Sunday, November 30, 2008

Boston mayor tried to help local black muslims build a mosque, wound up with Saudi terrorist mosque

Boston Jewish Advocate
“Menino’s Mosque”
By Charles Jacobs
November 23, 2008

This was the title of the Boston Phoenix’s lead story last week, featuring on the cover an image of Mayor Menino serving up a new mosque on a silver platter to -- the story argues – exactly the wrong people.

The Phoenix report is the first public account of how a well intentioned Mayor tried to help local African-American Muslims in Roxbury build a mosque, but wound up subsidizing what many in Boston worry is a Saudi-funded and controlled center with connections to radical Islam -- a mile from downtown.

Phoenix reporter David Bernstein sketches a complex tale of good intentions gone awry. At the center of Bernstein’s account is Muhammad Ali-Salaam, who played a double role: as promoter and fundraiser for the mosque, while being paid as a city official to guard Boston’s interests.

Twenty years ago, Bernstein says, the Muslim Co
uncil of Boston (MCB), a consortium of Sunni congregations in Roxbury, proposed to build a mosque on land held by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). Mayor Ray Flynn was supportive. He had worked as a probation officer years before and came to know people at Roxbury’sIntervale Street mosque who he thought “could do good for their community.”

But in 1996, when it became clear that the MCB could not raise enough money, the BRA’s Ali-Salaam put forward another group – the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) -- as the designated developers and helped the ISB get the $2 million dollar parcel for $175K.

Did the BRA ever vet the ISB? Bernstein describes ISB members as “largely of Saudi Arabian heritage.” Simple due diligence would have found that Yusef al Quaradawi, then a registered ISB Trustee, called for the killing of Jews and homosexuals, that the ISB’s website featured instructions on wife-beating, and that ISB Trustee Walid Fitahi called Jews the "murderers of prophets.” Today, the ISB’s founder is in prison as an al-Queda money runner. Even the BRA should know that a mosque that gets millions from the Saudis is unlikely to be an enthusiastic promoter of moderate Islam.

Now, Bernstein says, the Mayor hides from the issue in a “zone of silence,” and doesn’t show up at mosque events. The BRA, which is being sued to open its public records, seems to want the silence permanent: BRA officials recently told the judge that all relevant e-mails have disappeared.

At the height of the controversy over the leadership of the mosque, the ISB claimed that it had cleansed itself of objectionable characters. Fitahi actually resigned from the ISB board. But now, Bernstein tells us, Fitahi is back.

And Bernstein reports that the ISB recently turned the mosque over to the Muslim American Society (MAS). This is a group thought by some to be the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, sparked and now may guide the anti-West jihad.

Has the BRA put the mayor in an untenable position? Has the time come for a FinCom investigation of the BRA/ISB/MAS deal?

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

JPost.com - In the Trenches: A window into Israel's soul

Posted by David Harris
November 24, 2008

If all we knew about Israel came from the media, which seems to have an aversion to upbeat stories, how would the country be portrayed? Images of war, conflict, corruption, and domestic fault lines would dominate.

And if all we knew about Israel came from international organizations, which make a habit of singling it out for vilification - especially each November, when Israel's very creation becomes an annual target for its enemies at the UN - what would we see? A nonstop litany of accusations of every conceivable evil known to humankind. (read full article)

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

JPost.com - Our World: Time for the real Bush to stand up

Nov 24, 2008 20:50 Updated Nov 25, 2008 11:33
By CAROLINE GLICK

US President George W. Bush has six weeks left in power. If he acts fast, that may be enough time to secure his place in history - at least in terms of the Middle East.

Bush's initial reactions to the Sept. 11 attacks were a rare display of political and intellectual courage. Gazing at the rubble of the World Trade Center, Bush recognized that the primary failure of US policy towards the Arab and Islamic world until that day was found in the predisposition of his predecessors to slavishly maintain a Faustian bargain with tyrannical Arab regimes in the interest of maintaining "stability." That bargain committed the US to providing military assistance and political backing to authoritarian regimes throughout the Arab and Islamic world in exchange for cheap oil for the West. (read full article)

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

The Saudi Peace Initiative: "Auschwitz Borders"

November 18, 2008 Eli E. Hertz

What Arab countries failed to achieve by use of force during the past 60 years, they hope to achieve by this renewed Saudi 'Peace Initiative':

Israel to withdraw to the non-secure borders that existed prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, borders that invited aggression - frontiers that the eloquent former Israeli diplomat, the late Abba Eban, branded "Auschwitz borders."

Illegal Arab aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973 cannot and should not be rewarded. Arab attempts to 'roll back the clock' as if nothing happened, are a baseless ploy designed to use the 'Peace Initiative' as leverage to bring about a greater Israeli withdrawal from parts of Judie and Samaria [western Palestine] and to gain a broader base from which to continue to attack Israel.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabian King Saud ibn Abdul Aziz had stated in 1954 - before the 1967 Six-Day War and before the 'Occupation': "The Arab nations should sacrifice up to 10 million of their 50 million people, if necessary, to wipe out Israel ... Israel to the Arab world is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it, just like a cancer."

