Pride of Lions, Part 13

We continue Pride of Lions by continuing our look at a four-part interview with Gina Khan. We begin The Gina Khan Interview - Part Four:

Q: Who in particular is exploiting the weaknesses of Britain?

MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala is a good example of what I mean by the extreme version of Islam. He is always playing down the real threat. People like Bunglawala have read the same books as me and understands Jihad like most Muslims do. In number the Islamists like him may be a minority, but the influence they represent is powerful because they use historical edicts in the Quran to mobilise the masses. It is up to Muslims to reject and lead the way by rejecting this modern Jihad and rejecting backward practices.

These Islamists also have backing from powerful foreign lobbies, foreign governments and foreign organized crime interests.

And, they obviously are not above using violence, or any other means to an end -- after all, their "Allah" understands; nothing is prohibited, provided it furthers what these guys consider to be "Islam".

Why oh why do TV stations allow these men on their shows to talk about us Muslims? They do not represent us - they enslave us with a backward mentality.

We are free agents we didn't need backward-thinking Muslims representing us.

When President Bush needs a token Muslim, whom does he contact? CAIR -- a front organization for Islamists.

It's proved counter-productive. They do not represent plural Islam. They have an issue with gays, with the Jewish, with liberal Britain. The government has been taking advice from the wrong people for the last 10 years. That is obvious.

And that's why they just let that terrorist out of jail, and give him a big, fat government subsidy into the deal -- see my recent posts on Abu Qatada under the title "What a shambles!"

Q: Who do you blame?

I blame the government of this country for the rise in Islamism. They were too slow while Islamists leaped ahead in order to turn British Muslims into Islamists. Europe and America have been given the wrong advice for the last 10 years too. If the best they can come up with to win the hearts and minds of people is a Bunglawala or Tariq Ramadan - who isn't even a citizen of this country - then we're in big trouble.

Why the government appeases Islamists and engages with men who advocate a backward Islam beggars belief. The government needs to create space for reformists and secular Muslims to lead debates - to push away the Bunglawalas who, for example, tried to shut down the debate on the veil, and believes Osama Bin Laden is a 'freedom fighter'. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Q: It's not a battle between men and women amongst the British Muslim community?

No. Just recently, modern British Muslim men pointed out to me that they are just as alarmed when they see an increasing number of Muslims (British Pakistani women) adopting the full veil. The same happens to all of us - you end up just staring at them, on the Ladypool road, Stratford road In Birmingham, Alum Rock Rd etc.

British Pakistani Muslim women have steadily shrugged off the beautiful chadors and head scarves full of vibrant colours that have always reflected the Indian or Pakistani culture and are turning to morbid colours of black. I personally call this revival of desert Islam. It really is beginning to look and feel like a cult; a political statement and a sign of women participating in their own oppression believing Allah ordained it. What's wrong with the Pakistani outfits?? It didn't happen at this rate in Pakistan until the media showed us the veiled women with sticks demonstrating outside the Red Mosque. Such an event could happen here - we may have democracy here but that isn't stopping Islamists from demanding Sharia law or special treatment in schools, councils or in the public sphere just because they are Muslims.

Dr Naseem Nawaz - a member of Hibz ut Tahrir - is a good example of a woman who wishes to live under the raw power of Islamists, dreaming of a revived Calpihate.

Men look at these people as though they are weird as well but they believe they are superior. There are women totally subjugated in some Islamic states forced to wear the veil, that's a different issue. The veil causes segregation in the West and these women know it.

Women are treated like cattle in Saudi Arabia -- the same was true in the Taliban's Afghanistan.

Now for a key question:

Q: Is the area becoming a no-go area for non-Muslims?

It is becoming a no go area in some parts of Birmingham. Non Muslims are becoming suspicious and uneasy as are secular Muslims. Why should Rev Ali (the Bishop of Rochester, pictured) be accused of racism when he is actually speaking the truth? Trevor Philips was spot on too - non Muslims are leaving these areas because Muslim leaders have allowed our areas to turn into Muslim ghettos.

Hazel Blears and William Hague say they don't recognise these areas? Well they only need to visit and see. I have respect for Blears and Hague and I'd like to put them right. It's one thing trying to be diplomatic, it's another if you don't face up to a serious ideology that is aiming to mobilise the Muslim community and the next generation. No other religious group has asked for special demands. Who is instigating this special need for Muslims and Islam? Not Muslims like me or people I know.

The British government has become Chamberlainized in the face of Islamism.

Meanwhile, a reminder -- here is a list of no-go areas in France: ATLAS DES ZONES URBAINES SENSIBLES.

So many British people from nearly every religion and race have said to me that something is going on but they just can't put their finger on it. I know exactly what they mean.

Q: So British mainstream politicians are missing the point here?

They have missed the point for the last 40 years.

Mr Brown, Mr Cameron should pay close attention next time they want to visit a Muslim community like mine. They could start counting the mosques springing up like mushrooms and the lack of resources for the youth in the community, especially for Muslim girls. They should introduce a law prohibiting total square metres of one religion's buildings exceeding a certain amount in a given area per capita. Next time when they are up here they could visit bookshops and run-down Islamic schools. They have abandoned these communities.

Polygamy is more common than the British realize. Young teenage forced marriages and honour killings have escalated. So why was our plight ignored and why the Islamists appeased? I could take them to some really nice mainstream English, Irish, Indian, Jamaican, Sikh and 'Modern' Muslims who sense and fear this rise of Islamism but because Britain is a civilised, tolerant society they remain silent. Most fear being called Islamophobic or racist. The public needs educating. As one decent Indian family told me, Islamists were trying to buy a pub in Hodge Hill to turn into yet another Islamic centre.

There are not many Muslims in Hodge Hill but this is how the Islamists operate. People in Hodge Hill are going to either get angry and move out or worry about their young becoming converted.

