Islam group urges forest fire Jihad

THEAGE / AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.

US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".

The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.

The posting — which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months — says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".

"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."

With the nation heading into another hot, dry summer, Australian intelligence agencies are treating the possibility that bushfires could be used as a weapon of terrorism as a serious concern.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.

"Any information that suggests a threat to Australia's interests is investigated by relevant agencies as appropriate," Mr McClelland said.

Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis, in keeping with a recent decline in the sophistication of terrorist operations.

"With attacks like bushfires, yes, it would be easy. It would be very damaging and we do see a decreasing sophistication as a part of terrorist attacks," Dr Dolnik said.

"In recent years, there have been quite a few attacks averted and it has become more and more difficult for groups to do something effective."

Dr Dolnik said he had observed an increase in traffic on jihadi websites calling for a simplification of terrorist attacks because the more complex operations had been failing. But starting bushfires was still often regarded as less effective than other operations because governments could easily deny terrorism as the cause.

The internet posting by the little-known group claimed the idea of forest fires had been attributed to imprisoned Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Suri. It said Al-Suri had urged terrorists to use sulphuric acid and petrol to start forest fires.

 

Attacks on African Christians surging

'It appears Islamists narrowed in on Kenyan community'

Attacks on Christians are surging in Kenya, and analysts say Islamic radicals are putting a bull's-eye on the community. 

International Christian Concern's Middle East specialist Aidan Clay says he recently visited a victim of a Somali mob attack in Kenya. 

"When I saw him a month after the incident, he was still badly bruised, could hardly see out of his right eye which was black, and was missing teeth," Clay said.

Clay said the attacks are getting more frequent and more intense.

"Recently, there has been a slight surge of violence targeting Christians inside Kenya, provoked mainly by Somali Muslims, some of whom are likely from the militant group al-Shabaab," Clay said.

"It appears that the Islamist militants are not only targeting crowded areas and tourists, but also narrowed in on a Kenyan Christian community," he said.

MORE

The Paedophile Imam of Britain

A paedophile imam who abused young girls while teaching at a mosque has been jailed for two years. Ebrahim Yusuf Kazi, 67, was told by a judge he would have been jailed for longer – but the law prevented it as the offences took place 27 years ago. The cleric sexually assaulted three victims – all aged under 11 – during class as he taught groups of youngsters alone inside the mosque, Swindon Crown Court heard. He would invite the girls to read a passage from a book in front of the other children – before groping and touching their genitals under the desk. He also locked himself in a toilet cubicle with one of the girls, removed her clothes before he touched and licked her body. Ebrahim Yusuf Kazi, 67, looked quizzically at his interpreter – translating in his native Gujarati – as he was ordered down to the cells. Kazi’s campaign of abuse only surfaced 27 years later when the brave victims finally decided to speak out and confront him in court.  The women wept yesterday as they saw Kazi jailed after being convicted on five counts of sexual assault at the court in Wiltshire. Judge Euaun Ambrose said: ‘You were in a position of very considerable status, trust and authority.

MORE

Somali Muslims cut, beat Christian unconscious in Kenya

Somali Muslims Cut, Beat Christian Unconscious in Kenya Assuming he is convert from Islam, victim’s countrymen leave him for dead. 11/04/2011 Somalia (CDN)-A Somali Christian in Kenya is nursing injuries after young Muslim men from his country beat him with iron rods and wooden clubs last week, leaving him unconscious at a church entryway

MORE

Top Muslim declares all Christians ‘Infidels’

By Rymond Ibrahim

Quoting the Quran (correctly) may be fueling the recent slaughter of Christians in Egypt.
To what extent was Egypt’s Maspero massacre, wherein the military literally mowed down Christian Copts protesting the ongoing destruction of their churches, a product of anti-Christian sentiment?

A video of Sheikh Ali Gomaa (or Gom’a), the grand mufti of Egypt, which began circulating weeks before the massacre, helps elucidate.  While holding that Muslims may coexist with Christians (who, as dhimmis, have rights), Gomaa categorized Christians as kuffar — “infidels” — a word that connotes “enemies,” “evil-doers,” and every bad thing to Muslim ears.
After quoting Quran 5:17, “Infidels are those who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary,” he expounded by saying any association between a human and God (in Arabic, shirk) is the greatest sin: “Whoever thinks the Christ is God, or the Son of God, not symbolically — for we are all sons of God — but attributively, has rejected the faith which God requires for salvation,” thereby becoming an infidel.