Saudi Arabia is one of the worst offenders of civil, religious, and political rights having a 'judicial' system that sanctions stoning individuals to death for adultery, beheading criminals with a sword, and amputation for theft, including cross-amputations of a right arm and a left leg that leave offenders horribly disabled for life.

Freedom House, a non-sectarian organization that was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt to monitor civil rights around the world, stated in its 2008 survey that Saudi Arabia is "Not [a] Free" country. Political rights and civil liberties are absent or virtually nonexistent, and people experience severely restricted rights of expression and association - all as a result of the extremely oppressive nature of the regime.

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) made it clear: "No legal right shall spring from a wrong" and this principle of law applies to Saudi Arabia as well.

Why would anyone make a deal with this kind of regime?

Monday, November 17, 2008

Dagen Magazinet - Norway finances Israel-hate

(Norwegian daily), Oct. 23, 2008

The director of Palestinian Media Watch, Itamar Marcus, met Wednesday with members of Parliament of the Christian Democratic Party and the Progress Party to whom he presented a new, detailed and sensational report about how Norwegian money is spent on the official hate propaganda against Israel. With example after example Marcus documents how Fatah and Hamas use children's TV to spread anti-Israeli hate propaganda, to glorify suicide bombers and to encourage children to follow in the footsteps of the terrorists in order to "liberate" the "occupied" Palestine. (read full article)

Jpost - Ther perils ahead

Nov 14, 2008 18:22 Updated Nov 14, 2008 18:26
By CAROLINE GLICK

US President-elect Barack Obama has properly sought to maintain a low profile in foreign affairs in this transition period ahead of his January inauguration. But while Obama has stipulated that the US can have only one president at a time, his aides and advisers are signaling that he intends to move US foreign policy in a sharply different direction from its current trajectory once he assumes office.

And they are signaling that this new direction will be applied most immediately and directly to US policy toward the Middle East. (read full article)

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Palestinian Columnist: Muslims Are Harming Christian Culture - Memri.org

November 12, 2008

In his column in the Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam, 'Abd Al-Nasser Al-Najjar criticized the persecution of Christians in Arab countries, with a particular emphasis on the Christian population of the Palestinian Authority. [1]

Following are excerpts from the article:
"In Iraq, a crime is currently being committed - another in a series of iniquities brought by the winds of change that came in the wake of the [U.S.] occupation, which sought to impregnate Iraq with the seed of democracy. [But] the [resulting] fetus emerged deformed and weird. The worst outcome of this situation is, possibly, the carnage against ethnic communities and minorities that has swept through Iraq. Neither Sunnis, nor Shi'ites, nor Christians, nor Kurds, nor Turkmen, nor [members of] other [groups] have managed to escape it. (read full article)

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Expert Warns Obama To Avoid Islamic Finance

Expert Warns Obama To Avoid Islamic Finance
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 1:44 PM By: Dave Eberhart

Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy warns that the president-elect should avoid financing his great society with tainted Islamic-correct petro dollars, saying their strings might be attached inextricably to the nation’s worst extremist enemies.

With Barack Obama’s victory Tuesday sucking the oxygen from the air, few are focusing on Thursday, the day the U.S. Treasury Department will embrace the so-called “Shariah-Compliant Finance” or SCF. (read full article)

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is an Islamist

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is an Islamistsupremacist organization. Composed of 57 member states with Muslimmajority populations, the OIC is the largest Islamic body in theworld. It is also the largest international organization of any kind,second only to the United Nations. It represents an estimated 1.5billion Muslims across the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

The purpose of the OIC is to promote Islamic values, to revitalizeIslam’s pioneering role in the world, to strengthen and enhance thebond of solidarity and unity among Muslim states, to support “the Palestinian struggle” and to defend Islam.

Its charter claims that OIC works to promote peace, tolerance, and fight terrorism. However,its actions are dissonant with these claims, as it strives to definethese words through the extraordinarily skewed views of radical Islam.Since 1999, the OIC has been pushing incrementally and strategicallytoward its goal of internationally outlawing all criticism of Islam,Muslims, Muslim theocracies, and Islamic extremism. Subsequent toSeptember 11, 2001, it professed concern about alleged backlashagainst Muslims.

