christian doctrine, but even aside from that, the question of this mosque is not actually a religious freedom issue.
Why not? Because opponents of the mosque, be they Pamela Geller’s group Stop Islamization Of America (SIOA), or Sarah Palin, or Rudy Giuliani, or Newt Gingrich, or anyone else, are not talking about banning mosques altogether. I do believe that mosques connected with the Saudis and/or the Muslim Brotherhood warrant careful scrutiny from law enforcement, but no one who is in the front line of the opposition to the mega-mosque at Ground Zero is calling for all mosques to be closed or for a ban on the construction of new mosques. And unless the property is marked as a war memorial, as it should be but will not be, no one is even calling for the expulsion of the Muslims who are currently praying in the existing former Burlington Coat Factory building at 45 Park Place; the Burlington Coat Factory is not a thirteen-story triumphal mega-mosque.
The question is, does the First Amendment really give every religious group the right to construct a house of worship wherever it wishes to do so? Is there never an occasion in which a location might be inappropriate? Many people have likened the construction of the mega-mosque at Ground Zero to the construction of a shrine to the kamikazes at Pearl Harbor or of a statue of Hitler outside the Auschwitz gates. Would the KKK be greenlighted to build a “reconciliation center” on the site of the 16th St. Baptist Church, as this parody [3] has it? (Others have rejected these comparisons based on the claim that the Cordoba Initiative leaders are “moderate” Muslims who hold to a radically different point of view from that of the Muslims who took down the Twin Towers on 9/11, but the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s record of deceit [4] and advocacy of Sharia should be enough to establish that that argument is fallacious. And of course they’ll be reading from the same Qur’an that inspired the 9/11 attacks; there is no “reformed” version.) The question is, if the shrine to the kamikazes were sponsored by a religious group, or Auschwitz were subject to First Amendment law, would there be no stopping the building of such things?
I expect there would be a way to stop such construction, and that many people who are saying today that this mosque is a religious freedom issue would be calling for the construction to be stopped. The U.S. Government outlawed Mormon polygamy in the nineteenth century; considerations of religious freedom were not considered absolute.
And today, government agencies do not hesitate to put roadblocks in the way of the construction of houses of worship [5] — at least non-Islamic ones. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church [6] stood in the shadow of the World Trade Center and was crushed under the rubble when the towers collapsed on September 11, 2001. Almost nine years later it has still not been rebuilt; the rebuilding project is mired in bureaucracy, with New York City officials being uncooperative and throwing up roadblock after roadblock.
The contrast is telling with the mad rush on the part of New York City officials to build the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. A March 2009 New York Times story [7] on the church stated that “in recent negotiations,” New York’s Port Authority “cut the size of the church slightly and told church officials that its dome could not rise higher than the trade center memorial.”
But a thirteen-story mega-mosque? Fine!
Unable to rebuild their church, the St. Nicholas congregation has held St. Nicholas Day services in a tent at Ground Zero.
But a thirteen-story Islamic supremacist mega-mosque headed by a pro-Sharia, anti-free speech imam who refuses to denounce Hamas and has a history of duplicitous statements? Let’s clear aside every hurdle, tar opponents as bigots, and get that baby built!
In any case, it seems clear that no one assumes that any religious group has an absolute right to build a house of worship wherever it wants, except in this case. But once this mega-mosque is built, if it is, I expect that many who today are anxious to prove their multiculturalist, non-”bigoted” bona fides will rue the day.
On Tuesday morning, the New York City Landmarks Commission, as expected [1], voted unanimously to deny landmark status to 45 Park Place [2], thus clearing the way for the demolition of the building currently there and the construction of the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.
The Commission swept aside calls to landmark the Burlington Coat Factory building for its historical significance: into it crashed the landing gear from one of the 9/11 planes. It ignored appeals to do this despite the fact that buildings of far lesser historical significance, like the Triangle Shirtwaist Company and the Stonewall Inn, have been designated as landmarks in New York. Never mind also that other buildings in the area that are architecturally similar have been landmarked. Who cares? Muslims need a triumphal mega-mosque at Ground Zero (and that is certainly how this mosque will be understood in the Islamic world, despite the deceptive moderate protestations of mosque organizers)! Make way!