Gomaa then offered a hypothetical dialogue between Christians and Muslims to illustrate further:
Christians: You have the wrong idea about us; we don’t worship the Christ.
Muslims: Okay, fine; we were under the wrong impression — but, by the way: “Infidels are those who say God is the Christ, son of Mary.”
Christians: But these are philosophical matters that we are unable to explain.
Muslims: Okay, fine; God is one—but, by the way: “Infidels are those who say God is the Christ, son of Mary.”

As a graduate of and long-time professor at  Al Azhar  university before being named grand mufti, Ali Gomaa represents mainstream Islam’s — not “radical Islam’s” or “Islamism’s” — position concerning the “other,” in this case, Christians. Regardless, many in the West hail him as a “moderate” — such as this U.S. News article titled “Finding the Voices of Moderate Islam“; Lawrence Wright  describes him as “a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam”:

He is the kind of cleric the West longs for, because of his assurances that there is no conflict with democratic rule and no need for theocracy. Gomaa has also become an advocate for Muslim women, who he says should have equal standing with men.

How does one reconcile such sunny characterizations with reality?  The fact is, whenever top Muslim authorities like Gomaa say something that can be made to conform to Western ideals, Westerners jump on it (while of course ignoring more “extreme” positions).  It is the same with Gomaa’s alma mater, Al Azhar, the “chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world.”

MEMRI, for instance, recently published a report titled “The Sheikh of Al Azhar in an Exceptionally Tolerant Article: Christianity, Judaism Share Basic Tenets of Islam.”  Of course, the day after this report appeared,  the same sheikh insisted that the American ambassador wear a hijab when meeting him: just as Muslim “radicals” compel Christian girls to wear the hijab, “moderate” Al Azhar compels U.S. Diplomats.

In short, yes, there are commonalities, but they are secondary to the differences, which are more final and define the relationship. Or, to put it in Ali Gomaa’s paradigm: Fine, Christianity and Islam share similar tenets — but, by the way: “Infidels are those who say God is the Christ, son of Mary.”

The fact is, this Quranic verse is as much a cornerstone of Islam’s view of Christianity as the unity of God and Christ is a cornerstone of Christianity, articulated some 1700 years ago in the Nicene Creed. The issue is clear cut for all involved.

Accordingly, how can one fault Gomaa? As grand mufti, he is simply being true to Islam’s teachings. Indeed, his consistency is more commendable than the equivocations of Western ecumencalists who, by falling over themselves to assure Muslims that they all essentially believe in the same things, demonstrate, especially to Muslims, that they believe in nothing.

Incidentally, if Gomaa upholds the plain teachings of the Quran concerning who is an infidel, is it not fair to assume he also upholds the Quran’s teachings on how to treat them, as commanded in Quran 9: 29: “Fight … the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”  Of course, prudent Muslims, undoubtedly like Gomaa himself, know that now is not the time to talk openly about such things.

Either way, here is another reminder of how Quranic verses and terms that Western people brush aside as arcane or irrelevant have a tremendous impact on current events — such as the Maspero massacre: For the same word Gomaa used to describe Christians is the same word Muslim soldiers used when they opened fire on and ran over Christians; the same word twenty Muslim soldiers used as they tortured a protesting Christian; and the same word Muslims hurled at Christians during the funeral procession for their loved ones slain at Maspero: infidel.

Shari'a and violence in American Mosques

How great is the danger of extremist violence in the name of Islam in the United States? Recent congressional hearings into this question by Rep. Peter King (Republican of New York), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, have generated a firestorm of controversy among his colleagues, the press, and the general public.

Though similar hearings have taken place at least fourteen times since 2001, King was labeled a latter-day Joe McCarthy and the hearings called an assault on civil liberties and a contemporary witch-hunt.

Yet the larger dilemmas outlined by both the congressman and some of his witnesses remain: To what extent are American Muslims, native-born as well as naturalized, being radicalized by Islamists? And what steps can those who are sworn to the protection of American citizenry take that will uncover and disrupt the plots of those willing to take up arms against others for the sake of jihad?


MORE

Does Islam respect human rights?

Slavery in Islam

Slavery, making one human the property of another, was widely practiced in the past by many societies. Regrettably, even in the 21st Century, the horrid practice continues in certain areas, most notably among Muslims.

Islam’s genesis was the Arabian peninsula of the seventh century AD, known for its primitive beliefs and savage practices. So, it is of no surprise that Islam incorporated slavery and much of the ethos of the culture of its birthplace.

