Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi Infiltrates Washington – 1.29.2008

Sheer lunacy is the only way I can describe this. Why should the U.S. government allow an Islamist News Organization to function in Washington D.C.? This would be akin to allowing a Nazi propaganda office to function here in America during World War II. Qaradhawi is nobody’s idea of a moderate, is banned from the United States and United Kingdom, and yet is allowed to fund this television station.

Sheer lunacy.

From MEMRI.

Prominent Sunni Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi

 Banned in U.S., Opens Washington D.C. Office of Islamist News Organization

Says It (IslamOnline) Is “The Jihad of Our Era”

On December 27, 2008, the Islamist news organization Islamonline.net (IOL), which is overseen by prominent Sunni sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, announced that it had opened an office in Washington, D.C. Following is information about the new office, and about Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi’s connection to it:

IOL “Aims to Contribute to Projecting Much-Needed True Image of Muslims”

According to the announcement, the new Washington office, located in the National Press Building, was opened “in an effort to reach out to its wider audience and larger readership.”

IOL English managing editor Muhammad Zidan said, “This new office stands as a step forward in realizing part of the aims and objectives of IOL – that is, promoting awareness about important events in the Arab, Muslim and larger world, in addition to providing services to Muslims and non-Muslims in several languages.” [1]

Acting Bureau Chief Ossama El-Shamy said that he would put all his efforts into guaranteeing the success and growth of IOL presence in, and coverage of, the U.S.

Kamal Badr, IOL English website editor-in-chief, said, “In a true sense, America can be called a multicultural and multi-ethnic society. It is full of activities with interests to Muslims… Here in Washington D.C., one has direct access to important activities and personalities that will definitely enhance our coverage. [The] Washington office is a step in a proper direction for the English website, in a sense that it will further provide it a solid media ground in the strategic areas for its international coverage.”

The announcement added that IOL “aims to contribute to projecting the much-needed true image of Muslims.”

Zidan said, “U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has proved that if there are persistent efforts, there can be a change… Islam has a universal appeal. We invite all the people, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, to come forward and express their views from [the] IOL platform.” [2]

 

IOL Founded, Supported, Supervised By Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi

IOL was, according to PBS, founded by prominent Sunni sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi. [3] In its early stages, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi personally “adopted” IOL, [4] supported it, and supervised it, and, according to The Guardian, it has remained under his supervision. [5] Al-Qaradawi has promoted IOL in the media, especially on his weekly Al-Jazeera TV program. [6]

Al-Qaradhawi, who is banned from entering the U.S. and the U.K., [7] is among the top spiritual leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, and serves as a spiritual guide for many other Islamist organizations across the world. He heads the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and is founder and director of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS). [8]

Al-Qaradhawi’s activity in recent months has included preaching against Shi’ites and the spread of the Shi’a in the Sunni Arab world. [9] Most recently, in his Friday sermon of January 9, 2009 he promoted boycotting U.S. goods, including the Starbucks chain, as well as the U.K. chain Marks and Spencer, stressing to his audience, “[P]ut the boycott against the nation’s enemies into action. Every riyal you pay turns into a bullet in the heart of your brothers in Gaza and in other Islamic countries.” In the same sermon, he also said, “Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people… and kill them, down to the very last one.’” [10]

 

Al-Qaradhawi: IOL is “The Jihad of Our Era”

According to Arab Media and Society, a publication of the Middle East Centre of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, and the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research at The American University in Cairo, IOL is “one of the most-visited Arabic/English Islamic web portals which issue fatwas.” In a promotional brochure for IOL, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi said of its mission: “This project is neither nationalistic nor one aiming at a grouping or a group of people; it is a project for the entire Islamic community. It is the jihad of our era.” [11]

 

Al-Qaradhawi: IOL A Means “To Carry This Religion to All People Around the World”

In a speech posted on the website, Al-Qaradhawi stressed IOL as a means of fulfilling the obligation “to carry this religion to all people around the world… We [have already] used print, radio, and television. Today, there is a new medium known as the Internet. All religions have used it to call to their religions and sects. It is the duty of the Muslims to use this tool to call to their great religion, which God has granted them with, and leave others – who have lost their way – to call it… This is what this major, global project – Islam Online – is doing. It carries the message of Islam to the world.”

 

---

[1] http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1230121266417&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

[2] http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1230121266417&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

[3] http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/january-9-2009/islam-and-modernity/1880/

[4] According to Dr. Hamid Al-Ansari, as quoted in Arab Media and Society (U.K. and Egypt), January 2008, http://www.arabmediasociety.com/index.php?article=576&printarticle#_ednref1.