Muslims and non Muslims at grassroots level know something isn't right. They should talk to people, not just representatives or leaders. I am not scaremongering.

If you integrate you get to hear all sides like I have. Anyway I was in the minority who was standing up to radicals 20 years ago, no-one would listen to me then either. I feel the tide is turning - the Islamists have gone too far too soon. Britain is waking up and will show the world how to deal with these people.

"I feel the tide is turning - the Islamists have gone too far too soon."

The devil always overplays his hand.

Stay tuned for Part 14.

"What a shambles!" Part 1

In these posts we consider a radical cleric, Abu Qatada.



From Bin Laden's 'right-hand man' set for life on British benefits after judges rule deportation would breach his human rights, by James Slack, dated 10 April 2008:

One of the world's most dangerous terror suspects was last night preparing for a life on benefits in Britain after judges ruled that his deportation would breach human rights law.

Abu Qatada, dubbed Osama Bin Laden's "truly dangerous" ambassador in Europe, could be released from jail within months following the Court of Appeal verdict.

Yesterday's decision has left Britain's anti-terror laws in tatters. It means the Jordanian father of five - who has been linked to a string of global terror conspiracies and is held in a high security prison under immigration powers - can expect to receive £1,000 a month in handouts.

The taxpayer also faces a bill of tens of thousand of pounds to keep the hate-filled cleric under 24-hour surveillance by security services under a control order unless a last-ditch Home Office appeal is granted by the House of Lords. Even if it is, Qatada could appeal again, to the European Court of Human Rights.

Yesterday the Court of Appeal said Qatada could stay because evidence used against him in any prosecution in his native Jordan may have been obtained by torture - a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

At the same time, 12 Libyan fanatics were cleared to remain in Britain for the rest of their lives by a second human rights ruling. They include an asylum seeker considered a "real and direct threat" to security who had a map marked with the flightpath to Birmingham Airport.

The rulings mean that - despite Tony Blair's promise in the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 attacks that the "rules of the game have changed" - not a single international terrorist has been forcibly removed from this country.

The "War on Terror"....

Almost three years on, the only Islamic fanatics to depart are eight Algerians who went voluntarily.

I got it! Double their government stipend if they leave! Then they'll go voluntarily!

The Home Office had secured a Memorandum of Understanding with both Jordan and Libya, which said that returned terror suspects would not face torture. But judges - torpedoing the much-heralded strategy - said there was no guarantee that the Libyans would not suffer ill treatment or harm in the future.

I'm biting my tongue -- er, ah, I mean my fingers on my keyboard!

Grave doubts must now be cast on the remaining 11 deportation cases before the courts, many of which are understood to involve Algerians. A separate agreement with Algeria - which has an appalling human rights record - has yet to be tested, and could be struck down in the same way as that signed by Libya.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, who recently advised Gordon Brown on national security, said: "Yet again, terrorists are laughing at us and remaining in this country at the taxpayer's expense.

"Abu Qatada, Bin Laden's twisted mouthpiece, stays with us inside this country. What a shambles."

"What a shambles."

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "This deals a major blow to the Government's assurances that Memorandums of Understanding are the answer in seeking to deport terror suspects."

The Qatada ruling is particularly devastating for the Home Office, which has been trying to deport the former asylum seeker for three years.

He was first detained in 2002, after spending ten months on the run immediately after September 11.

Ministers had been confident he would be booted out after securing the Memorandum of Understanding with Jordan in August 2005. It gave assurances he would not be tortured or ill-treated.

But, in a ruling which displays the true reach of human rights law, the Court of Appeal said that - while Qatada might not be harmed - witnesses who may be called to give evidence against him in any future trial held by the Jordanian authorities may have been tortured.

The judges said this would be a breach of the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Qatada remains in London's Belmarsh jail with other fanatics, including hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.

But if the Home Office loses an expected appeal to the House of Lords, Qatada will be set free. The Government has no immigration power to hold those it has no realistic prospect of deporting.

Instead, officials would have to rely on placing Qatada - whose wife and children live in West London - under a control order, and hope he does not abscond. A string of international and homegrown terrorist suspects have gone on the run while under the shambolic orders.

"...and hope he does not abscond."

They need to abscond him to some Middle East hellhole and leave him there with his jihadi buddies.

The Libyan ruling, handed down by the same three Court of Appeal judges, was equally devastating. It leaves the Memorandum of Understanding with that country in tatters.

The judges, headed by Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, upheld an earlier ruling by the special immigration appeal court that two men known only as AS and DD could not be removed in case the agreement with Libya was breached at a later date.

The men, who had been on bail, were immediately released from any court conditions. Deportation proceedings against a further ten Libyans were abandoned, after officials admitted they had no prospect of success.

The Home Office responded by placing the men under what were described as "strict" control orders, but even the most restrictive conditions would allow the Libyans to roam the streets for ten hours each day.

Last night, Qatada's solicitor poured scorn on the Government, and Tony Blair's deportation promise, which had been part of a 12-point terror plan drawn up in direct response to the loss of 52 innocent lives in the July 7 London attacks. Many of the measures have since collapsed.

Gareth Peirce said: "It is of the greatest importance to us all that there are rules, that they cannot be changed and that they are in no way treated as a game. We welcome the court's decision."

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "The Government's top objective is to keep the public safe and I am disappointed that the courts have found that deportations to Libya can't go ahead for now.

"I am pleased the courts dismissed all but one of Abu Qatada's reasons for appeal. We are seeking to overturn that point, and I believe we will be able to secure his deportation to Jordan and we will push for it as soon as possible. In the meantime, he remains behind bars."

But, of course, since then he has gotten out....

Stay tuned for more!