Is discussing slavery beating a dead horse? Regrettably, it is not. The Anti-Slavery Society has documented numerous contemporary instances, most of them from Islamic countries. The repugnant practice of slavery presents a real threat to human dignity as Islamic fundamentalism is surging. The Islamic law—the Shariah—is based on the provisions of the Quran.

And the Quran explicitly and implicitly condones slavery in dozens of suras (chapters). Muhammad himself took numerous slaves, mostly women, as spoils of war. Some of the women Muhammad took for himself he called concubines, hardly a consolation to the helpless enslaved women.

Documents show that in the heyday of slavery, Muslims took just as many slaves from East Africa as did the Christians from West Africa.

Slavery is a matter of degrees. On one extreme is the absolute right of the owner to do whatever he wishes to the slave. This form of slavery is no longer prevalent. Yet disenfranchising people from any provisions of the Charter of Human Rights constitutes a form of enslavement.

Slavery seamlessly became a part of Islam, since it was widely practiced by the Arabs. Slavery is repeatedly approved in the Quran. The Old Testament also sanctioned slavery. Yet, Jewish and Christian societies have long banned slavery while the Muslims consider every verse and word of the Quran as those of Allah that can never be revised, discarded or violated. Therefore, with the resurgence of Islam, more and more Islamic laws and ethos, including slavery of various types and degrees, are implemented. One clear validation of the practice of slavery is the sura below:

[Q 16.75] Allah sets forth a parable: (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah!

Slavery, discrimination, exclusivity and many more unjust provisions are systemic to Islam without any possibility for reformation. Muslims revere the Quran as the eternal immutable words of Allah. They accept the Hadith, Muhammad’s sayings, as further elucidation of their faith and emulate the Sunna the way Muhammad, the perfect practitioner of Allah’s teachings, conducted his life.

Muslims believe that Allah himself is the author of the Quran, that he wrote each chapter himself and had the angel Gabriel deliver it to Muhammad, who was illiterate. Muhammad must have been endowed with perfect memory in order to transmit each verse of the Quran exactly as written by Allah. What Muhammad revealed bit-by-bit over twenty years, not a voluminous work by any measure, was recorded by various people on all manner of bones, parchments, and bark. At least four major versions of the Quran eventually emerged. So, Allah’s words were revealed by a perfect unerring messenger and were recorded by a number of imperfect humans in different versions. It remained for other imperfect humans, the Caliphs, to choose the one version they believed to be the literal perfect words of Allah and ordered the rest destroyed.

Based on the Quran itself, a number of Islamic precepts and practices clearly violate the provisions of human rights, institutionalize discrimination, and constrain liberty. A partial list of these violations is supplied below:

Freedom of assembly, expression, and worship is either denied or severely restricted in every Islamic country.

Women are relegated to a second class status, depriving them of many rights enjoyed by men.

Religious minorities are often harassed, their properties are confiscated, their holy places destroyed, their cemeteries leveled, and even their persons harmed without receiving justice.

"People of the book," Jews and Christians, are treated as "tolerable," since they together with Muslims are considered to be followers of the only three divine religions, while members of other religions, or no religion at all, are deemed ineligible for fair treatment under the law. Egypt, for instance, requires its citizens to obtain identity cards to be eligible for all the rights of citizenship, such as education, employment and medical care. Yet, gallingly, the same government denies these rights to those who are not members of the three divine religions or those who have no religious affiliation at all.

The Islamic Republic of Iran officially bars its largest non-Muslim minority, the Baha’is, from many rights of citizenship, including access to higher education solely for the "sin" of practicing a different faith.

Censorship of all sort are systemic to Islam. It is its way of mind control: an atrocious practice of keeping the mind in bondage. The press is required to parrot the approved line, and the violators are shut down and their staff imprisoned; Internet access to undesirable sites is routinely blocked; and, book publications pre-screened, and much much more.

Women, by the very nature of their second class status expressly stipulated in the Quran, are occasionally allowed a token high position in government, while non-Muslim minority citizens are virtually barred from securing any positions at all.

To better understand Islam, a brief reference to its birth may be helpful. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, worked for and married a wealthy woman many years his senior named Khadija. One day, alone in a secluded place, Muhammad had a revelation and reported the experience to Khadija. Khadija assured him that he had been chosen by Allah as his messenger. From that point on, Muhammad proceeded to reveal the Quran and the carved-in-granite Islam and its dogma was born.

Presently, with each passing day Islam is making inroads into both the traditionally Muslim lands as well as much of the non-Muslim world where Islam is beginning to run deep roots and vie with the laws and cultures of its hosts. Muslims are taking advantage of the freedom that democracies grant. They use the same provisions of the law that are intended to protect and enhance liberty to subvert democracy and freedom.