Until the mosque is actually built, however, the game isn’t over — and with an increasing number of prominent politicians coming out against the mega-mosque, it can still be won in the court of public opinion.
What’s more, immediately after the Tuesday vote, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) characterized the Landmarks Commission decision as “deeply offensive to many of the victims and families of the 9-11 tragedy.” Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ explained: “The actions taken by the City of New York represent a blatant disregard for the city’s own procedures, while ignoring the fact that this is a historic and hallowed site that should not be destroyed to build an Islamic mosque. It has been clear from the beginning that the city has engaged in a rush to push this project through – ignoring proper procedure and ignoring a growing number of New Yorkers and Americans who don’t believe this site is the place to build a mosque.” As the ACLJ is representing a firefighter who survived 9/11 at the World Trade Center site, Sekulow announced: “We’re poised to file legal action on behalf of our client to challenge this flawed decision and put a stop to this project.”
The primary argument in favor of construction of the mosque, of course, is that it is a matter of religious freedom. We are endlessly told that if Muslims are denied permission to build this mega-mosque at Ground Zero, the door will be opened to the denial of the construction of synagogues and churches elsewhere. That argument advances in ignorance of the political and supremacist character of Islamic law, qualities that have no parallel in Jewish or Christian doctrine, but even aside from that, the question of this mosque is not actually a religious freedom issue.
Why not? Because opponents of the mosque, be they Pamela Geller’s group Stop Islamization Of America (SIOA), or Sarah Palin, or Rudy Giuliani, or Newt Gingrich, or anyone else, are not talking about banning mosques altogether. I do believe that mosques connected with the Saudis and/or the Muslim Brotherhood warrant careful scrutiny from law enforcement, but no one who is in the front line of the opposition to the mega-mosque at Ground Zero is calling for all mosques to be closed or for a ban on the construction of new mosques. And unless the property is marked as a war memorial, as it should be but will not be, no one is even calling for the expulsion of the Muslims who are currently praying in the existing former Burlington Coat Factory building at 45 Park Place; the Burlington Coat Factory is not a thirteen-story triumphal mega-mosque.
The question is, does the First Amendment really give every religious group the right to construct a house of worship wherever it wishes to do so? Is there never an occasion in which a location might be inappropriate? Many people have likened the construction of the mega-mosque at Ground Zero to the construction of a shrine to the kamikazes at Pearl Harbor or of a statue of Hitler outside the Auschwitz gates. Would the KKK be greenlighted to build a “reconciliation center” on the site of the 16th St. Baptist Church, as this parody [3] has it? (Others have rejected these comparisons based on the claim that the Cordoba Initiative leaders are “moderate” Muslims who hold to a radically different point of view from that of the Muslims who took down the Twin Towers on 9/11, but the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s record of deceit [4] and advocacy of Sharia should be enough to establish that that argument is fallacious. And of course they’ll be reading from the same Qur’an that inspired the 9/11 attacks; there is no “reformed” version.) The question is, if the shrine to the kamikazes were sponsored by a religious group, or Auschwitz were subject to First Amendment law, would there be no stopping the building of such things?
I expect there would be a way to stop such construction, and that many people who are saying today that this mosque is a religious freedom issue would be calling for the construction to be stopped. The U.S. Government outlawed Mormon polygamy in the nineteenth century; considerations of religious freedom were not considered absolute.
And today, government agencies do not hesitate to put roadblocks in the way of the construction of houses of worship [5] — at least non-Islamic ones. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church [6] stood in the shadow of the World Trade Center and was crushed under the rubble when the towers collapsed on September 11, 2001. Almost nine years later it has still not been rebuilt; the rebuilding project is mired in bureaucracy, with New York City officials being uncooperative and throwing up roadblock after roadblock.