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/25/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker.

[6] Arab Media and Society (U.K. and Egypt), January 2008, http://www.arabmediasociety.com/index.php?article=576&printarticle#_ednref1.

[7] MEMRI: Special Report No. 30, “Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi in London to Establish ‘The International Council of Muslim Clerics,’” July 8, 2004, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3004 ; MEMRI: Special Dispatch No. 2162, December 29, 2008, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP216208.

[8] MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2183, “Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi On Al-Jazeera Incites Against Jews, Arab Regimes, and the U.S.; Calls on Muslims to Boycott Starbucks and Others; Says ‘Oh Allah, Take This Oppressive, Jewish, Zionist Band of People… And Kill Them, Down to the Very Last One,’” January 12, 2009, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP218309.

[9] MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 481,”Recent Rise in Sunni-Shi’ite Tension (Part II): Anti-Shi’ite Statements by Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi,” December 16, 2008, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA48108 ;

MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2080, “Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi in Interview With Egyptian Daily: Mubarak Should Step Down and Should Not Pass Presidency to Gamal; The Spread of the Shi’a Is A Danger,” October 16, 2008, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP208008.

[10] MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2183, “Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi On Al-Jazeera Incites Against Jews, Arab Regimes, and the U.S.; Calls on Muslims to Boycott Starbucks and Others; Says ‘Oh Allah, Take This Oppressive, Jewish, Zionist Band of People… And Kill Them, Down to the Very Last One,’ ” January 12, 2009.

[11] Brochure, printed on the occasion of the IOL’s first anniversary and distributed at the 2000 Cairo book fair: Mashru^‘ al-umma fi-l-qarn al-hadi wa-l-^‘ashrin. IslamOnline. Uktubir 1999-uktubir 2000 (Project of the Islamic community in the 21st century. IslamOnline. October 1999-2000).) As cited in Arab Media and Society (U.K. and Egypt), January 2008 http://www.arabmediasociety.com/index.php?article=576&printarticle#_ednref1.

War Against Islamism – 1.29.2008

Some days, I wonder why we aren’t already finished off in the War Against Islamism. Our political leaders have no clue what they’re doing. The Mass Media is an enabler. And the International Community plays right into the collective hands of Islamists.

Take for example this article:

U.S. Navy stopped Iran ship carrying weapons and headed to Gaza

Now, for years, Iran has been conducting Acts of War against both the United States of America and Israel unchecked and unchallenged. In purely military sense, you are well within your right to sink an enemy supply ship during times of war. And yet, the response of the United States Government was to let the supply ship go, and continue on to Egypt.

U.S. Navy ordered to release Iran weapons ship

According to the second article, the weapons aboard the Iranian ship were not bound for Hamas, but instead an Egyptian port. Thus, the U.S. ship detaining the Iranian vessel was ordered to release the vessel. All that was asked of the Egyptians was that a “thorough search of the vessel be conducted.”

Well I don’t think that will be a problem, seeing as the weapons will be unloaded in Egypt and smuggled into Gaza, all with the tacit approval of the Egyptian government. How can you possibly beat an enemy, particularly an enemy with a vast recruitment pool to draw from, if you do not cut the supply chain? The answer is you can’t. Every part of the supply chain for an opposing military is  perfectly valid target, and the United States is showing great foolishness by not sinking enemy supply ships such as the aforementioned Iranian ship.

In World War II, the only reason Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, was defeated in North Africa was that the Royal Air Force and United States Navy cut his supply line. The transport craft from Italy bearing men, munitions, vehicles, food, and fuel were sunk, and shown no mercy. If that supply line is not cut, then the entire course of the war changes.

Whether we like it or not, we are at war with Iran right this moment. They have been waging war via proxy forces for years, and we have never called them on it. And I am getting sick and tired of it. The time for political leaders to appreciate the new reality the world has come; our survival is at stake. The longer we deny our enemy exists, the more entrenched he becomes. The more people accept that Jihad against the Infidel is simply “the way life is”, and they fall into apathy. They stop caring about the enemy at the gates, and they stop fighting.

This is a war of attrition, and as of now, the United States is not giving everything it has. Our media lies about the conflict, our politicians delude themselves and the people. People like me are judged to be “dangerous radicals” and “bigots” despite the fact that we speak the truth. Jihad exists; it is all too real. Jihadists have no moral high ground, no courage, no honor, no respect for laws and common decency.