Islam is indeed a dangerous comprehensive form of slavery. Its very name, Islam, means submission or surrender. True to its name, Islam strives for nothing short of enslavement of the body of humanity as well as the bondage of its mind.

Complacency and appeasement on the part of free people can only serve Islam. There is no chance for co-existence with Islam. All one needs to know is to see what is happening in Islamic countries. That is exactly what is in store for the presently free people of the world if Islam is not held in check.

There is a hope that Muslims themselves may leave this Bedouin slaveholder religion. Yet, the hope is slim. Islam has a stranglehold on its slaves and will neither let them go, nor do the Muslims seem to have the insight or the will to leave it in large numbers. But hope, as slim as it is, keeps me sounding the alarm before the fire of Islam engulfs us all.

Warning to free people: Don't bank on the politicians, the master practitioners of the art of the politically correct, to protect liberty. Politicians must be urged by the citizens to safeguard liberty, scrutinized closely that they do the work, and be held accountable if they fail to do so. You, a citizen, also have a job to do. Take a few minutes a day and do what you can to protect freedom. "Freedom is not free," may be a cliché. Yet, it is the most profound four-word sentence in the lexicon of the free.

Egyptian Imams and intellectuals: Renewing Islam towards modernity

ASIANEWS

A score of intellectuals and theologians of Al Azhar have issued a text of enormous importance, entitled "Document for the renewal of religious discourse." The text was "posted" on the Internet on 24 January at 18:27, on the website of the weekly magazine Yawm al-Sâbi’'("The Seventh Day"). The importance of the document also derives from its signatories, all noted scholars and profoundly committed Muslims.

Among these it is worth mentioning: Dr. Nasr Farid Wasel, former Grand Mufti of Egypt, the imam Safwat Hegazi, Dr. Gamal al-Banna, brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the professors Malakah Zirâr and Âminah Noseir the celebrated Islamist writer Fahmi Huweidi; Dr. Mabruk Atiyyah, a large number of preachers (du'ât), responsible for Islamic Propaganda, such as Khalid al-Gindi, Muhammad Hedâyah, Mustafa Husni, etc..

It is the first time that such an attempt has been made by recognized Islamic figures. On being posted, the document received 153 comments in the same day. The majority (88.25%) condemned the text, saying it distorts Islam or tries to establish a new religion. Only 18 people congratulated the authors. This means that the path of renewal will be long and require much time and effort.

The original text of the document (in Arabic) and comments can be found at: http://www.youm7.com/News.asp?NewsID=343007.

Here a draft translation of the document, which will probably need to be reviewed. is pubished

Document for the renewal of religious discourse

1.Review the books of the Hadith (the words attributed to Muhammad) and Koranic commentaries to purge them.
2.Fine tune Islamic political-religious vocabulary, such as the gizyah (the special tax required of dhimmi, the second-class citizens).
3.Find a new expression for the concept of fraternisation between the sexes.
4.Develop the Islamic vision of women and find suitable ways for marriage laws.
5.Islam is a religion of creativity.
6.Explain the Islamic concept of gihâd, and clarify rules and requirements that govern it.
7.Block attacks on external piety and foreign practices that come from neighbouring states [a euphemism that aims to expose the influence of Saudi Arabia-ed.]
8.Separate state and religion.
9.Purify the heritage of the "first centuries of Islam (Salafism), discarding the myths and attacks against religion.
10.Give adequate preparation to missionary preachers (du'ât) and in this field open the doors to those who have not studied at the University of Al Azhar, according to clear criteria.
11.Formulate the virtues common to the three revealed religions.
12.Eliminate incorrect practices and provide guidance with regard to Western ways.
13.Articulate the relationship that should exist between members of religions through schools, mosques and churches.
14.Redraw in a different way [adapted] to the West the presentation of the biography of the Prophet.
15.Do not keep people away from economic systems with the requirement not to deal with banks.
16.Recognising the right of women to the Presidency of the Republic.
17.Combat sectarian claims, [underling] that the flag of Islam [must be] one. Invite people to come to God through gratitude and wisdom, not through threats.
18.Evolve the teaching of Al Azhar.
19.Recognise the right of Christians [to have access] to important positions and [also] to the presidency.
20.Separate religious discourse from power and restore the bond with the needs of society
21.Establish the bond between the Da’wah (the call to conversion to Islam) and modern technology, satellite chains and the market for Islamic cassettes.