The contrast is telling with the mad rush on the part of New York City officials to build the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. A March 2009 New York Times story [7] on the church stated that “in recent negotiations,” New York’s Port Authority “cut the size of the church slightly and told church officials that its dome could not rise higher than the trade center memorial.”
But a thirteen-story mega-mosque? Fine!
Unable to rebuild their church, the St. Nicholas congregation has held St. Nicholas Day services in a tent at Ground Zero.
But a thirteen-story Islamic supremacist mega-mosque headed by a pro-Sharia, anti-free speech imam who refuses to denounce Hamas and has a history of duplicitous statements? Let’s clear aside every hurdle, tar opponents as bigots, and get that baby built!
In any case, it seems clear that no one assumes that any religious group has an absolute right to build a house of worship wherever it wants, except in this case. But once this mega-mosque is built, if it is, I expect that many who today are anxious to prove their multiculturalist, non-”bigoted” bona fides will rue the day.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Ugandan churches to require ID cards
DAILY MONITOR, Uganda
Ugandan church leaders are asking Christians to produce identity cards and agree to security checks before entering some churches after two terrorist attacks at World Cup viewing parties left more than 70 people dead.
"We are taking these new measures to ensure that the worshippers are safe. We do not want the wrong people to enter into our churches," Anglican Bishop Stanley Ntagali of the Masindi-Kitara Diocese told ENInews.
The security measures follow bomb attacks on July 11 in Kampala at a rugby club and an Ethiopian restaurant, where people were watching the final match of the World Cup soccer championship.
Al-Shabab, a radical Somali Islamic group, claimed responsibility for the blasts and said there would be more attacks.
The Ugandan government has urged owners of buildings and other public facilities, including churches, to use adequate security measures, such as guards, metal detectors, cameras and lights.
"We are going to register our church members and provide them with proper identity cards. No stranger will be allowed to attend any prayer session," Pastor David Kiganda, vice-chairperson of the Uganda National Fellowship of Born-Again Churches, told Uganda's Daily Monitor.“
Ugandan church leaders are asking Christians to produce identity cards and agree to security checks before entering some churches after two terrorist attacks at World Cup viewing parties left more than 70 people dead.
"We are taking these new measures to ensure that the worshippers are safe. We do not want the wrong people to enter into our churches," Anglican Bishop Stanley Ntagali of the Masindi-Kitara Diocese told ENInews.
The security measures follow bomb attacks on July 11 in Kampala at a rugby club and an Ethiopian restaurant, where people were watching the final match of the World Cup soccer championship.
Al-Shabab, a radical Somali Islamic group, claimed responsibility for the blasts and said there would be more attacks.
The Ugandan government has urged owners of buildings and other public facilities, including churches, to use adequate security measures, such as guards, metal detectors, cameras and lights.
"We are going to register our church members and provide them with proper identity cards. No stranger will be allowed to attend any prayer session," Pastor David Kiganda, vice-chairperson of the Uganda National Fellowship of Born-Again Churches, told Uganda's Daily Monitor.“
“With our Soul and our Blood, we will build our Church“
ASSIST News Service (ANS)
Some 75 clergy and nearly 150,000 Copts from parishes all over the Diocese of Maghagha and Edwah have staged a sit-in in Maghagha, an Egyptian city located on the west bank of the Nile.
“They were protesting against the intransigence of the Governor of Minya,” Abdelmassih told ANS.
During the sit-in, she reported, the Copts held banners asking for their rights to have a church, amidst chants of “With our soul and our blood, we will build our church.”
The journalist revealed that Governor Ahmad Dia-Eldin had suspended the license obtained for the renewal of the diocese in Maghagha, including the church, after the old complex was pulled down as agreed.
“The pretext given was that the 45 square meter of the rooms where Bishop Agathon lives and the public toilets were not pulled down as well,” she said. “The Bishop said that during negotiations, the Governor agreed verbally in front of all those present to keep the Bishop's rooms until new ones have been built.”
She quoted the Bishop as saying, “Otherwise where will I put my head to sleep and keep my papers?”