In 2005, the OIC urged the United Nations Commission on Human Rights(“UNCHR”) to pass a resolution called “combating defamation ofreligions.” Although the title of the resolution referred toreligions generally, the text cited concerns only Islam specifically.It lamented negativity towards Islam in the media and the use ofbroadcast, print and the internet to incite violence, discriminationor intolerance towards Islam and other religions. It revealed alarmover the backlash against Muslims since 9/11, and law enforcementmeasures that “target Muslims.” It expressed deep concern overstatements which “attack” religions generally, and Islam and Muslimsin particular, and concern over the ethnic and religious profiling ofMuslim minorities. It alleged that Islam was frequently and wronglyassociated with human rights violations and terrorism. Additionally,it proclaimed that defamation of religions plays a role in the denialof fundamental rights of the target groups.

The Commission urged resolute action to prohibit “racist, and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers…and to protect against acts of discrimination, intimidation, hatred,and defamation of religion.” It called on the international communityto begin a “global dialogue” on religious diversity and to combat defamation of religions. It further required the Special Rapporteurto report on the discrimination faced by Muslims and Arabs. Notsurprisingly, the countries that voted in favor of the resolutionincluded many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Qatar,Kuwait, and Sudan, among others. Freer nations such as the UnitedStates, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy,Ireland, and Japan, all voted in opposition to the resolution.

The OIC’s insistence on prohibiting defamatory speech against Islamic countries was without reciprocity. No effort to silence anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli speech has been made. At an OIC Special Session in2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad freely expressed his goal to eliminate the “Zionist regime.” Indeed, the OIC backs Iran’snuclear program, supports Hamas, and rationalizes 9/11. Moreover, the OIC insists that the definition of terrorism should exclude the killing of innocent civilians where there is a “legitimate resistance to foreign occupation,” i.e. Israel. It is for this reason that the UN has been unable to pass a comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

At the OIC’s 2006 summit in Mecca, it adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding insults to Islam, going so far as to include “hostileglances” in its definition of Islamophic behavior. The immediate goalof the summit was to obtain “protection” for Islam in Europeanparliaments and the UN including the Human Rights Council (whichreplaced the Human Rights Commission with the failed hope of becomingan effective advocate for human rights). It also proposed the creation of an “Islamic Council of Human Rights” and a “Charter of Human Rights in Islam.” Both would be based on Sharia law and runcontrary to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 2007, the Secretary General of the OIC, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a “moderate” Muslim from Turkey, used the “International Day of Tolerance” to assert that freedom of speech is defiling Islam.He stated, “[M]uslims around the world are the first victims ofintolerance. They are facing a campaign of hatred and prejudice, what is otherwise known as Islamophobia. This growing trend of Islamophobia has subjected them to discrimination including religious profiling and stereotyping. The right to freedom of speech is beingused to defile the sacred symbols of Islam.”

He continued, “[I]t is high time that the international communityconsiders enacting legal measures against defamation of religions and religious beliefs. I would urge the Alliance of Civilizations and the Human Rights Council to take pro-active action in this regard.”

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (“IHEU”) warned that UNapproval of a law combating defamation of religions would have graveimplications for the freedom to criticize a religion or its practices. It explained that countries will have broad latitude inhow they penalize the disrespect of religion because OIC’s resolution did not define what constitutes “defamation.” Further, the resolution failed to distinguish between defamation of religion and incitement toracial and religious violence.

In March 2008, the OIC held a two-day summit in Senegal, where itproduced a battle plan to combat Islamophobia. It would defend itselfagainst all forms of free expression that could be interpreted as criticism of Islam, including that of cartoonists, film producers,reporters, politicians or governments. Countries that already regularly deny religious freedom and freedom of speech to their own citizens, demanded legal measures to have their oppressive rules be imposed internationally. “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy” explained Abdoulaye Wade, Senegal’s President, and Chairman of the OIC. “There can be no freedom withoutlimits.” To support his argument, some OIC delegates pointed to European laws that criminalize holocaust denial and anti-Semiticrhetoric, as well as to UN charters that condemn discrimination basedon religion. As a result of this summit, the UNHRC passed the resolution.

Instead of fighting terrorism to make obvious that Islam andterrorism need not be affiliated, the OIC unveiled at its summit, the first report on Islamophobia. It consisted of 58 pages of real, perceived, and alleged claims of Islamophobia. Under “negativeincidents,” it cited numerous occurrences of Muslims threatening orcommitting violence against non-Muslims in response to factual reportson Muslim behavior. Negative reports about Muslims, even if true,resulted in claims of Islamaphobia.

Some of the incidents reported as Islamophobic included: Wikipedia’s refusal to cave into Muslims’ demand to remove all depictions of the Prophet from its English language website; a report accuratelystating Muslims were outraged by the opening of the first church in Qatar and insisting that Qatar is a Muslim country where others have no right to build a place of worship; the fact that Florida Attorney General (and former Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime in Congress) showed the movie “Obsession” to his staff; and the fact that the European Union requested Iran to drop the death penalty inits penal code for the crimes of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft. Reports of threats made to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders,producer of the documentary “Fitna,” were also deemed Islamophobic.