From Palestinian Media Watch:

Gaza victims describe being used as human shields by Hamas by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a “fortress” by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields. They told the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper that for years Hamas has used their property and homes for military installations from which to launch rockets into Israel, dig tunnels and store arms. According to the victims, those who tried to object were shot in the legs by Hamas.    The following are excerpts from the article from the official Palestinian Authority daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida:   “The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress. Right now they are waiting for the aid promised by the [Hamas] movement after Israel bombed the farm and turned it into ruins… The hill on which the Abd Rabbo family lives overlooks the Israeli town Sderot, a fact that turned it into an ideal military position for the Palestinian fighters, from which they have launched hundreds of rockets into southern Israel during the last few years. Several of the Abd Rabbo family members described how the fighters dug tunnels under their houses, stored arms in the fields and launched rockets from the yard of their farm during the nights. The Abd Rabbo family members emphasize that they are not [Hamas] activists and that they are still loyal to the Fatah movement, but that they were unable to prevent the armed squads from entering their neighborhood at night. One family member, Hadi (age 22) said: “You can’t say anything to the resistance [fighters], or they will accuse you of collaborating [with Israel] and shoot you in the legs.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 27, 2009]

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

The Death Penalty (Again) – 1.29.2009

My original Post

This comment from Glen:

Mike:

With all due respect, I have to completely disagree with you. The death penalty is not solely a liberal thing. I know plenty of Conservatives who oppose it (mostly on religious grounds) and some Liberals who favor it.

I see you are an Irishman. So were many of my friends from my native Brooklyn. They, I’m sure like you, are Catholic and agree with the Vatican’s rejection of executions. Not one of them is liberal, only myself.

Please read this hyperlink. It is the perspective of a former San Quentin warden. I put it on my website.

His post about the Death Penalty

Very true, there are some Conservatives who do not favor the death penalty, but this is not an espoused position of the Right, but of the Left.

I was raised Catholic, yes, but I honestly could care less what the Pope says. I enthusiastically support the Death Penalty, unlike the Vatican. In fact, I could be hardly characterized as a “devout” Catholic. When I clicked on the link, I received a site error, so I settled for the blog posting I have hyperlinked above.

You post does not convince me at all of the “badness” of the death penalty.  As mentioned in my previous post, life imprisonment does not protect the inmates , and more importantly the Correctional Officers, of a jail. Inmate still manage to arm themselves using homemade weapons, and kill while supposedly confined. I find this unacceptable; I am not willing to walk down a tier, unarmed, and patrol among dozens of violent men who have killed in the past, and will show no hesitation to kill again. Are you willing to patrol that prison tier while unarmed, surrounded by hostile individuals? If not, then what gives you the right to DEMAND that others do so for your protection? What gives you the right to send others into danger, that you are not willing to face yourself?  And if you are willing to patrol the tier, and currently are not, then what are you waiting for?  After all, we lead by example, do we not?

To get into your post somewhat (each point will correspond with the paragraphs in numerical order):

Paragraphs 1 / 2 / 3:

Yes, the United States is a very civilized country. We are far better than Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, or any other country and region you could name.  We are the richest, most powerful, and have the best Constitution of any country. How do I know? Because every third world country that is serious about reform is trying to imitate the United States, not “Old World Europe.” I for one am extremely proud of this country, and part of that pride is that we still have the Death Penalty.

Guilt by association in this case is not an effective way to make your case. Muslim theocracies execute people because they are not Muslim, preach against the Islamic Faith, or because they deemed “subversive”, or are simple unfortunate enough to be a woman who was gang raped. In America, the death penalty is for men and women (though by far mostly men) who commit heinous acts against their fellow citizens, including homicide and rape. The United States executes people for breaking just and reasonable laws, not on the whim of some monarch or mullah. You must judge intent as well as action when comparing the United States to Muslim theocracies.

The spiritual component is justice. Evil men who do evil things must be killed, so that those who only wish to live in peace can be secure and safe. Really, I must ask, why you go to such lengths to defend men who rape and kill? Why are they worthy of my sympathy, my compassion, and my forgiveness? They have done nothing to earn these things, so why should I give them freely?