Abdelmassih went on to say, “The Governor has now changed his mind and insists on adhering to the written agreement without his ‘giveaways’ and requires as a condition their immediate removal."
She told ANS, “After nearly three and a half years of negotiations and appeals to President Mubarak, an agreement was reached early March 2010, between the Governor and the Bishop. The signed conditions were that the old buildings of the Coptic Diocese of Maghagha including the falling-apart church, which was built in 1934 through a Royal decree, were to be pulled down and in exchange the Governor of Minya would issue a license for the renewal of the Diocese on adjacent land owned by the church.
“After the church was pulled down, the Bishop and congregation celebrate masses since March 16, 2010, in a makeshift tent in the summer heat exceeding 45 Celsius [113 degree Fahrenheit].”
Mary Abdelmassih quoted one local Copt as claiming, “Stones are hurled inside the tent at us by Muslims.”
One of the Copts, who asked not to be named and was interviewed at the rally, said, “Ever since the Islamist governor Ahmed Dia-Eldin took office in Minya in April 2008, Copts have only seen misery and persecution. Minya has now become the center of Islamists and terrorists. Churches are destroyed, minor girls are abducted, never to be seen again, Copts are attacked and forcibly evicted from their villages, to be replaced by Muslims.”
In an interview with Freecopts advocacy, the Bishop said that he believes that the Governor suspended the renewal licence because during the negotiations, he tried to seize the land of the pulled down old diocese, insisting that the land has be donated to the governorate.
“When we refused, explaining that this land is an endowment to the church and cannot be donated further, he held a grudge against us because of our refusal and he later suspended the license,” he said.
Abdelmassih stated that it was agreed that this vacant land is to be used, subject to the Church's financial circumstances, for erecting a free health care centre “to be used by Christians and Muslims alike, as is always the case with church services.”
She added that the Governor also wanted that all of the fence surrounding the old Diocese to be pulled down immediately as well, explaining that “whoever is walking in the street would see that the church was removed and feel at peace!”
Bishop Agathon told activist Wagih Yacoub in an aired interview, “We have pulled down the whole fence, except for two gates. However this has angered the Governor as those had a cross on them.”
The Bishop added that after 90 days “when the diocese was subjected to thefts and assaults, we had to rebuild it temporarily until the renewal licence is issued.”
He added, “It is not safe for the Bishop to stay without a guarding fence.”
Bishop Agathon said that Pope Shenouda III, 117th Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy Apostolic See of Saint Mark the Evangelist of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and also the head of The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, had stated that saw this problem coming when he knew that the Governor insisted that the Diocese buildings have to be pulled down before a licence is granted for renewal.
“His Holiness told me that he doubts whether they will allow us to build a new one,” said the Bishop.
Abdelmassih then stated that the Governor of Minya, who appeared on Egyptian TV on Sunday, June 25, 2010, had claimed that “contrary to the truth,” the Bishop of Maghagha “wants two dioceses near each other, failing to mention that all buildings including the church of the old diocese was pulled down.”
The US-based Coptic human rights TV channel Hope-Sat, also interviewed the Governor, who she said, “had no answers to the questions put to him, regarding the toilets and the fence.”
Abdelmassih went on to say, “He also said that a 7-storey building has not been pulled down. The Bishop, who was also live on air, answered him that the so-called 7-storey building are [actually] 45 square metres rooms where he lives at the moment and to which the Governor has 'kindly agreed to leave for the time being, as somewhere for me to sleep and to keep the diocese papers.'”
Abdelmassih said that when outspoken Father Morcos Aziz, who serves in one of the Coptic Church in California, joined them on air and asked the Governor what he thought of suspending the licence because of his insistence on the immediate removal of the toilets? He also asked, “What sort of impression does this give to the outside world about Egypt?”
She said that then the “infuriated Governor” ended the conversation and put his phone down.
“I hope the outside world sees what the Christians in Egypt have to go through to build just one church,” commented Father Morcos.
On July 27, 2010, the Governor decided that the rebuilding works need a new decree from President Mubarak, while the Bishop of Maghagha insists that the Royal decree is valid as “this is not a new church, but a renewal of a church that was falling apart.”
Abdelmassih concluded by saying, “The sit-in will continue at the Maghagha tent-come-church until Saturday, July 31, 2010 and, if the problem is not solved by then, the congregation from the Diocese Maghagha and Edwah, which serves 250,000 Copts, will travel to Cairo to continue their sit-in at the Coptic Patriarchate in Cairo, after presenting a petition signed by 160,000 Copts from the Diocese to President Mubarak.”
Nowhere to Hide: A Muslim Woman's Story
CBN News
The case of Christian convert Rifqa Bary captured the attention of America over the past year.
The teenager ran away from home in fear that her Muslim parents would harm her for deciding to leave Islam -- something many other converts say they have experienced.
Amani Mustafa is a former Muslim who fled oppression in Egypt only to experience further abuse in America, where she thought she would be safe.
"The first thing I said, 'this cannot happen here. This is the land of freedom. They cannot reach me here,'" Mustafa recalled. "I couldn't believe it."
For more than 10 years, Mustafa and her two children were on the run in the United States hiding from her ex-husband and his brother. She says both had threatened to kill her if she did not return to Egypt and to Islam.
A Father's Wrath
Mustafa became a Christian after reading the Bible in secret in the bathroom. When her father learned she had left Islam, he summoned her to his home.
"He said, 'I have a straightforward question for you. Is it Islam or is it Christ?' As I was about melting, I answered, 'It is Christ' and at this point he got up to hit me," explained Amani. "He was very threatening and said he was going to tie me to his car and make me an example in the city."
Mustafa fled and was in hiding for several years. She later married a Muslim who promised she could practice her Christian faith in secret. But his attitude changed after their second child was born. Mustafa was no longer allowed to attend church. She had to wear a veil.
Forced to Read the Koran to Her Children
Still a Christian in her heart, Mustafa tearfully explained how she struggled when her husband forced her to read the Koran, the Islamic holy book, to their children.
"I felt like I'm feeding my children poison and that was the hardest thing to know the truth and not be able to speak it," she told CBN News.
Mustafa's husband agreed to send her and the children to live in the United States. He vowed to join them later.
She says she felt a sudden sense of freedom and relief when the plane left Egyptian airspace.
"The first thing that went was my veil," she recalled. "That terrified my son as he looked at me and he said, 'Mom you're going to go to hell' and I said, 'Son, we just left it.'"
On U.S. Soil, Persecution Continued
Once in America, Mustafa recommitted herself to Christ. That's when the persecution returned. When she told her husband that she was filing for divorce. He demanded the children be brought back to Egypt and Islam. He told her she would "pay a price" for her decision.
"He sent his brother after us," she told CBN News. "His brother threatened me and said if I wouldn't comply and go back with him with the kids that I will pay the price and I will go by force. And when I said, 'No I'm not going to come,' my phone in the apartment that I lived in was tapped. They were listening to our conversations for myself and for my family, my mom also. There were people doing surveillance on us. I didn't know that this could even happen," she explained.
Mustafa and her children fled to another state where her husband could not find them. Today -- more than 10 years later -- the threats have disappeared. She's no longer in hiding. Mustafa has moved forward publicly with her life.
Reaching Out to Women Facing Islamic Oppression
She feels called to serve in various ministries, reaching out to women facing Islamic oppression. She is the host of a new woman's television show that is broadcast throughout the Middle East. Mustafa and her co-hosts -- all former Muslims -- talk about their experiences with Islam.
"There are so many women living under Muslim husbands or Muslim fathers or Muslim families that are living the same things that I lived back then," she said. "There are so many women that need to know and hear about the freedom of Christ that I experience today. Those tears are not tears of pain, but actually they are tears of appreciation, because now I know that I am saved though the grace of Christ."
Mustafa feels privileged to share her joy on television and she is proud of her children. Her son, Joshua, has become an ordained pastor. Her oldest daughter is also in ministry.
Mustafa now enjoys a loving marriage with her American Christian husband and their daughter, Mary.
"I am convinced that every experience that I lived through in my life was to be for His glory, to be used for His glory," she exclaimed. "You see, we have a choice. Either we sit and mope over spilled milk, or we can just use the hardship and the bad experiences for His glory and I choose to glorify God's name."
The case of Christian convert Rifqa Bary captured the attention of America over the past year.
The teenager ran away from home in fear that her Muslim parents would harm her for deciding to leave Islam -- something many other converts say they have experienced.
Amani Mustafa is a former Muslim who fled oppression in Egypt only to experience further abuse in America, where she thought she would be safe.
"The first thing I said, 'this cannot happen here. This is the land of freedom. They cannot reach me here,'" Mustafa recalled. "I couldn't believe it."
For more than 10 years, Mustafa and her two children were on the run in the United States hiding from her ex-husband and his brother. She says both had threatened to kill her if she did not return to Egypt and to Islam.
A Father's Wrath
Mustafa became a Christian after reading the Bible in secret in the bathroom. When her father learned she had left Islam, he summoned her to his home.
"He said, 'I have a straightforward question for you. Is it Islam or is it Christ?' As I was about melting, I answered, 'It is Christ' and at this point he got up to hit me," explained Amani. "He was very threatening and said he was going to tie me to his car and make me an example in the city."
Mustafa fled and was in hiding for several years. She later married a Muslim who promised she could practice her Christian faith in secret. But his attitude changed after their second child was born. Mustafa was no longer allowed to attend church. She had to wear a veil.
Forced to Read the Koran to Her Children
Still a Christian in her heart, Mustafa tearfully explained how she struggled when her husband forced her to read the Koran, the Islamic holy book, to their children.
"I felt like I'm feeding my children poison and that was the hardest thing to know the truth and not be able to speak it," she told CBN News.
Mustafa's husband agreed to send her and the children to live in the United States. He vowed to join them later.
She says she felt a sudden sense of freedom and relief when the plane left Egyptian airspace.
"The first thing that went was my veil," she recalled. "That terrified my son as he looked at me and he said, 'Mom you're going to go to hell' and I said, 'Son, we just left it.'"
On U.S. Soil, Persecution Continued
Once in America, Mustafa recommitted herself to Christ. That's when the persecution returned. When she told her husband that she was filing for divorce. He demanded the children be brought back to Egypt and Islam. He told her she would "pay a price" for her decision.
"He sent his brother after us," she told CBN News. "His brother threatened me and said if I wouldn't comply and go back with him with the kids that I will pay the price and I will go by force. And when I said, 'No I'm not going to come,' my phone in the apartment that I lived in was tapped. They were listening to our conversations for myself and for my family, my mom also. There were people doing surveillance on us. I didn't know that this could even happen," she explained.
Mustafa and her children fled to another state where her husband could not find them. Today -- more than 10 years later -- the threats have disappeared. She's no longer in hiding. Mustafa has moved forward publicly with her life.
Reaching Out to Women Facing Islamic Oppression
She feels called to serve in various ministries, reaching out to women facing Islamic oppression. She is the host of a new woman's television show that is broadcast throughout the Middle East. Mustafa and her co-hosts -- all former Muslims -- talk about their experiences with Islam.
"There are so many women living under Muslim husbands or Muslim fathers or Muslim families that are living the same things that I lived back then," she said. "There are so many women that need to know and hear about the freedom of Christ that I experience today. Those tears are not tears of pain, but actually they are tears of appreciation, because now I know that I am saved though the grace of Christ."
Mustafa feels privileged to share her joy on television and she is proud of her children. Her son, Joshua, has become an ordained pastor. Her oldest daughter is also in ministry.
Mustafa now enjoys a loving marriage with her American Christian husband and their daughter, Mary.
"I am convinced that every experience that I lived through in my life was to be for His glory, to be used for His glory," she exclaimed. "You see, we have a choice. Either we sit and mope over spilled milk, or we can just use the hardship and the bad experiences for His glory and I choose to glorify God's name."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