Finally, the bulletin suggested that Islamophobia poses a threat toglobal peace and security. It proposed the use of legal instrumentsto prohibit Islamophobic speech, urged monitoring and compiling listsof Islamophobic incidents, and encouraged the persuading of others tobelieve that Islam is a moderate, peaceful and tolerant religion.

In June of 2008, the OIC reported on the 2007 opening of itsWashington, DC office which works to engage OIC politically. KarenHughes, then-undersecretary of public diplomacy at the StateDepartment, spoke at the opening ceremony. She lauded OIC’s effort topass the resolution on combating defamation of religions. She alsoadvocated a program called “citizen dialogue” which she started inorder to address Muslims’ sense of isolation. However, Muslims abroadindicated that they were not interested in meeting with U.S.government officials or non-Muslim Americans, so she sentMuslim-Americans as envoys to foreign countries for the so-calleddialogue.

The OIC also boasted about the inroads it has made at the UN. Itpledged to place Islamophobia at the forefront of its next summit inApril 2009.

Additionally, a rule has been implemented at the UNHRC, requiringthat all speaker presentations and discussions omit any “judgment orevaluation about religion.” The word “sharia” does not have to beexpressly stated to violate this rule. All discussions must avoidmaking any mention of controversial fatwas (religious rulings) orhuman rights abuses that are implemented as part of Sharia or inIslamic countries. This includes, for example, protests against theforced marriages of young girls.

The OIC construes the word Islamophobia very broadly, using it toinclude news reports, observations, and accurate accounts of violenceor intolerance on the part of Muslims or Islamic theocracies. Ineffect, the OIC is requesting a legal exemption from free speechrights of any criticism of the effects of an extremist interpretationof Islam. Any individual, group, or government acting in the name ofIslam would be entirely off limits for open debate or discussion.

The obvious result of OIC’s push to internationally outlaw defamationof Islam, would be not only to stifle free speech and freedom ofreligion, but to devastate efforts to fight human rights abuses and tocounter terrorism. Fighting for human rights in Islamic countriesmight be deemed Islamophobic even if it pertains to the human rightsof Muslims.

Therefore, OIC’s comment that Islamophobia jeopardizes global peaceand security was not an expression of fear of Islamophobia. Rather,it was a warning that anyone who claims Islam is not a religion ofpeace might have violence perpetrated against him. Its simultaneouspropaganda campaign to convince people that Islam is a “moderate,peaceful, and tolerant religion” demonstrates that its words andactions are at odds with each other.

It’s ironic that countries which follow an interpretation of Islamthat disallows religious freedom or freedom of speech at home, areutilizing these very freedoms abroad to achieve their Islamist goals.By turning the definition of freedom on its head, free speech andreligious freedom for non-Muslims can now be condemned as anti-Islamic.

Claiming victimhood can score big political points in a free andcompassionate society. If the OIC can convince people that those whostone women, behead apostates, sexually abuse minors, fly planes intobuildings, and blow up subway systems are really the victims of evil,rather than the perpetrators, then the OIC’s proposed restrictions onfree speech will accomplish more damage throughout the west than 9/11ever could.

It is important to understand that only individuals should beafforded rights. Ideas, thoughts and religions should not beprotected from criticism. There is no such thing as defamation ofreligion. To the degree that it is concocted, the rights of ideas andreligions will stand in direct opposition to the rights and freedomsof humans. The right of free speech is, in part, designed to offendothers. The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitutionerected the First Amendment for the purpose of fostering cantankerouspolitical speech. They believed that the way to counter offensivespeech and bad ideas is to engage in more speech, espousing goodideas. In this case, however, it is the OIC that clearly has the badideas, and not the alleged defamers. Perhaps the reason the OIC seeksto prohibit free speech rather than to rebut it, is because it tooknows that free speech works.

The Palestinian Uuthority today

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, Nov. 6, 2008

"Do you know what happened in 1948?" asks a pretty young girl on Palestinian Authority (PA) TV. "They [Israelis] took everything," is her answer.

This message was broadcast again recently when a music video for children reappeared on PA TV after a year's absence. That "Israel took everything in 1948" summarizes the essence of PA ideology, and the motivation for the continuing hatred and war against Israel.
To view the children's video click here. (click here to view article)

Thursday, November 6, 2008

LBJ - A Friend in Deed - Aish.com

by Lenny Ben-David
November 6, 2008

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson's White House office showed LBJ's "personal and often emotional connection to Israel ." The news agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969), "the United States became Israel's chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier."

But the news report does little to reveal the full historical extent of Johnson's actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ's actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust -- actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the title of "Righteous Gentile" is certainly appropriate in the case of the Texan, whose centennial year is being commemorated this year. (read full article)

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

By James Arlandson

Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.
But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.
Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:
First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith. (read full article)