Paragraph 4:

Skipping right past the personal attack, deterrence does not work because it is hellishly hard to succeed in sending someone to death row in this country. And then, once a criminal arrives on death row he sits for twenty or thirty years while appeal after appeal goes through the courts. So knowing this in advance, prosecutors will go for life imprisonment, or even lesser sentences to make sure they at least put their thug away for some time. In short, the death penalty is seen as a paper tiger. It is a threat that will never be fulfilled, thus why should it affect someones behavior? In today’s age, it is similar to the threat of a parent to leave a misbehaving child at a store; the child knows he will not be left behind, so why should he listen to the parent? Also, a lot of criminals are stupid, and they don’t exactly plan long term. If they did, they wouldn’t be criminals, as they would see it is in their self interest to follow the laws of the land, and not kill and rape or deal drugs.

Paragraphs dealing with statistics:

Numbers, as all know, are not always truthful. Witness Wall Street right about now. When dealing with statistics, we need to factor in a number of things:

1) Who gathered them?

2) Who published them?

3) Who is using them, and what is that groups agenda?

Also, try and take into account the following ideas of mine:

Could it be the states without a death penalty have such low crime rates that they do not feel the need for capital punishment to begin with? Could it be that the states with capital punishment needed to implement it due to high crime? In all probability, it is a mixture of both theories. This leads to the demographic question. Crime rates bear out that though homicides are declining among the white male population, it is rising fast among the black male population. So, it stands to reason that states who have a large population of black males will have a higher murder rate than those states who do not have that same population. Factor in that criminals don’t view the death penalty as a deterrent because it is a paper tiger, and it isn’t surprising that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Also, the FBI Uniform Crime report which you cited (which I would appreciate a link to) says the difference was only 1.73 between states that had the death penalty and those that did not. 1.73 is not an especially large number. I would argue that if the death penalty were applied as it is meant to be, then it would be a real deterrent.

In short, your argument needs some more work.

To your comment on your blog, written by you:

You try to play the hypocrisy card on the religious right, and fail. I am anti-abortion, and proud of it. I will forgive those who I deem are worthy of it, and show the necessary repentance. Unborn children are alive aren’t they? The fetus is collection of organism and cells which will eventually grow into a human being. By killing those organism, you are essentially killing a human being. A human being who has never harmed you, or done anything wrong. But to you, it is a simple matter of convenience I suppose.

And now you try to frighten people, and again, fail. I can count on one hand the amount of abortion clinic bombers there were. And, they were all caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Second of all, legality does not mean morality. If you believe that a fetus is an unborn child, and that the killing of that child is murder, then you see the doctor as a murderer. That said, I do not condone the bombing of abortion clinics, or the murder of those who sanction it. I merely offer that for point of view for your perspective, since you’re so anxious to have us understand murderers and rapists, and forgive them.

Again, an unborn child is entirely innocent of any crime, whereas murderers and rapists are not. It amuses me that you advocate the protection of killers, and the killing of children, who pose an “inconvenience.”

Giving forgiveness to someone who does not deserve it, especially a killer and/or rapist is foolishness. I say again, why should we respect them, when they have shown no respect for their victims?

I’m the animal of the world? I, the animal, who protects innocent life by advocating the killing of those who have NOT shown that respect, and have REPEATEDLY violated and killed other people. It isn’t heinous to kill someone who deserves it; that is justice. And you will never convince me otherwise.

One last point: Consider the case of this “man”, and see if he deserves your protection. This “man” means nothing to me, and contributes nothing to society except pain and suffering. Why should he not be executed?

Petition Against El Rushbo and a Few Other Thoughts – 1.28.2009

So, in the new era of “post-partisanship” America, supposedly ushered in by the new President, Barack Obama, what do we see in the eighth day of his administration? We see a petition, started by his own party, the supposedly “mature” and “enlightened” party which does not “cling to childish things”, against radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, due to his comment of “I hope Barack Obama fails.” Now, what this petition is supposed to accomplish I’m not entirely sure.