Pride of Lions, Part 12

We continue from Part 11 reviewing The Gina Khan Interview - Part Three (I have fixed a few typos):

This war should be renamed clearly as the war on modern Islamism. Muslims don't have a Caliph, no-one authorised Osama Bin Laden to advocate and start Jihad. If the War is against the West then it's a war against British secular Muslims too - that means we Muslims in the west and our children will not be spared. When will Muslims understand that? No 'ummah' or silly veil can save us if Osama manages his recruits, while we allow Muslim leaders and Islamists to play down the threat. Gordon Brown can only mobilise the mind of the public by better defining the ideology and hopefully he can get his act together - he must understand that the solutions are mainstream even when the subject matter is not. They now know the name of this global ideology so they have to show some backbone.

There's a great deal in that paragraph.

A "War on Terror" is as foolish as it gets -- it lumps the IRA together with Al Qaeda. Terrorism is a method; how can you wage war on a method? That's like waging war on war and, ultimately, it is like having sex to promote virginity.

Terrorism is an abstraction; the more concrete enemy are Islamists who break the law promoting their hateful ideology.

While I disagree with Islam, I point to the Muslims like Gina Khan as why military operations are not against the Islamic world, but rather against those who advocate and promote what Gina calls Islamism -- militant, extremist Islam. It is the difference between a legitimate and much-needed defensive war, targeting the likes of Osama bin Laden, and simple ethnic cleansing that would target innocents and even allies like Gina.

Millions and millions of Muslims, in Saudi Arabia especially, cannot claim to understand the Quran word for word. It is a complex Arabic language that has been preserved but is not spoken even by today's Arabs. A beautiful language has now been turned into ugly aggressive tones by members of Hizb ut Tahrir, Anjem Choudhary, Shahid Butt, Abdu Abdullah. They use theology and politics. The suicide bomber's mind is indoctrinated with all these mens' misinterpretations to subtract the fear of death.

This war isn't just a militant war; it must be against the ideological intellectual Jihadists, Islamists, Imams and organizations who plant the seeds of Jihadism into the minds of Muslims.

But Bush has placed his focus on military operations -- and then done a bad job of that.

We are offered the choice: "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." Both Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration have started wars based on lies, and both profit from those wars; decent folks are left in the middle, seemingly with nowhere to turn.

Q: In Ward End this war is hard to escape?

My son was approached by dynamic Islamists in Ward End. It was only because I had told him to be vigilant that he recognised their motives. These areas lack facilities and youth centres for the youth to access. Whatever sport centres there are, are dominated by sporty mullahs. Women/girls have to go into non Muslim areas or wait for specific women's' programmes. And yet there are mosques, mini mosques every few yards. Difficult to escape them - that's how the Islamists want it. You know the Tablighi pride themselves from spending days inside mosques?! They sleep, exercise and eat in there?

I observed many mosques that are empty all day except on a Friday afternoon. Most serve no purpose at all to women and children or to non Muslims in the community unless you're seeking conversion.

There are book shops where the wrong interpretation is being promoted, I have dozens of books I collected myself in the 90s when I was in search of my religion. Now in hindsight I realise I too could have been indoctrinated. I was pretty depressed back then, searching for peace of mind. I could have easily fallen into this trap.

And that comment gives us insight into why it is so easy to recruit jihadis in the Islamic world. Men are permitted to have up to four wives, plus as many concubines and so on as they are able; many women prefer to be the second or third wife to a rich man, rather than the only wife to a poor man. Frustrated, depressed and hopeless, these men find the promise of an eternity in the arms of virgins, plus a relatively substantial sum for one's family left behind on earth, very tempting indeed.

Q: And in schools?

I read the book Islam Beliefs and Teachings by Ghulam Sarwar. (Ed Husain pointed him out in his book -The Islamist). The first few chapters of Sarwar's book are devoted to the 5 pillars of Islam. He then goes on to discussions and questions on political Islam and Sharia law (which is outdated and was actually initiated by Caliphs not subscribed by Allah or the Prophet in any form), the status of Muslim women and our rights (which is less about rights and more about our duties) and he praises the "great" Islamic states of Iran and Sudan (lovely places?!).

Sarwar's ideas and teachings have been infiltrating British Education in Muslim communities (communities with high concentrations of Muslims) since 1966. These books were aimed at Muslims like me born here. Written in English.

"How do we create an Islamic State?" Sarwar asks the children. He tries to compare Sharia law with 'man made laws' but gives no indication what Sharia law will implement in his vision of a Islamic State. "A Muslim's happiest occasion in life is to see the Rule of Allah established on earth", he writes. I don't think so - ask the women of Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan (countries which are living hellholes for Muslim women). Ask Muslim women here in Britain - Somalians, Iranians or even Pakistani women. Would they dare go back as lone mothers??

Yes, Gina -- and, dear reader, the truth has a certain ring to it, does it not?

These writers - so called scholars and Imams - are indoctrinating our children and as mothers we exert the most power over our children in shaping their minds. We should pulp all these books. Question their ulterior motives and interpretations. We must educate our children against extreme versions and promote the values and principles of our democracy. The problem with Britain is that it still wants to hang onto the history of guilt regarding colonialism and imperialism. Today if India is a successful democracy in Asia, it's because it teaches it's young generation to love and respect it's Motherland. We spend too much time putting this country down instead of promoting our values and principles as a nation. There might be a high rate of teenage pregnancies in the west but at least you guys don't murder you daughters and you don't reject an illegitimate child. Muslim girls have been murdered and the 'bastard' child is stigmatised and abandoned. What kind of God would want that as justice for mankind?

Don't pulp the book -- sit down and read it with your kid, adding in your commentary. That is what will innoculate your children against Islamism. Gina, did you not essentially do this with your son? Innoculate him against Islamism by helping him understand what is out there?

Islamists are hateful fools -- they should certainly be allowed to advertise that fact by communicating their ideas. The alternative is to silence them, in which case others will be silenced as well until, ultimately, we will not know how dangerous some of these people are because we will not know what kind of criminal ideas they harbor.