Islamists in Somalia ban handshakes between men and women

Al-Qaida-linked militants in war-torn southern Somalia have banned unrelated men and women from shaking hands, speaking or walking together in public, residents said Saturday. People who break the rules could be imprisoned, whipped or even executed.

The insurgents already have banned women from working in public, leaving many mothers with a terrible choice: risk execution by going to sell some tea or vegetables in the marketplace, or stay safely at home and watch the children slowly starve.

"It's an awful rule. I feel like I'm under arrest. I've started to ignore the greetings of the women I know to avoid punishment," Hussein Ali said by phone form [sic] the southern Somali town of Jowhar. The edict is also being enforced in the town of Elasha.

Gunmen are searching buses for improperly dressed women or women traveling alone, said student Hamdi Osman in Elasha. She said she was once beaten for wearing Somali traditional dress instead of the long, shapeless black robes favored by the fighters.

The Islamists' insistence that women wear the long, heavy robes also forces many women to stay at home because they can't afford the new clothing....

The insurgents even control parts of the capital, brazenly carrying out amputations, whippings and stonings in public places. The list of forbidden things differs from town to town and commander to commander.

In Jowhar, the insurgents are now also insisting that men grow their beards but shave their mustaches, said another resident, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution.

The Islamists have also banned the cinema, music, and bras because they say they are all un-Islamic. Such restrictions are influenced by foreign fighters practicing Wahhabi Islam, which is much stricter than Somalia's traditional Sufi Islam that incorporates a long tradition of poetry and song.

"The last time I listened a song or music, was two years ago, before the insurgents managed the full control of my village," said Bile Hassan. Now, he says, even the memory of music makes him feel afraid.

A letter to Ethiopians

Dear fellow Ethiopians,

Today humanity is being challenged. Unthinkable atrocities take place on daily basis. There is an evil force at work that aims to destroy us. The agents of this evil respect nothing; not even the lives of children. Every day there are bombings, every day innocent people are targeted and murdered. It seems as if we are helpless. But we are not!

The ancient Chinese sage Sun Zi said, "Know your enemy and you won't be defeated". Do we know our enemy? If we don't, then we are doomed.

Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a tool; but the terrorists kill for an ideology. They call that ideology Islam.

The entire world, both Muslims and non-Muslims claim that the terrorists have hijacked "the religion of peace" and Islam does not condone violence.

Who is right? Do the terrorists understand Islam better, or do those who decry them? The answer to this question is the key to our victory, and failure to find that key will result in our loss and death will be upon us. The key is in the Quran and the history of Islam.

Those who know Islam, know that the understanding of the terrorists of Islam is correct. They are doing nothing that their prophet did not do and did not encourage his followers to do. Murder, rape, assassination, beheading, massacre and sacrilege of the dead "to delight the hearts of the believers" were all practiced by Muhammad, were taught by him and were observed by Muslims throughout their history.

If truth has ever mattered, it matters most now! This is the time that we have to call a spade a spade. This is the time that we have to find the root of the problem and eradicate it. The root of Islamic terrorism is Islam. The proof of that is the Quran.

Many ex-Muslims have seen the face of the evil and have risen to warn the world. No matter how painful the truth may be, only truth can set us free. Why this much denial? Why so much obstinacy? How many more innocent lives should be lost before YOU open your eyes?

Muslims are urged to leave Islam. Stop with excuses, justifications and rationalizations. Stop dividing mankind into "us" vs. "them" and Muslims vs. Kafirs. We are One people, One mankind! Muhammad was not a messenger of God. It is time that we end this insanity and face the truth. The terrorists take their moral support and the validation for their actions from you. Your very adherence to their cult of death is a nod of approval for their crimes against humanity.

The non-Muslims world should stop being politically correct lest it hurts the sensitivities of the Muslims. To Hell with their sensitivities! We all need to save their lives, and the lives of millions of innocent people.

Millions, if not billions of lives will be lost if we do nothing. Time is running out! "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Do something!

The first black Saudi Imam in 1400 years

Following are excerpts from interviews with Sheikhh Adel Al-Kalbani, imam of the Al-Haram Mosque in Mecca, which aired on BBC Arabic on May 5, 2009 and Al-Arabiya TV on February 27, 2009.


To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2102.htm.

On BBC Arabic: I View Shi'ite Religious Scholars as Apostates

Interviewer: "Do you support those who accuse Shi'ites of apostasy?"

Sheikhh Adel Al-Kalbani: "With regard to the laymen among the Shi'ites — this is debatable. But their religious scholars — I view them as apostates.

Interviewer: All of them?"

Sheikhh Adel Al-Kalbani: "With regard to the religious scholars, yes."

Interviewer: "Are you in favor of allowing religious liberties in general?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "For us, liberty has limits. Would you allow a mosque to be built in the Vatican?"

Interviewer: "Sheikh Adel, the Vatican is the center of the papal church, while the holy places in Saudi Arabia belong to Muslims of all sects and schools."

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "But in the Vatican, they do not allow [a church] to be built for the Protestants."

Interviewer: "Where can Christians [pray]?"
"The Prophet's Guidance... Dictates: 'Drive The Jews And The Christians Out of the Arabian Peninsula'... They Should Be Allowed to Live Here Only If Their Presence is Essential"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "Christians are allowed to pray in their homes. We have no problem with them praying where they live. But for the bells to be sounded in the land of the Prophet Muhammad — that [runs counter] to the Prophet's guidance. The Prophet's guidance, by which we act, dictates: 'Drive the Jews and the Christians out of the Arabian Peninsula.' Driving them out is undoubtedly the prerogative of the ruler, but they should be allowed to live here only if their presence is essential."

Interviewer: "But what you are saying runs counter to the interfaith dialogue, doesn't it? On what basis does Saudi Arabia engage in interfaith dialogue with them? Is it just dialogue for the sake of dialogue? Isn't it in order for everybody to get what they are entitled to?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "Yes, but within the limits of the shari'a. We are talking from the perspective of the shari'a, not from a personal perspective."

Interviewer: "But don't you agree that there should be a common denominator? The limits of the shari'a is the position of the Muslims, but not of the Christians who live in Saudi Arabia, right?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "[The Christian] came as a visitor. He is not a citizen. If he were a citizen... watchamacallit... a Christian citizen — maybe there would be room for debate. Maybe. But in principle, he is a visitor, a guest, who stays for some time, and then leaves. He knew these were the rules before he came here. No visitor to a country can demand that it change its rules."

Interviewer: "Not to change the rules, but if you, as a Muslim, were to visit a country, wouldn't you hope there would be a mosque in which to pray, regardless of whether you are a citizen or not?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "I would hope so. Undoubtedly. But Allah be praised, according to the Prophet's guidance: 'The whole Earth was made a mosque and pure for me.' Therefore, a Muslim can pray anywhere."

Interviewer: "You just accused Shi'ite religious scholars — not laymen — of apostasy. Some people may ask: If this is not fanaticism, what is?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "This is not fanaticism unless you mean being fanatic about my religion. In such a case, I cannot deny that I am a fanatic. My personal belief is that anyone who is aware of the status of Abu Bakr, yet curses him and draws closer to Allah by hating him, by warning against him, and by cursing him — I cannot call such a person a Muslim. With regard to the laymen, I can accept that they are either misled or ignorant, but someone who knows the status of Abu Bakr, yet accuses him of apostasy and denies that he was a companion of the Prophet — he is undoubtedly an apostate, even if he was a Sunni."

Besides The Issue of Driving a Car, "There Is No Other Example of Women Lacking Rights In Saudi Arabia" Interviewer: "Do you support demands made by women in Saudi Arabia for certain rights that the women feel they lack?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "Women indeed lack some rights, but not because of Islam or the rules. This is because of the implementation of these rights by their husbands or parents."

Interviewer: "But don't the state and the society impose their restrictions as well?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "I do not think that society imposes any restrictions on women. We have a woman who has become a deputy minister."

Interviewer: "Are women capable of driving, or is this prevented by society?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "If all women's rights are reduced to driving a car..."

Interviewer: "This is just an example, Sheikh Adel."

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "There is no other example of women lacking rights in Saudi Arabia. There are women clerks, women doctors, and women laborers.

"I had a lengthy discussion with Sheikh Ibn 'Uthaymin about [Jihad]. We came to the conclusion that whoever kills himself is committing suicide, even if it is done for the sake of harming the enemy. The so-called 'Jihad operations' are, in fact, suicide operations. This is my opinion, and Allah will reckon with me about it. Such a person is committing suicide. Whether or not Allah forgives him is not up to me. My ruling is that such a person is committing suicide."

On Al-Arabiya TV: My Appointment as Imam of Al-Haram "Is More Significant Than the Election of Obama"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "I believe that my appointment to the position of imam [of the Haram Mosque] is much more significant."

Interviewer: "More significant than the election of Obama?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "in other positions, there may have been [black] people in the past, but with regard to this position, my appointment was a courageous decision. I believe that it is more significant than the election of Obama.

Interviewer: In what sense?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "This is part of democracy, part of the world."

Interviewer: "But more people elected him."

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "The Haram Mosque is the place of all Muslims."

Interviewer: "The Haram Mosque?"

Sheikh Adel Al-Kalbani: "Yes. This is more all-encompassing than the White House, which, as important as it may be, is restricted to the Americans.

Muslims torch Christian homes in Southern Egypt

Muslims set fire overnight to at least 10 houses belonging to Coptic Christians in a village in southern Egypt over rumors that a Christian resident had an affair with a Muslim girl, security officials said Tuesday.

The officials said security forces have sealed off the village of al-Nawahid in Qena province, some 290 miles south of Cairo, to prevent the violence from spreading to neighboring towns. They said several people were arrested.

The attacks started after locals spotted a young Copt and a Muslim girl together at night inside the village cemetery, the officials said. They added that both were put under police custody as authorities investigate.

MORE

Islamization of the world

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islam is NOT like other religions. It is unique in that its holy books clearly advocate the achievement of its goals through any means necessary, including violence and force. It is the only religion in which other religions must be subjugated (dhimmi) and apostates are executed as a matter of Shari’a law.

I am not talking about popular manifestations of any religion, but of the sacred texts themselves. In this, the Qur’an and Hadith are unique. Islam is simply incompatible with a world in which non-Muslims have hegemony. Unlike other religions, all descent and attempts at reform in Islam are firmly quashed. As long as Islam is taught in its normative form, there will be Jihad, in all of its forms, until Islam is universal or soundly defeated.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

This is the case in:

United States - Muslim 0..6%
Australia - Muslim 1.5%
Canada - Muslim 1.9%
China - Muslim 1.8%
Italy - Muslim 1.5%
Norway - Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

This is happening in:

Denmark - Muslim 2%
Germany - Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom - Muslim 2.7%
Spain - Muslim 4%
Thailand - Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves - along with threats for failure to comply.

This is occurring in:

France - Muslim 8%
Philippines - 5%
Sweden - Muslim 5%
Switzerland - Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands - Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago - Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. In Russia, grade-schools were attacked. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.

Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana - Muslim 10%
India - Muslim 13.4%
Israel - Muslim 16%
Kenya - Muslim 10%
Russia - Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia - Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia - Muslim 40%
Chad - Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon - Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania - Muslim 70%
Malaysia - Muslim 60.4%
Qatar - Muslim 77.5%
Sudan - Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, beheadings, stoning, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Afghanistan – Muslim 99.9%
Bangladesh - Muslim 83%
Egypt - Muslim 90%
Gaza - Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia - Muslim 86.1%
Iran - Muslim 98%
Iraq - Muslim 97%
Jordan - Muslim 92%
Morocco - Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan - Muslim 97%
Palestine - Muslim 99%
Somalia – Muslim 99.9%
Syria - Muslim 90%
Tajikistan - Muslim 90%
Turkey - Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates - Muslim 96%

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.

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

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.

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.

Islam needs more tolerance, not more mosques

NEWSWEEK

One has to wonder how long the U.S. will continue to tip toe around its relationship with Islam and Muslims. There seems to be so many situations in which anything to do with Islam is treated with kid gloves by politicians and the politically correct in fear of offending its members. If it had been Jewish terrorists who had attacked the twin Towers, would the building of a synagogue at the site even be in anyone's fantasy? I strongly doubt it. Yet, when Muslims are involved in terrorism, so many of our politicians want to pretend Islam had nothing to do with it. They need to wake up and listen to what the terrorists and their hate filled are saying.

Religious fundamentalism, the view that my religion is the only "right" one and everyone else must believe like me, has been the cause of hatred and violence in the name of religion for millennia. Although the justification for violence against nonbelievers has rarely if ever been a majority worldview of any religion, its destructiveness has far outweighed its numbers. Throughout much of the history of the last two thousand years, Christians and Muslims have been the primary perpetrators of a violent fundamentalist world view. Each has seen goodness only identified with itself and thus has justified its raping, pillaging, and destruction of other peoples and cultures all over the world. Their hatred has not only been directed at non-believers but at members of their own traditions who disagree with their narrow belief systems.

Yet, when fundamentalists have been criticized, they have typically shown very thin skin and have often reacted violently. In some ways, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims have historically acted like spoiled children who always have to have their own way. Unfortunately, unlike spoiled children, religious fundamentalists cannot be put on "time out" or sent to bed early. Instead, throughout much of their respective histories, fundamentalists of both religions have sought annihilate all other religious worldviews and their adherents as well.

During the last few centuries, fundamentalist Christians have, for the most part, removed overt violence from their approach to the rest of the world. Although their narrow mindedness has remained, most now use words instead of weapons to push their beliefs, and most other Christians adhere to a much more tolerant and reasoned view of others. Moreover, many Christians today are active promoters of peace and tolerance all over the world. At the same time, however, Muslim fundamentalists have increased their use of violence in both rhetoric and action, while moderate Muslims are rarely heard, either because of fear of or sympathy with their fundamentalist brethren. The responses by much of the world during the past few decades to this increased level of violence have been to attempt to assuage Muslim terrorism by giving its fundamentalist perpetrators what they want. The general approach of many U.S. politicians has followed suit. Acting in this manner is like trying to extinguish a fire by throwing wood on it.

Religious tolerance in the U.S. has increased a great deal over the decades, but as long as Islam continues to be treated differently than other religions, and fundamentalists are given a pass, most Americans will want to have little or nothing to do with the religion or its members. There are those who say that we are the ones at fault, we need to better understand Muslims and Islam, and the planned center and mosque near Ground Zero will help in that process. Actually, our politicians need to stop making excuses for the violence fundamentalist Islam supports, and its perpetrators need to start making room for the rest of the world in their currently narrow and hate filled version of reality. Those who say Americans need to better understand Islam need to rethink the problem. They should direct their efforts instead to attempting to teach fundamentalist Muslims the concept of tolerance of others first, since they are the source of the problem. That would be the best way to begin to inspire non-Muslims in the U.S. and the rest of the world to change their view of the tradition and to see beyond its violence for the good it can hopefully offer the rest of the world.

“The attacks on Christianity are outrageous. There are so many problems with the article that it would take too long to pick through them all, the entire premise is wrong. There is nothing wrong with religious fundamentalism if the person is following a good religion! And as for the history, people slander Christians when they try to claim that Christians were violent. In every single age there have been pacifist fundamentalist Christians. That there were violent people who happened to be Christian does not condemn Christianity. They were not acting in the name of Christianity, it was largely political issues that drove the movements people like to condemn. In the case of the Crusades - THEY WERE A RESPONSE TO THE ISLAMIC JIHAD! Islam, whose doctrines do specifically require violence in the name of Islam, first invaded and subjugated the historical Christian and Jewish lands of the Middle East and North Africa etc. etc. That Christians finally fought back, too little too late, is nothing to condemn them for, they should be applauded. If they had done more, the World Trade Center would still be standing today, the Jews would be living in peace in Israel, and many other peoples would be free in their historic lands rather than living in fear under the jack boot of Islam. Islam used and uses violence to conquer and control and we see that today as we live. It should not be allowed in the West if the West wants to survive and remain free.”

MORE COMMENTS

Somali Islamic group cracks down on TV sets

REUTERS

Somali Islamist rebels have ordered residents in areas they control to hand over televisions and satellite dishes, warning that anyone who did not would be considered a spy, residents said on Monday.

The affected region is largely controlled by the al Shabaab group, a rebel militia linked to al Qaeda which enforces a harsh version of sharia law that includes banning school bells, ringtones on cell phones and music on radios.

Members of the militia group, which has also banned watching football and films, have warned residents through loud speakers mounted on vehicles in towns across southern and central Somalia to give up their TV sets before the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan starts in mid-August.

"Families were told to surrender their television sets and satellite dishes. They are afraid some of us may use them as private channels for communication," Abshir, a resident of Buula-barde, told Reuters.

"In the past, we could not watch games or films as we wanted. Now, we cannot have TV sets at all," he said, declining to give his second name for safety reasons.

Another resident in Bardale, a town 60 km north of Baidoa, said they were informed of the decision at a public gathering late on Friday. "We are not happy to handover our belongings to someone else," said the resident who did not want to be named.

The warning scared residents who are familiar with the group that previously carried out death sentences on dozens of people accused of espionage for the government or foreign troops.

One legislator from Buula-barde said the radical group, which claimed responsibility for bombings in the Ugandan capital of Kampala that killed 76 people this month, were watching developments an African Union summit in the city for any possible offensive.

"They are monitoring closely the discussion at the summit and cautious that African troops may leave the defensive positions after the Kampala bombing," legislator Osman Mohamed said.

"They are oppressing our people using a poor excuse that residents may be spies, but that is not the case. This is the beginning of series attempts to control information, and create the fear among the people."