Resources for Personal Threat

Women under Sharia Law: The Dilemma of "The Wife Beating Protocol"

Family Security Matters
By Al Fadi
July 13, 2011
The Quran is the source of all personal status laws in Islamic countries. Therefore, the rules of religious jurisprudence concerning the position and treatment of women are also based on the Quran. In order to fully understand the position of women in Islam, one must first examine the Quranic rules concerning them. Our dilemma in today’s article has to do with the Quranic command for husbands to beat their wives.
 
A. Man’s Supreme Authority
 
The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women...” (Q 4.34). The Quran justifies giving this authority to the man for the following reasons:
 
First, preference is given to him by the nature of his physical ability: “God hath preferred some of them over others...” (Q 4.34).
 
Second, preference is given to him by reason of his financial ability: “and in that they expend of their wealth...” (Q 4.34).

Family Security Matters
By Al Fadi
July 13, 2011

The Quran is the source of all personal status laws in Islamic countries. Therefore, the rules of religious jurisprudence concerning the position and treatment of women are also based on the Quran. In order to fully understand the position of women in Islam, one must first examine the Quranic rules concerning them. Our dilemma in today’s article has to do with the Quranic command for husbands to beat their wives.

A. Man’s Supreme Authority

The Quran gives a man complete authority in marriage: “Men stand superior to women...” (Q 4.34). The Quran justifies giving this authority to the man for the following reasons:

First, preference is given to him by the nature of his physical ability: “God hath preferred some of them over others...” (Q 4.34).

Second, preference is given to him by reason of his financial ability: “and in that they expend of their wealth...” (Q 4.34).

Continue reading here

Gender Equality in Sharia Courts?

FrontPage Magazine
By Deborah Weiss
July 7, 2011

 

The treatment of women under Islamic Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women.  Alarmed by the suffering of Muslim women at the hands of Sharia Courts in Britain, Baroness Cox recently introduced legislation into parliament which would ensure gender equality in Britain’s Sharia Courts.
Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration.  Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time.  However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals.  Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts.  Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.
According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain.  The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues.  However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence.  By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”
The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.

The treatment of women under Islamic Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women.  Alarmed by the suffering of Muslim women at the hands of Sharia Courts in Britain, Baroness Cox recently introduced legislation into parliament which would ensure gender equality in Britain’s Sharia Courts.

Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration.  Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time.  However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals.  Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts.  Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.

According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain.  The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues.  However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence.  By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”

The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.

In terms of mediation efforts, Sharia Courts often merely hand the parties pre-determined outcomes that comport with the laws of Sharia and request both parties to sign consent forms.  Then, the forms are submitted to the Family Court on the false premise that the terms were truly negotiated by the parties involved.
To make matters worse, many Muslim marriages take place solely under religious ceremonies and are not registered with the state as required by the Marriage Act of 1949.  Thus, these “marriages” are not civilly recognized and the “wives” are not afforded any legal protections.  Interestingly, the problem of non-registration appears only in the Muslim community.  Jews and Christians always register their marriages civilly even when the wedding ceremony is religious in nature.
Unfortunately, there are Muslim women who fled their homelands to escape the oppression of Sharia law, only to find they are facing a similar situation in the UK.  Because many Muslim immigrants are illiterate, the women are unaware of their rights under British law.  It is legal to consent to arbitration if the acquiescence is voluntary.  However, often in Muslim communities women are threatened, intimidated or otherwise coerced into submitting to Sharia Courts. Thus, it is not truly voluntary.
Baroness Cox finds the injustice to Muslim women and the discriminatory judgments being handed down by Sharia Courts to be disconcerting.  In addition, many British judges have begun questioning whether Sharia rulings comply with the UK’s obligations to ensure gender equality under the Human Rights Act.
Accordingly, Baroness Cox’s bill, titled “The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill,” if passed into law, makes it clear that sex discrimination laws apply to arbitration tribunals as well as civil courts.  It would prohibit unequal treatment of testimony, uneven-handedness of property, inheritance distribution, and financial rulings.  It would also make it a crime punishable by up to five years in jail to falsely assert jurisdiction over family and criminal matters.  Finally, the bill mandates that in unregistered marriages, public authorities must inform the parties that they are required to register their marriages in order to secure legal rights.
In other words, the bill requires Sharia Courts to acknowledge the priority of British law over Sharia law when the two conflict, and to preserve the British values of human rights and equality for women.
The bill does not mention Islam or Sharia by name.  However, both the Baroness’ comments, as well as the Explanatory Note attached to the bill, make it clear that the legislation was prompted by concerns of the inequality executed in Sharia Courts and the fact that Sharia Courts have regularly, gradually, and illegally expanded their jurisdiction.
Various secular, Christian and Iranian-Kurdish women’s rights groups support the Baroness’ bill.
It comes on the foot-heels of the Home Secretary’s admission that Britain’s anti-terrorism program failed to recognize the extent of radical Islamist ideology and its influence in Britain, and an acknowledgment of Britain’s continuing problems of lack of integration and assimilation by the Islamic community.  It is therefore no surprise that some Muslims are complaining about this legislation.
Turning a blind eye to the lack of consent, their ignorance of the law, the cries of suffering women, and the failure of Sharia Courts to inform Muslim women of their rights, Khurshid Drabu, constitutional adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain argued, “[B]ills of this kind don’t help anybody.”  He accused lawmakers of failing to understand the “freedom” that Britain ensures whereby Muslim women should be permitted to submit to Sharia rulings.
This article was originally published here