What I do know is this: from the vast majority of comments I have thus far read, there is a great deal of venom directed at Rush from the party of “civility” and “maturity”. The insults of “idiot”, “un-American”, “close minded”, and even “evil” are thrown about with reckless abandon and delight towards Rush. Here are some examples:

The Actual Petition

Political Ticker.com

In my own personal opinion, I agree with Rush. I do hope Barack Obama fails in the ways he attempts to implement his agenda. I believe what he will try to do and possibly succeed at will be terrible for the country. But then again, I simple look beyond such catch phrases as “Hope” and “Change” and grand pronouncements of “healing the planet”, and “ending war, poverty, and racism.” The Obama supporters would respond (and have responded) with disbelief and insults, saying “What is wrong with you? How can you not be against ending war and racism? How can you be against health care for all?” They continue in a rather lengthy laundry list of evils our new Leader will supposedly cure. I respond to all this rather simply: What you propose cannot be done, is not sustainable, and if attempted would result in catastrophic failure, and the restriction of civil liberties in this country. As goals, in and of themselves, they sound great, don’t they? An example of Utopia on earth. It reminds of a debate I had with an avowed Communist. His entire argument centered around, and this will be a paraphrase because it has been a while, “Communism is about equality, brotherhood, and justice. How can you be against those goals?”

(I will also add this poor fellow was flat out convinced that modern American Conservatism was Fascist, and based upon the policies of Sir Edmund Burke, and that the only two forms of government in the world today were Communism and Fascism. At one point in time, he even had in his signature (this was on an internet forum ) the following quote: “To move one step forward, we must step back! Back to 1917!” If that is not scary in and of itself, I know not what is.)

Without going on too much of a tangent, people’s minds in the modern age are too easily grabbed by mottos and slogans, much like the motto “Four legs good, two legs bad” as read in the brilliant novel “Animal Farm”. They never stop to question just what that means, only that the goal sounds noble. ”Hope and Change” are the new theme of the day, the new hip saying. After all, what is wrong with having hope and wishing for change? If you’re against hope and change you must be a terribly dull and bitter person, who likes things the way they are. And since you like the way things are, and reject change, you must be one of the oppressors! You must be overthrown!

And so it goes. Why should I be hopeful for the future of our country when the above drivel is what is “in” ? You bet I desire change. I desire a change to a world where, logic, reason, and results are held in far higher esteem that grand pronouncements which lack substance. And it is my belief that Obama WILL NOT deliver the “change” I desire, therefore it is perfectly logical and reasonable of me to want him to fail at implementing a Leftist agenda. What happened to “Dissent is Patriotic” that was the war cry of the Left during the Bush years? What happened to “common ground”? Of course I am being sarcastic; even at my young age of 19 I fully realize that the Leftist Elite of this country never play by the rules. Their modus of operandi is as follows:

1) When not in power, play the oppressed card. Paint the enemy as reactionary zealots, eager to eliminate the 1st Amendment.

2) Once in power, work to silence the same people you accused of trying to silence you.

Which brings us back to Rush. He is being denounced as “evil” (yes, that is true – check the comment page on the petition) for rejecting the “change” that Obama offers. And yet, as pointed out, these same people trumpeted to the skies that “Dissent is Patriotic” during the terms of President Bush. So which is it? Do the same rules and courtesies apply to everyone, or just one certain group? Conservative talk radio has long been a thorn in the side of the Liberals in America; they can’t beat the popularity, influence, and commercial success of their opponent, even with the stranglehold they posses on “mainstream newspapers” and cable television. Therefore, rather than accept that the Liberal message may be flawed, the Liberal Elite work through the legal system to silence the opposition. Enter the Fairness Doctrine, which was brought back to the floor in 2005, though it failed to pass into law, fortunately. But now, with a Democratic majority and Barack Obama in power, I would be extremely surprised if another attempt was not made to bring the Fairness Doctrine back.

And you know what the most amusing thing is? Fewer things serve as such a harsher and damning indictment of Liberalism, than the fact that it still does not succeed when placed against Conservative talk radio. The Liberal Elite need to literally try and handcuff the arms of talk radio behind it’s back to make it a “fair” fight. How is that not one of the most ludicrous things ever witnessed in the arena of politics and ideology? Unfortunately, this isn’t a harmless joke; it is very real and very dangerous. Any attempt to reinstate that Fairness Doctrine is an immediate threat to the 1st Amendment and independent thought in this country. Groupthink is the new name of the game. Anyone outside of the consensus (which is falsely assumed to be centrist) is a “radical”, and “on the fringe”. Thus he is dangerous, and his subversive thoughts must be ignored or even silenced. Who knows – one day even humble blogs such as this one could be targeted.

Sound familiar? Of course it does – every Police State uses the same rationale to silence the citizenry. So for now, I happily accept my role as a subversive. I do not bend to the mainstream, I do not bend to Liberalism, and I do not bend to those who would seek to indtimidate me into silence. They will have to try harder than that for me to give them satisfaction.

Your friendly neighborhood subversive,

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator