Cruising For A Bruising

At Slate today, Christopher Hitchens poses some questions for the organisers of the imminent follow-up to last year's "Freedom Flotilla", whose explicit purpose was to aid Israel's enemies by illegally breaking its perfectly legal blockade.

Specifically, Hitchens focuses on the flotilla's ties to Hamas, a fact which he does not document in any detail but is nevertheless a reality. For example:

Amin Abou Ibrahim, also known as Amin Abou Rashed, is one of the main organizers of the ”Freedom Flotilla 2″ and a founder of the ECESG, a central organization participating in the flotilla. Recently, the Dutch daily newspaper De Telegraaf cited Abou Rashed as the “brain behind the flotilla”...

Abou Rashed was an active participant in last year’s flotilla as well. His name also came up during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation by the US government in 2007. The Holy Land Foundation is designated by the US Treasury as a Specially Designated National and banned by the EU for its direct financial and material support to Hamas. During the Holy Land Foundation trial, a letter was shown written by Abou Rashed to Akram Mishaal, a director of the Holy Land Foundation and a cousin of Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal.

In the letter found at Holy Land Foundation headquarters and used as a court case exhibit by the US government, Abou Rashed lists the names, addresses, and bank numbers of “charitable organizations working for Palestine in Europe.” Abou Rashed was writing as a representative of the Al-Aqsa Foundation, an organization designated by the US Department of Treasury as a charity financing terror and “a critical part of Hamas’ terrorist support infrastructure.”

These “charitable organizations” cited in Abou Rashed’s document were also later declared by the US Department of Treasury to be supporters of terrorist organizations, specifically Hamas, and consequently their assets were frozen.

Many Hamas affiliated organizations, as recognized by the US Treasury, were organizations in which Amin Abou Rashed was a very active participant in to say the least. Now, as leader of the current flotilla to Gaza, this raises deeper questions regarding the intentions of the flotilla organizers and their further connections to Hamas.

Let us hope that when "The Audacity of Hope" eventually reaches Gaza, the IDF send it and all of its miserable participants straight down to the seabed and to hell.

Hope And Change In Tunisia

When the so-called "Arab Spring" began in Tunisia, we were told that it would bring democracy, freedom, moderation and secularism to the country and the region.

Today, we learn this:

Today Tunisia's commission of political reform announced that it adopted (by majority) a ''republican pact'' that will be the basis of the future new Constitution, and in particular it states the rejection of any normalisation with Israel.

While announcing the pact the president of the commission, Yadh Ben Achour, did not offer any details, but the Arab speaking Tunisian press published its content, which defines Tunisia as a free and democratic country, whose official language is Arab and whose religion is Islam.

The pact, that will serve as the basis of the future Constitution, categorically rejects ''any form of normalisation with the Zionist State'', and supports the Palestinian cause.

Democracy! Freedom! Moderation! Secularism!

Not that this is anything particularly new in the world of the Tunisian Revolution's "moderate Islamist" leadership.

All Muscle, No Backbone

Due to the all-encompassing nature of sharia law, there are very few areas of private or public life that Islam does not legislate over in some way. Similarly, there are increasingly fewer areas of life where Islam is not taking hold, and where it is not convincing weak-willed non-believers to bend over before it.

Consider the case of Kulsoon Abdullah, a Muslim woman from Atlanta, USA, who - along with the US Olympic Committee - petitioned the International Weightlifting Federation to change its rules to allow her to wear Islamic dress during participation in competitions. Previously, the rules had mandated that competitors must have bare arms and legs so that judges can tell when the elbows and knees have "locked" and a lift has been properly completed.

Having won her appeal, Abdullah has been successful in having the rules changed so that she can now wear "a hijab and a body-covering unitard".

This case raises some interesting issues.

Islamic law mandates that when out in public, women must cover everything except their face and hands, in accordance with the words of Muhammad:

“Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.” (Abu Dawud b.32, no.4092)

However, additionally, the body coverings that Muslim women wear must not be tight-fitting or reveal their figures. For example: "Women are forbidden to wear thin clothes which reveal their shapes when they go out." (Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh, p.386) A fatwa issued on the website of the popular South African Muslim preacher Ebrahim Desai emphasises this point repeatedly. Kulsoon Abdullah's form-fitting "unitard" clearly violates this explicit law.

Furthermore, Abdullah shouldn't even be at the event, since Islamic law forbids women from leaving the home without the permission of their husbands and for any reason other than attendance of serious events such as funerals (Qayrawani, p.387; Reliance of the Traveller, p.538), and they certainly couldn't be in the presence of men to whom they are not related.

In other words, Kulsoon Abdullah is barely following Islamic law at all. There is therefore a very good possibility that her demands to wear a loosely defined "Islamic dress" while weightlifting have next to nothing to do with piety, and everything to do with getting one over the Infidels. After all, if she can win a small battle like this now, what larger battle can she win next time? If she can convince the Infidels to change the rules of the game to accomodate her religio-political ideology, what other concessions might they make, if threatened strongly enough with the stigma of "Islamophobia" and religious discrimination if they fail to comply?

Well...perhaps they'll allow sharia law to supercede their own law in Britain, or America, or France, or anywhere else in the Western world?

But that couldn't be what's going on, could it? It's just a woman who wants to do some weightlifting. Go back to sleep.

Weirdest Anti-Terrorism Conference Ever

Our allies and our enemies...but which is which?

This past weekend, the leaders of some of our most vital Muslim allies in the Middle East attended a conference entitled "World Without Terrorism".

Were these important moderate Muslims there to renounce violence in the name of Islam and come up with transparent, effective ways to combat those Muslims who besmirch the name of their peaceful religion by committing acts of terrorism with a Qur'an in their hand?

Of course not, silly. Their main aim, according to the participants, was to "clearly define terrorism and to identify its root causes," particularly "satanic world powers which use terrorism in their policies and in their planning to achieve their illegitimate goals," such as the "Zionist regime" and Zionism in general, which have "from their very beginning perpetuated global terrorism". The conference also aims to highlight the way that "the U.S., the U.K., and other Western governments had 'a black record of terrorist behaviors.'"

Well, what else would you expect when the conference is led by Iran's Ali Khameini and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

This conference, whose sole purpose was to demonise the West and Israel, was attended by three of our main "allies" in the Muslim world: Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Pakistani President Asif 'Ali Zardari, and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. None of these men appeared to have any problem or, crucially, any strategic disagreements with the pro-genocidal Ahmadinejad or, for that matter, with the actually-genocidal Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, who also attended this "anti-terrorism" conference despite being wanted for war crimes.

Indeed, these so-called "allies" actively endorsed the views of Khameini and Ahmadinejad that "the Zionist regime feel proud of their terrorist background", and that the 9/11 attacks were cooked up by the West and Israel to justify colonialist ambitions in the Middle East, with their own anti-Western statements. President Karzai requested aid from Iran. The Iraqi President emphasised that Iraqis were united in their opposition to the Coalition prescence in their country, and again asked for Iranian assistance in driving it out. And Zardari told the Iranian leadership that the U.S. was trying to sow division in Pakistan for its own ends, and promised that his country would work toward expanding its relations with Tehran.

To top off this wonderfully surreal and downright dangerous meeting of "allied" minds, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon actually praised the conference, saying that it would do wonders for the future prevention of terrorism.

In other news, David Cameron praised Levi Bellfield for his groundbreaking work on a new seminar series for convicts entitled "A World Without Child-Killing".

Sold

Nancy and Christine: Where is the world's outrage?

Over at FrontPage, the invaluable Raymond Ibrahim provides details of the latest human rights outrage from "democratised" Egypt - an outrage that has been completely ignored by the entire English-speaking media, leaving Ibrahim to summarise the details published in the Arabic media about the incidents:

The two girls, Christine Azat (aged 16) and Nancy Magdi (aged 14) were on their way to church Sunday, June 12, when they were seized. Their abductors demanded $200,000 Egyptian pounds for their release. The people of the region quickly put their savings together and came up with the ransom money; but when they tried to give it to the kidnappers, they rejected it, saying they had already “sold” the girls off to another group which requires $12 million Egyptian pounds to return them.

Ibrahim concludes with the following comments:

Therefore, next time you hear about an Egyptian Muslim preacher boasting that Islam permits Muslims to abduct and ransom infidels as a great way to make a living and own female sex-slaves, or when you hear about a Kuwaiti political activist praying to Allah that Kuwait would formally institutionalize sex-slavery, do not brush these aside as mere words, for here are their fruits.

Another Genocide In Sudan?

Omar al-Bashir: Mass-mudering jihadist war criminal

This disturbing piece in TIME magazine highlights the now very real possibility of another genocide in Sudan:

Sudan's history is strewn with cases of mass atrocities against non-Arabs in the south and north, with Darfur being only the latest; reports in recent weeks from Sudan's South Kordofan state suggest history could be repeating itself yet again. There, members of a minority, opposition-aligned African ethnic group are being slaughtered "like animals," in the words of one alarming church statement. The diverse tribes live in a rugged land of mud-hut villages called the Nuba Mountains. So far, besides an aerial-bombardment campaign against the Nuba areas, the targeted killings against them have been mostly confined to the major towns, as tens of thousands flee into the hills where, for now, they are mostly safe.

But internal U.N. documents obtained by TIME show that refuge might soon come under attack too. Hundreds of military vehicles have streamed into South Kordofan's capital of Kadugli, the center of the bloodbath, according to U.N. reports. Preparations for a major ground offensive were becoming increasingly clear, the U.N. Kadugli base warned in a June 15 confidential dispatch, which urgently called for political intervention to ward off the crisis.

As well as racial tension between the Arabs and the blacks, the slaughter in Sudan is also, as described by the perpetrators, a textbook Islamic jihad. Only three days ago, Christians and their churches in the South Kordofan area were brutally assaulted by Muslims allied to the Sudanese government, who screamed "Allahu Akbar!" as they attacked. As described by Nina Shea of the Centre For Religious Freedom, Sudan's war criminal President Omar al-Bashir has for many years waged an explicitly self-defined "jihad" against the predominantly black Christians (and fellow Muslims) of Sudan, while according to the man's own documented words, his long-term intention is to implement sharia law in his country. And we're not talking the fluffy, friendly "family law" version of sharia that many Western commentators assure us is the sole function of Islamic law, but full-fledged, Dark Ages barbarity, including but not limited to the brutal flogging of women:

Separately, Mr Bashir also commented on a recent high-profile case in which a video posted on the internet showed a woman being flogged by police in the north.

"If she is lashed according to Sharia law, there is no investigation. Why are some people ashamed? This is Sharia," the president said.

Also according to Shea:

For years Khartoum has treated the black, Sufi Muslims of Darfur as second-class citizens, systematically discriminating against them in providing development opportunities, government services, and positions of power. When they rebelled against this policy of extreme marginalization, they became — in the view of a regime that conflates religion with politics — "apostate." Under Islamist rules, apostates are to be put to death or taken as slaves. In 1992, six pro-government Sudanese imams issued a fatwa making this explicit: "An insurgent who was previously a Muslim is now an apostate and a non-Muslim is a non-believer standing as a bulwark against the spread of Islam, and Islam has granted the freedom of killing both of them." Though the fatwa was intended at that time for the Muslims of the central Nuba province and the Christians and animists of the south, it equally applies today to the Muslims of Darfur.

Despite President Obama dedicating a "generous" two-minute radio address to these jihadist atrocities a few days ago, the international community has by and large tragically and shamefully failed to act decisively in bringing Omar al-Bashir and his Islamic supremacist cronies to justice. The results have been disastrous, and could end up even more so, as the TIME piece solemnly concludes:

In the early 1900s, Winston Churchill, then a young British soldier on a military campaign in Sudan, described how a fierce Sudanese battalion was sent down to fight the Nuba, a "mountain people who cared for nothing but their independence," just to give the elite soldiers something to do. In the 1990s, as many as half a million Nuba were killed when the Sudanese government declared jihad against them. When I was in the Nuba Mountains in April, I found a people terrified that war would return but resigned to their frightful and uncertain future. Given their history and the history of their government, they seem to have good reasons to be fearful.

Talking With The Taliban?

It has been hinted at many times in the recent past, and although details are still extremely sketchy, it appears to be happening at last: the Coalition in Afghanistan is "in talks" with the Taliban.

Where does one start with this idiocy? In recent weeks, "militant factions" of the Taliban have attacked and killed innocent people in banks, shopping centres and hospitals. Additionally, as the BBC notes in its coverage of "the talks", even as these talks were supposedly going on, Taliban suicide bombers killed nine people at a police station. There is no record that any "moderate factions" of the Taliban have opposed any of this.

You don't negotiate with people like this - you murder them, and when that is not possible, you utilise your best resources to cut off their funding and methodology of attack.

Aside from the moral and tactical stupidity of these talks, there is also another aspect to consider. A few days ago, USA Today reported that "The number of attacks by Afghan security forces on U.S. and allied troops has increased dramatically this year", with 40% of all such attacks since 2005 occuring this year alone.

Then there is the fact that Islamic law (to which our enemies rigorously adhere) allows for peace talks and truces only as a temporary cessation of hostilities for tactical purposes. In the words of the important manual of Islamic law Reliance of the Traveller, which has been endorsed by some of Islam's highest authorities:

There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo...Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of members or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim...If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.

In light of all this, what steps are being taken (or could conceivably be taken) by Coalition negotiators to ensure that Muslims who claim to be our friends are being sincere, and will not turn around at the first available opportunity and kill their new-found allies?

Why, absolutely none, because to even contemplate such a thing, even in spite of all the evidence, would be "Islamophobia", and no one wants that.

In a statement reacting to this latest news, the UK said it supported "Afghan-led efforts to reconcile and reintegrate members of the insurgency who are prepared to renounce violence, cut links with terrorist groups, and accept the constitution".

Where are these people? Have our intelligence services and army identified a single person fitting this description? And if so, what criteria did they use to determine it?

In any case, any "moderate Taliban" members who accept the constitution of Afghanistan would also accept stoning and religion- and gender-based discrimination, since all these things are part of sharia law which, thanks to our own enlightened efforts, is enshrined in the Afghan constitution as the ultimate arbiter of all laws in that country (see Chapter 1, Article 3).

All the talks in the world won't change these facts.