Of course, Gina makes my point here:

Q: Mothers should be teaching their kids that suicide bombing and Islamism are wrong?

Absolutely.... These Islamists are every modern Muslim mother's nightmare, in fact many non Muslim mothers are very concerned. I would urge Muslims to reject political Islam outright. It's a myth that Islam and politics are one theology. How do I know that? Well millions of Muslims have lived in the West without a Caliph or Sharia law and lived as secular Muslims whether they use that term to define themselves or not. Millions of Muslims in countries like Turkey, Egypt and Tunisia aspire to democracy and reject Sharia laws as being outdated. It doesn't mean they are not Muslims. It means we evolved as Muslim People too. Men like Jinnah and Bhutto and Ghandi Ji studied in Britain and took back the tenets of Democracy to their countries.

Jihadism emerges and opposes the tenets of democracy. If women are fighting for the soul of Pakistan which is what Benazir Bhutto was hoping to implement, then why are we as British Asian Muslim women participating in our own oppression by remaining silent thinking someone else is going to come along and create change? We should let our feelings cascade down onto our kids.

We all have a moral duty to create change and condemn the suicide bombers as pure evil and un-Islamic. We need to get our facts right. They have targeted Muslims born in the west for over 40 years, with their interpretations and indoctrinations on satellite tv, through cds, books. We have to hit back too. So I believe this war will last a minimum of 40 years, silence won't get us anywhere.

Q: The ideology won't just fizzle out even if the Islamists are cracked down on by the government?

Even if Osama bin Laden was arrested or shot dead, the ideology will create another Osama Bin Laden aspiring to be the revived Caliph or Mahdi. Sitting in caves and creating massacres, murdering Muslims who convert or women who seek freedom, assassinating activists and reformers who stand up for their natural rights. Islam does not give Islamists authority over matters of life and death. They will continue to unleash their violence to instil fear into the masses. They want to create this clash of civilizations and anti west propaganda but there's only one civilisation and they're not part of it. They have studied the weaknesses of the countries they want to target and they use our democracy to pursue their own distorted Islamic agendas. MCB are a good example. They should never have been nominated to be the voice of British Islam. Dr Bari should be concerned about the poor people of his own motherland instead of getting on the nerves of British people who don't believe in arranged marriages and don't have to conform to their 'Islamic' ideas. It's bad enough for Muslim women that they advocate our 'status' without consulting us.

They shut down debates. I'd like to see more debates on the veil, on the so-called status and rights of women that Maududi interpreted. Muslim women all over the world fight to free themselves from oppression and abuse, while these leaders are writing Muslim manifestos for our school children without consulting with any of us. They are taking us step by step backwards and manipulating the positioning of being British and Muslims.

What gets me are the likes of Anjem Choudary. If this war wasn't so dangerous I would have laughed at his rants. He lives with a 7th century mindset, believes in Sharia law, and demonises the west and democracy so why is he still here practising as a solicitor?? They are hypocrites -it's an easy life for them here either way and they are the last people to sacrifice the easy way.

As I said in Part 11, we need more debates about Islam.

Anyway, stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Pride of Lions continues.

Pride of Lions, Part 11

We continue Pride of Lions from Part 10 by continuing our look at a four-part interview with Gina Khan. We pick up with The Gina Khan Interview - Part Three (I have fixed a few typos):

Q: You knew Moazzam Begg from Bimingham?

Moazzam Begg was in Guantanamo. He was a local turned mujahid who was once a member of a Birmingham gang called the Links alongside Shahid Butt (during the 90s Butt was arrested in Yemen for planning a bombing and there are videos of him around sitting next to Abu Hamza and appeared on Dispatches ranting as any Jihadist would).

The civil rights lawyer (this seems a contradictory term for her) Salma Yacoob fought for their release. When I look and see what they are doing to Birmingham now I wonder why they were ever let out.

After being released from Yemen in the 90's Shahid Butt still roams free in Birmingham as a mujahid, while Moazzam Begg is still preaching from the Quran on British TV about the 'Ummah' and attempts to mobilise Muslims using extreme interpretations. He claims all Muslims all over the world are all from one body of Islam - a huge myth that needs to be dispelled. These guys embarrass me and the majority of British Muslims. Their notion is for Muslims to discredit the countries they are born in and join their 'ummah' to revive political Islam to revive a Caliphate. Similar attempts and doctrines are used by Hizb ut Tahrir. There is no 'ummah' anymore.

This is interesting.

In the past, when tyrants have sought world domination, they have begun with a nation-state. Now, however, militant Islam is just a disguised attempt to take over the world, without starting with a nation-state. (Of course, there are some nations that are or have been at the front of a movement to expand a certain version of Islam, so we could perhaps argue that point.)

The question that ought to be on the minds of Muslims who are trying to revive this "ummah" is this: once the caliphate is established, which earthly human will be in charge of it?

The point I'm making here is that young men from the Islamic community are dying, only to establish an empire for some rich sheikh.

Q: So you are not part of this 'Ummah'?

For Muslims like me I prefer to read the last message the Prophet gave to his people in reference to the society and community he ruled. The 'Ummah' is a powerful myth. It comes from the root word 'motherland' and the only motherland I have and would stand up for is my country, Britain.

Thank you, Gina! :)

Now, she goes on to make an important point:

Even if there was this exaggerated 'ummah' and a Muslim deferred from their nationality, Islamists would disable half the body of Islam by reversing the rights of women as they have done in Afghanistan or Iran. This reversal was also attempted in Pakistan by General Zia to reverse the freedoms and rights of Pakistani women in the 80s who engaged with Islamists. And for anyone who wants to debate me then read Maududi's version on Human Rights in Islam. He avoids the issues regarding equality of minorities and Muslim women.

Q: Women round here (Ward End) look like they think they are part of the Ummah?

I don't believe that wearing a ninja outfit will protect any Muslim woman against rape or sexual harassment. In the Quran it only states that "The believing woman should cover her bosoms and private parts" and most women in the world do that anyway. There is no 'true Islam ' to return to unless they are going to totally reject western modernity and ship in camels as well.

Perhaps you shouldn't suggest that part about bringing in camels.

So much more so that, since Saudi Arabia is running out of oil, and they have invested not in industry or alternative energy sources, but rather in hatred and holy war, camels is about what they are going to be left with not too far down the road.

Osama bin Laden didn't create this ideology, the ideology created him. Syed Qutb, Maududi, Al Wahab to name a few were inspired by the 13th century scholar Ibn Tammiya who badly distorted Islam and attempted to shut down Muslims' thinking and reasoning. That's another great myth the Butts and Beggs can't get a grip on. They can't shut down women's thinking or independent reasoning, or that of the majority of Muslims in general. No Islamic ummah will protect any woman. Women need a reality check if they believe that.

"Osama bin Laden didn't create this ideology, the ideology created him."

I very much respect Gina Khan and her views, but I would like to point out that, in my opinion, the ideology is Islam -- Osama bin Laden didn't create Islam, Islam created him. And, Islam created Wahhab, and thus Wahhabism.

Now, there are evil people ready, willing and able to hijack and pervert anything. My point here is that, in my opinion, Islam lends itself to such hijacking much more than, say, Buddhism.

In fact, does Islam even need to be hijacked to become violent? And, how many Buddhist fundamentalist terrorists does the world have?

Q: How best to combat the Islamist ideology round here?

It's because of these "mujahideen" and the Islamists who have a voice in Britain today (why? Oh government, please wake up and help us out here!) Muslims have to re interpret the Quran again in the 21st century. I am in no denial that there are verses that discriminate against minorities, women or the infidel. Fund more modern women to become Imams. It is not against the preachings of the Prophet for women to lead Friday prayers or teach pluralist Islam. Lets debate the Islamists who claim to represent this 'true Islam'.

And, if Islam is to be a "Religion of Peace", it will be because of Muslims like Gina, acknowledging troubling passages in Islamic holy texts, and implementing ideas such as this.

Ex Hizb ut Tahrir member Hassan Butt clearly stated in the media "that until Muslims acknowledge the violent streaks in the Quran, nothing will change." And he is right because those are the edicts that Islamists and Jihadists perpetrate to mobilise our minds. Osama Bin Laden swears by the Quran on video that he is not lying, and I'm telling you he is not lying. The Quran gives two messages and we as Muslims have a choice which message we want to adhere to. If the Quran speaks of war, it also speaks of peace. The Prophet Mohammed states in the Quran that "there is no compulsion in Islam, difference of opinion in my community is a manifestation of divine mercy". You wouldn't get any Islamists mention that passage in the Quran. They suppress the spiritual message of the Holy Quran. They have managed to establish their extreme version of Islam into the West because of imported, distorted translations and imported imams who can dynamically quote the Quran. Hence we tend to rely on them for the interpretation of the Quran.

It's not just the Quran that gives two messages; and there are more than two messages.

Again, if some criminal is looking for justification to do evil, that justification can be found.

With respect to the old historical Jihads, well those wars were similar to the biblical wars. These men fought face to face on battlefields, the Prophet had set principles in war; that women, children and the elderly must not be killed. So when it suits Islamists they reject what the Prophet preached and they transgress international laws. Islamists, be they Salafists, Wahhabists, Khomeinists, twist verses of the Quran reading it off into the present century as timeless, quoting historical edicts and interpretations that have not only hijacked the religion but blacklisted the name of Allah and Mohammed round the globe. These are not men you can sit around a table and negotiate with like the IRA. Jihadists won't even coexist with other reformed or moderate schools of thought. It is a supremacist ideology - it's their way or the highway.

Well, some terrible things happened to women and children while the "Prophet" stood right there. Mohammed was no saint.

Q: What about the suicide bombing ideology?

These suicide bombers are not 'martyrs'. They are brainwashed (like my Dad became), become brain-dead and then used as pawns in this modern Jihad. These human bombs blow themselves up as well as innocent bystanders - it's a pathetic human carnage. They don't care what religion, race, gender or age we are. How can this just be a Muslim problem? It's criminality not religiosity.

True.

But, Islamic texts -- and even the conduct of the Prophet -- give plenty of bad examples.

We need to collectively oppose this ideology and name the ideology as Jihad. It is jihad. Osama's Jihad is an unholy war. Secular, modern Muslims in the 21st century with even half a brain know that and we must break the Islamists' silence to oppose it. It's no good repeating Islam means peace because we have been blacklisted as a religion globally thanks to their perverse and dangerous version of Islam.

Interesting.

The Islamists have infidels beaten down with cries of racism and whatever else, while Muslims are under threat of accusations of apostasy, and the death warrant they bring.

As far as Islam being "blacklisted", if that is the case, why do so few dare speak out against it openly?

For Muslims and non Muslims to feel secure in opposing this ideology there must be a law against Jihadism as there is for racism or Nazism - one that works on a community level. Jihadists' literature must be challenged and opposed - better just pulped.

Ban it, and it will become the forbidden fruit.

Better to allow it to exist, and encourage that it be studied and debated.

We have to speak out about Islam -- and other matters -- and allow the truth to be arrived at in the crucible of debate.

In the same light, making laws that prohibit the denial of the Holocaust is a foolish endeavor. In fact, making and enforcing such laws is a process that brings us a giant step closer to repeating the Holocaust.

Politics must be kept out of mosques and the likes of Dr Nassem in Birmingham must be forced into retirement. His politics and views are dinosaur-like to the great majority of Muslims. We - British Muslims - are not being victimised (though victimisation is a key Islamist strategy). The whole world is being victimised here by this extreme violent ideology that uses Islam as its doctrine.

"Victimisation is a key Islamist strategy" -- that nails it!

If you don't challenge the interpretations intertwined with the oppressive theology thrust upon Muslim women, you cannot defeat the enemy. I don't see how they (the British Government) can defeat the ideology in Birmingham Sunni mosques by handing them half a million pounds to eradicate radicalism when no one has even banned the anti west, anti gay, criminal edicts on minorities or apostles, or books on the War on Islam - when this country gave us full freedom to practice and worship our religion. We were never under attack for our religion until Jihadists and Islamists sent their human bombs to attack innocent bystanders.

Very true -- in the West, Islam was at first accepted as something different, perhaps even exotic, but it is only now that people are seeing what comes with Islam that Islam is beginning to be questioned.

But, since victimization is a key Islamist strategy, and since the Islamists are well-funded with the proceeds of criminal activities, with petrodollars, and even with Western handouts, people have to question Islam quietly, and not openly.

We need open debate about Islam.

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Pride of Lions continues.

Mediterranean Union?

Here we review an article in a Pakistani newspaper entitled Mediterranean union launched: 43-nation group plans regional projects from July 14, 2008:

PARIS, July 13: French President Nicolas Sarkozy launched a 43-nation Union for the Mediterranean on Sunday with a plea for Middle Eastern countries to emulate Europe's model of reconciliation and integration.

"Reconciliation and integration" is happening in the Balkans under the threat of military force, as US and NATO support is bought with the proceeds of narcotics-, arms- and human-trafficking by Kosovar mafiosos with friends in strategic places.

All sides there -- most emphatically including ethnic Serbs -- have been targeted by ethnic violence; there can be no peace without justice.

In other countries, such as France and Sweden, ethnic minorities -- and here I am referring mainly to fairly recent immigrant Muslims who live in segregated enclaves -- have proven to be a source of instability and violence, so much so that such ghettos have become "no-go" areas for police.

"Europe's model of reconciliation and integration"....

The ceremonial inaugural summit at the lofty iron-and-glass Grand Palais in Paris sealed a new detente between Syria and Europe, with the Syrian and Israeli leaders also sitting at the same table for the first time.

Syria's leadership is somewhat pragmatic -- as I think much of Iran's current leadership is, as I think Saddam Hussein to a great extent was.

The guys they need to watch out for are these fanatical Islamist freaks, who can't wait to get to Allah, and want to take busloads of "Joooooos" with them -- ah, but the countries that support such indoctrination, that pay for it with petrodollars, and whose young men run to Iraq to join the jihad... such countries are our allies in the War on Terror.

Big Brother has spoken.

"Everyone will have to make an effort, as the Europeans did, to put an end to the deadly spiral of war and violence, that, century after century, repeatedly brought barbarity to the heart of civilisation," Sarkozy said in the keynote speech.

But there was no handshake and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad appeared to go out of his way to avoid Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, hiding his face behind his arm as he walked past where the Israeli leader was standing.

An Olmert aide said Assad left the meeting room before the Israeli prime minister delivered a speech on water cooperation.

An Israeli spokesman said Olmert used a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to convey a message that Israel was serious about seeking peace with Syria. But a Syrian official denied that Assad received any message via Erdogan.

A Turkish official said both leaders had reconfirmed to Erdogan their will to continue the negotiations, but he would not go into specifics on any messages.

Neither side needs a new war, which Israel would surely get the best of. However, the furtherance of the trend in asymmetric warfare (terrorism) would prove costly to Israel, as the civilized world seems to have no idea how to deal with the propaganda war that accompanies terrorist acts.

"Collateral damage" during Israeli (or U.S.) operations doesn't help.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, co-president of the summit, told the leaders they must work together to meet the challenges of food, education and health for their growing populations.

"I am sure that today is a start. I am sure that we have a long way to go and we will go a long way," he said.

On a day rich in political gestures, Sarkozy hosted cordial talks with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, capped with an effusive triple handshake and a joint news conference.

"The goal of this summit for the Mediterranean, of this Union for the Mediterranean, is that we learn to love each other instead of continuing to hate each other and wage war," Sarkozy said, flanked by Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. For Assad, Sunday's summit signalled a spectacular emergence from isolation in the West three years after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, which many believe was orchestrated from Damascus.

The red-carpet treatment was partly a reward for Syria's backing of a Qatar-brokered peace deal that pulled Lebanon back from the brink of civil war in May, and for starting indirect peace talks with Israel via Turkish mediation.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she told Assad at a private meeting: "We've heard enough words exchanged, now we want to see deeds."—Reuters

I'm withholding my comments about the deeds we see.

With this post, I begin a new label: The Mediterranean Union.

Crime Doesn't Pay

Hat tip to my email tipster for alerting me to an article entitled No more appeals: Palestine must pay terror victims by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa W. Lappen, Tuesday, July 15, 2008:

The Palestinian Authority (PA) recently asked U.S. federal courts to reopen cases it lost after refusing to defend itself against terror-funding charges.

Judgments would come from U.S. and international aid, the PA argues.

In both cases, Palestinian terrorists murdered American citizens. In New York, Aharon Ellis' widow sued the PA for the lethal 2002 shooting of her husband and the father of their six children, during an Al Aqsa Martyr Brigade attack of a Bat Mitzvah, in Israel. The court awarded Leslye Knox $193 million, including interest, but the PA refuses to pay.

A Rhode Island case centers on the June 1996 double murders of U.S. citizens Yaron Ungar and his pregnant wife Efrat, both 25. Three Palestinian terrorists shot them to death in Beit Shemesh, west of Jerusalem. The PA was ordered to pay their families $116 million, which the PA also refuses to do.

Neither award was "by default," as the PA now argues. Several law firms represented the defendants in New York making hundreds of procedural motions and appealing twice, all while the PA refused to answer to the charges. However, they never denied their guilt.

In Rhode Island, the Palestinians' law firms, including that of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, claimed sovereign immunity. The court nixed that claim and in August 2005 , froze PA assets in the U.S., including over $1.3 billion in the Palestinian Investment Fund, and $30 million in the Palestinian Monetary Authority.

Meanwhile, the PA's 2005 and 2006 appeals didn't sway the U.S. State Department to intervene. The Supreme Court's decision not to review that case renders the judgment "final and enforceable in United States courts," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who proposed the PA explore "out of court solutions ... to avoid enforcement actions" and financial hardship.

As I have pointed out previously, the PA is a thugocracy. It evolved from terrorist organizations, terrorists in recent decades have been increasingly involved in organized crime, and consequently, the PA is not very different from a bunch of mobsters.

The PA's desire to use the U.S. government to prevent the victims from collecting rightful and lawful awards was denied in March 2008. "The United States supports just compensation for victims of terrorism from those responsible for their losses," said Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Carl Nichols, though he noted the "potentially significant impact that these cases may have on the financial and political viability of the defendants." The PA seems to bank on that concern.

Was the PA concerned about the financial and other impact of the terrorist acts on the families of the victims? Terrorists should pay for terrorism, and they should go broke doing so.

PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad wants the cases reopened not to challenge its guilt. If PA funds were seized to satisfy outstanding judgments, Mr. Fayyad argues in U.S. federal courts, "Donors may hesitate to contribute funds to the Palestinians." Further, Mr. Fayyad pleads PA poverty. Relying on five-year-old financial statements. He claims the PA has only $800 million, although he admits that this does not include PA pension funds or the Palestinian Investment Fund - not to mention $22 million paid annually to Suha Arafat since her husband's 2004 death, or hidden PA assets probably up exponentially since they were estimated at $10 billion in 1993.

Donors should hesitate to fund the PA.

When terrorist acts in and from areas subject to PA control are substantially reduced (if not ended), then there should be concern about the PA's budget.

Maybe if the PA fanned the flames of economic development instead of the flames of terrorism, there could be sufficient economic activity in PA terroritory to have a tax base such that people (including U.S. taxpayers) wouldn't be called upon to send money to support this thugocracy.

From 1994 to early 2007, the PA received between $14 billion and $20 billion from Europe and the United States, the Funding for Peace Coalition (FPC) reported to the British parliament.

Billions and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars given away to a regime that sponsors terrorism against the United States and U.S. allies and interests....

Despite purported PA poverty and Fatah-Hamas disagreements, the PA announced on January 15, 2008 its intentions to give Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization since 1995, "40 percent" ($3.1 billion) of the $7.4 billion pledged in December 2007 by international donors. Evidently, the donors did not take this statement seriously, and from January to June 2008, gave the PA $920 million in direct budgetary aid.

There's good money to be made in terrorism.

How much did Arafat have when he died?

Fifteen months ago, Fayyad told London's Daily Telegraph: "No one can give donors the assurance" that funds reach designated destinations. "Where is all the transparency; It's gone." Controlling Palestinian finances, he concluded, "is virtually impossible." World Bank and other reports document PA financial chaos and corruption, too. Yet, none of this has turned the donors money spigot off.

Well, Congress is spending our money -- why should they be careful with our money?

Just like they make us live under that disasterously-managed Social Security program, but their own pension fund is far more substantial and sound.

Clearly, the Palestinians are in no danger of losing funding from their international donors. Now, that a Fatah and Hamas power-sharing government is around the corner, the donors will surely go out of their way to reward the new government with even larger sums. The Palestinians, in a time-honored fashion, will use these donor's funds against Israel and its citizens, as they have done since 1994.

As for Fayyad's appeals, they are irrelevant in U.S. federal courts. The PA never denied its role in the murders, failed to defend itself, and lost in court fair and square, not "by default." It's time justice be done and the courts force the PA to pay every dime they owe the victims' families.

Unlike Dr. Ehrenfeld, who did lose by default in a court system where the deck was stacked against her -- Dr. Ehrenfeld is the target of a legal jihad that seeks to compel her to stop telling the truth about terrorism and where terrorists get all their money. Please visit Dr. Ehrenfeld's website, learn about the funding of terror and how she herself is targeted by libel terrorism, and contribute to her organization so her work can continue and she can defend herself in court against these legal-beagle jihadis. Contributions to the American Center for Democracy are tax deductible.

And to anyone hoping to collect from the PA for the legal rulings against it for its sponsorship of terrorism, good luck -- after all, crime doesn't pay!

Genesis, Part 32

We pick up where we left off at the end of Part 31, reviewing a May 13, 1996, cable from the US Embassy in Moscow to the US Secretary of State's office addressing a discussion between Assistant Secretary of State Raphel and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Chernyshev:

---------------------------------
CHERNYSHEV FAILS TO TAKE THE BAIT
---------------------------------

8. (C) CHERNYSHEV BLANDLY OBSERVED THAT RUSSIA CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THE UN MISSION AND STANDS READY TO COORDINATE WITH US TO ENHANCE THE MISSION'S EFFECTIVENESS. [redacted] NOTION THAT MEST [redacted] REGARDING AN ARMS EMBARGO, CHERNYSHEV ASSERTED THAT RUSSIA FAVORS A SYSTEM TO CONTROL THE FLOW OF ARMS TO AFGHANISTAN, BUT ADDED THAT HE DOES NOT YET SEE ANY EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR DOING SO. LATER IN THE MEETING, HOWEVER, TRUBNIKOV SPOKE APPROVINGLY OF THE POLITICAL VALUE OF AN ARMS EMBARGO, CALLING IT THE BEST POSSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE INTERESTED OUTSIDE POWERS NO LONGER BELIEVE IN A MILITARY SOLUTION.

9. (C) IN HIS OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE AFGHAN SITUATION, CHERNYSHEV SIAD THAT

-- THE GOR IS NOT SUPPLYING ARMS TO ANY FACTION

[redacted]

-- RUSSIA TRIES TO MAINTAIN CONTACTS WITH ALL THE MAJOR AFGHAN GROUPS, THOUGH OBVIOUSLY THEIR CONTACTS ARE WEAKEST WITH THE TALIBAN.

-- MOST AFGHAN FACTIONS TELL MOSCOW THAT RUSSIA HAS A USEFUL ROLE TO PLAY IN THEIR COUNTRY. CHERNYSHEV ADDED, HOWEVER, THAT SOME OF THE SAME FACTIONS THEN TURN AROUND AND COMPLAIN ABOUT RUSSIAN IMPERIALISM TO THE IRANIANS AND PAKISTANIS. THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT SUCH MANIPULATION, HE SAID, AND RUSSIA TAKES IT IN STRIDE.

[redacted]

---------------------
THE KANDAHAR HOSTAGES
---------------------

10. (C) RAPHEL, WHO HAD MET RECENTLY WITH THE RUSSIAN AIR CREW BEING HELD BY THE TALIBAN IN KANDAHAR, DESCRIBED THE HOSTAGES AS REASONABLY FIT AND HEALTHY. SHE PASSED CHERNYSHEV A VIDEO AND SOME PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN DURING THE MEETING. ALTHOUGH THE TALIBAN SEEM TO FEEL THAT THE SEVEN HOSTAGES ARE SOMEHOW ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL THE SINS -- PAST AND PRESENT, REAL AND IMAGINED -- OF RUSSIA AND THE USSR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN, RAPHEL SAID THAT THE TALIBAN NEVERTHELESS SEEM TO REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE LOST THE MORAL ARGUMENT FOR CONTINUING TO HOLD THE CREW. THE DETENTION OF THE RUSSIANS CONTINUES, HOWEVER, BECAUSE A) THE TALIBAN HAVE BOXED THEMSELVES IN BY PLACING IMPOSSIBLE DEMANDS ON THEIR RELEASE; AND B) THE TALIBAN SUPPOSEDLY MAKE DECISIONS BY CONSENSUS, BUT HAVE NO MECHANISM FOR DOING SO; THEY THEREFORE CLAIM VAGUELY THAT THE MUST "CONSULT WITH THE PEOPLE" BEFORE RELEASING THE HOSTAGES. [redacted] CONCLUDED BY NOTING THAT THE PAKISTANI INTE[redacted]

What did the Taliban really think they were going to get in exchange for the Russian aircrew?

11. (C) CHERNYSHEV EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S READOUT OF THE HOSTAGE SITUATION AND FOR THE U.S. EFFORTS TO FREE THE RUSSIAN AIR CREW.

-------------
CIS ANXIETIES
-------------


12. (C) RELATING HER CONVERSATIONS WITH CENTRAL ASIAN LEADERS, RAPHEL OBSERVED CANDIDLY THAT THERE IS MUCH SUSPICION IN THE REGION ABOUT RUSSIAN MOTIVES AND INTENTIONS. RUSSIA IS NOT KEEN TO ACQUIESCE IN THE REGION'S INDEPENDENCE, SAY THE CENTRAL ASIANS, WHO ADD THAT THEY KNOW PRIMAKOV AND BELIEVE THAT HIS JOB AS FOREIGN MINISTER IS TO RESTORE THE EMPIRE. THE U.S. BELIEVES THAT RUSSIA'S LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN STABILITY AND SECURE BORDERS ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH CENTRAL ASIAN INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY, SAID RAPHEL. THE U.S. HAS NO OBJECTION TO CIS INTEGRATION, SHE CONCLUDED, AS LONG AS IT IS VOLUNTARY AND DOES NOT COMPROMISE SOVEREIGNTY OR CREATE BARRIERS TO POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS WITH COUNTRIES OUTSIDE THE CIS. RAPHEL'S RUSSIAN INTERLOCUTORS DID NOT COMMENT ON HER REMARKS. (COMMENT: MANY -- THOUGH NOT ALL -- RUSSIANS RECOGNIZE THE IMAGE PROBLEM THEY HAVE IN THE "NEAR ABROAD," BUT IT STILL IRKS THEM TO HEAR ABOUT IT. END COMMENT.)

----------
TAJIKISTAN
----------

13. (C) UNDERSCORING THAT THE TAJIK CEASEFIRE EXPIRES MAY 26, CHERNYSHEV EXPRESSED DISMAY AT THE DEALY IN RESUMING THE INTER-TAJIK PEACE TALKS. NEITHER SIDE SEEMS IN ANY HURRY TO RESUME THE NEGOTIATIONS, HE SAID, [extensively redacted] OF THE TAJOPP INTO THE POLITICAL LIFE OF THE [redacted] A/S RAPHEL COMMENTED THAT THE U.S. SHARES RUSSIA'S DESIRE TO GET THE CEASEFIRE EXTENDED AND THE TALKS RECONVENED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

It is important to consider Moscow's perspective: some of this unrest had spread into Tajikistan, and Russian troops were there assisting the Tajik government with the security situation.

------------------------------------
INDIA: KASHMIRE AND NUCLEAR TESTING
------------------------------------

14. (C) THE MEETING CLOSED WITH A DISCUSSION OF OTHER SOUTH ASIAN TOPICS, PRINCIPALLY RELATED TO INDIA. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY EXPRESSED HER SENSE THAT THE INDIAN COUNTERINSURGENCY CAMPAIGN IN KASHMIR IS WORKING, GIVING NEW DEHLI A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME POSITIVE POLITICAL MOVES TOWARD THE KASHMIRIS AFTER THE INDIAN ELECTIONS. [extensively redacted]

-------
COMMENT
-------

[redacted]

18. (U) THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN CLEARED BY A/S RAPHEL.

PICKERING

ADMIN
END OF MESSAGE CONFIDENTIAL