 

10 Things You Need to Know about…Slavery in Islam

 

  1. Muslim slave trade in Africa has lasted 14 centuries and continues to this day in places like Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
  2. Over 17 million slaves (mostly black women and children) were transported out of Africa by Islamic traders. Another 85 million are believed to have died en route.
  3. The Prophet Muhammad practiced and approved of slavery, and directed his men to do the same. 
  4. The Qur’an devotes more verses to informing Muslim men of their right to keep women as sex slaves, than it does to telling them to pray five times a day. 
  5. The Arabic word for “black” (Abd) is synonymous with the word for “slave”.
  6. Muhammad's father-in-law, Umar declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves, and freed all Arab slaves.  This led to the wide Islamic campaign to capture slaves in Africa, Europe and Asia.  
  7. Western slave trade exploited Africans primarily for agricultural labor. The Arab slave trade on the other hand, has more often used men for military service, and women for sex and for their wombs – to produce children who will be Muslims.
  8. Many Muslim leaders since Muhammad have had harems of hundreds (or even thousands) of non-Muslim young girls and women to service their desires.
  9. Converting to Islam does not automatically grant a slave his freedom, although this is said to increase the slave master's heavenly reward.
  10. According to Islamic courts, slave masters may treat their slaves however they choose without fear of penalty.


Genocide In Sudan – Again

FrontPageMag
By Stephen Brown
June 27, 2011
Imagine the outcry if the American government was suddenly to engage in a campaign of extermination against the Navajos, one of America’s aboriginal peoples. The protests, especially from the Left, would be deafening.
But what would be unimaginable in America today is currently taking place in Sudan, whose rulers are no strangers to genocide. Sudan’s original people, the African Nuba tribes inhabiting central Sudan’s Nuba Mountains, are currently facing a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Arab and Islamist central government, whose leader, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, is currently under indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes in Darfur.
“The Sudanese Army and its allied militias have gone on an unsparing rampage to crush rebel fighters in the Nuba Mountains …, bombing thatch-roofed villages, executing elders, burning churches…,” stated the New York Times, citing United Nations officials and “villagers who have escaped.”
This is not the first time the Nuba, descendants of Sudan’s ancient Nubian kingdoms, have faced annihilation at the hands of their “government.” In 1983, Sudan’s southern black African tribes, already marginalised and racially discriminated against, rose up against the Arab central government (as the African tribes in Darfur were to do 20 years later). The African Nuba joined the rebellion within a few years, providing the South’s rebel army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), with thousands of fighters.
The cause of the 1983 revolt was Khartoum’s forced Arabization and Islamization policy, under which the country was to be governed by sharia law. Largely Christian and animist, the culturally African Nuba and southern Sudanese opposed these measures, causing the Khartoum government to declare jihad against them in 1989.
“The Government of Sudan’s self-declared jihad against the peoples of these southern regions is tantamount to attempted genocide,” a Christian activist, who witnessed firsthand Khartoum’s homicidal aggression, told a Congressional committee in 1995.
Largely unnoticed by the outside world, the Nuba and southern Sudanese, with some Israeli help, put up a fierce and brave resistance, defeating the jihad, but they suffered greatly for their heroic stand. Two million people died in the fighting that largely took place on their territory and another four million were displaced. Tens of thousands of black African Sudanese were also taken to Arab northern Sudan as slaves.
One of them, Francis Bok, a Dinka tribesman, told his story here in FrontPage Magazine of his ten years working as a child slave, from the age of seven to 17, for a cruel Arab master. While another, Mende Nazer, a Muslim Nuba, recounted her stolen childhood and trail of tears as a slave in an Arab household in Khartoum in her book Slave: My True Story. Nazer was 13 when captured in a Arab slave raid on her Nuba Mountains village.
The 22-year civil war between the Sudan’s northern Arabs and southern Africans ended in 2005 with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that will see South Sudan become independent July 9. The Nuba Mountains, however, are north of the bloody and still unsettled boundary set out in the CPA, so the Nuba will not be joining South Sudan after it becomes independent next month. Even worse, the CPA did not grant the Nuba autonomy, as they desired, leaving their status undefined.
In his latest military campaign against the Nuba Mountains, President al-Bashir’s army and government-sponsored militias are once more spreading death indiscriminately. The official cause of the Sudanese government’s latest round of mass murder is that “tens of thousands” Nuba fighters have refused to disarm and “are digging into the craggy hillsides.”
But reports indicate the Sudanese military is waging a campaign of extermination along with a military one. Mig-29 warplanes are bombing Nuba villages unopposed, while witnesses have stated government troops “were shooting ‘the black people’.” UN officials have also reported the planting of landmines and digging of possible mass graves.
“Nuba were often just shot on sight by Khartoum forces, no questions asked,” testified former State Department official Roger P. Winter before a congressional hearing recently. “Today, again, Nuba are positioned for liquidation by Khartoum forces.”
The Sudanese army also tried to unilaterally disarm SPLA soldiers in Abyei, which set off the recent fighting there. An accord was signed last week, however, between Khartoum and the SPLA at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa that would see 3,000 Ethiopian troops replace the soldiers of both sides in the disputed area. The Nuba Mountains were not part of this accord.
Given the Khartoum government’s record of breaking promises, vicious racism and genocide against its black African population, no one can blame the Nuba for refusing to give up their weapons. And the fact the central government has appointed Ahmed Haroun, who is also under ICC indictment for genocide in Darfur, as governor of South Kordofan where the Nuba Mountains and Abyei are located, indicates Winter’s analysis concerning possible annihilation of the Nuba is a looming reality. Like in Darfur where the ethnically cleansed Muslim African tribes were replaced by Arabs, the attack on the Nuba may be the beginning of a similar, sinister colonial project.
As during the 1983-2005 civil war, American evangelical Christians are taking the lead in demanding an end to the North’s aggression against the Nuba and the African Dinka tribe in Abyei. Sarah Palin, for example, was to visit the Abyei region next month with Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, but cancelled due to scheduling problems. Before the recent Addis Ababa agreement, Khartoum had ethnically cleansed an estimated 60,000 Dinka from Abyei with tanks.
American evangelical organizations have passionately advocated against Christian persecution and slavery in Sudan and elsewhere in the world. Appeals from American evangelicals to George W. Bush were instrumental in causing the former president to broker the CPA. Under its terms, peace was established and thousands of Nuba and southern Sudanese African slaves were able to return home from Arab northern Sudan.
“George W. Bush did more to free modern-day slaves than any other president,” wrote author E. Benjamin Skinner in A Crime So Monstrous, his book about human trafficking.
In comparison, America’s political Left, which never concealed its disdain for Bush and his evangelical Christian supporters, has remained relatively silent about Sudan’s suffering black African population. This is surprising when one considers the Left is in the forefront of calling for reparations for descendants of Atlantic slave trade victims. The Left was also very loud and effective in ending the terrible apartheid system in South Africa.
But since many leftists appear to believe only whites can be oppressors, its non-action on Sudan makes sense. It is probably also for this reason leftists so vehemently protest the expulsion by Israel of a few Palestinian terrorists from the West Bank and vigorously prepare flotillas for Gaza, while remaining largely mute when tens of thousands of terrorized black Africans, fearing death and enslavement, are forcibly expelled from their homes in Abyei. Since there is no such white villain in the Sudanese situation, leftist moral outrage on Sudan, in comparison, is nearly non-existent.
Much the same can be said about the America’s African-American leaders. Their concern about the decades-long black slave trade in Sudan has been minimal. This disinterest was so shameful that Al Sharpton was moved to criticise his fellow black leaders after his 2001 visit to Sudan.
“I am outraged that more of us, particularly of the African American leadership, have not talked about the slave trade that I witnessed with my own eyes in the Sudan,” Sharpton said after his return.
But since then, it has been noted Sharpton has not said much about the plight of black African Sudanese. Jesse Jackson has also not made their desperate situation a priority, although he was Bill Clinton’s special envoy to Africa during Clinton’s second term. One critic believes that if America’s black clergy had not pressured Sharpton and Jackson to comment, nothing would ever have ever been said about the Sudanese slave trade. For his part, Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, casts doubt on whether slavery even exists in Sudan.
This leaves President Obama, America’s first African-American president and, one would think, the Afrcian Nuba people’s best hope for survival. In a statement released last week, the president called the situation in South Kordofan “dire.” Obama also recognised the bombings by the Sudanese military and “reports of attacks based on ethnicity.” Incredibly, though, the president’s statement did not mention who is carrying out these “ethnic” attacks and which ethnic group was made homeless. And instead of threatening Khartoum with a call for a Libya-like, no-fly zone over Abyei and the Nuba Mountains to protect civilians from the bombings, Obama mildly praised the recent accord on Abyei, commending both parties “for taking this step forward toward peace…”
But instead of peace, Obama’s naïve and less than insightful approach to Khartoum’s hard-line and continued aggression is sure to produce only more of the same for Sudan’s long-suffering, southern Sudanese and Nuba populations: war, enslavement and death.

FrontPage Magazine
By Stephen Brown
June 27, 2011

Imagine the outcry if the American government was suddenly to engage in a campaign of extermination against the Navajos, one of America’s aboriginal peoples. The protests, especially from the Left, would be deafening.

But what would be unimaginable in America today is currently taking place in Sudan, whose rulers are no strangers to genocide. Sudan’s original people, the African Nuba tribes inhabiting central Sudan’s Nuba Mountains, are currently facing a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Arab and Islamist central government, whose leader, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, is currently under indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes in Darfur.

“The Sudanese Army and its allied militias have gone on an unsparing rampage to crush rebel fighters in the Nuba Mountains …, bombing thatch-roofed villages, executing elders, burning churches…,” stated the New York Times, citing United Nations officials and “villagers who have escaped.”

This is not the first time the Nuba, descendants of Sudan’s ancient Nubian kingdoms, have faced annihilation at the hands of their “government.” In 1983, Sudan’s southern black African tribes, already marginalised and racially discriminated against, rose up against the Arab central government (as the African tribes in Darfur were to do 20 years later). The African Nuba joined the rebellion within a few years, providing the South’s rebel army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), with thousands of fighters.

The cause of the 1983 revolt was Khartoum’s forced Arabization and Islamization policy, under which the country was to be governed by sharia law. Largely Christian and animist, the culturally African Nuba and southern Sudanese opposed these measures, causing the Khartoum government to declare jihad against them in 1989.

“The Government of Sudan’s self-declared jihad against the peoples of these southern regions is tantamount to attempted genocide,” a Christian activist, who witnessed firsthand Khartoum’s homicidal aggression, told a Congressional committee in 1995.

Largely unnoticed by the outside world, the Nuba and southern Sudanese, with some Israeli help, put up a fierce and brave resistance, defeating the jihad, but they suffered greatly for their heroic stand. Two million people died in the fighting that largely took place on their territory and another four million were displaced. Tens of thousands of black African Sudanese were also taken to Arab northern Sudan as slaves.

One of them, Francis Bok, a Dinka tribesman, told his story here in FrontPage Magazine of his ten years working as a child slave, from the age of seven to 17, for a cruel Arab master. While another, Mende Nazer, a Muslim Nuba, recounted her stolen childhood and trail of tears as a slave in an Arab household in Khartoum in her book Slave: My True Story. Nazer was 13 when captured in a Arab slave raid on her Nuba Mountains village.

The 22-year civil war between the Sudan’s northern Arabs and southern Africans ended in 2005 with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that will see South Sudan become independent July 9. The Nuba Mountains, however, are north of the bloody and still unsettled boundary set out in the CPA, so the Nuba will not be joining South Sudan after it becomes independent next month. Even worse, the CPA did not grant the Nuba autonomy, as they desired, leaving their status undefined.

In his latest military campaign against the Nuba Mountains, President al-Bashir’s army and government-sponsored militias are once more spreading death indiscriminately. The official cause of the Sudanese government’s latest round of mass murder is that “tens of thousands” Nuba fighters have refused to disarm and “are digging into the craggy hillsides.”

But reports indicate the Sudanese military is waging a campaign of extermination along with a military one. Mig-29 warplanes are bombing Nuba villages unopposed, while witnesses have stated government troops “were shooting ‘the black people’.” UN officials have also reported the planting of landmines and digging of possible mass graves.

“Nuba were often just shot on sight by Khartoum forces, no questions asked,” testified former State Department official Roger P. Winter before a congressional hearing recently. “Today, again, Nuba are positioned for liquidation by Khartoum forces.”

The Sudanese army also tried to unilaterally disarm SPLA soldiers in Abyei, which set off the recent fighting there. An accord was signed last week, however, between Khartoum and the SPLA at the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa that would see 3,000 Ethiopian troops replace the soldiers of both sides in the disputed area. The Nuba Mountains were not part of this accord.

Given the Khartoum government’s record of breaking promises, vicious racism and genocide against its black African population, no one can blame the Nuba for refusing to give up their weapons. And the fact the central government has appointed Ahmed Haroun, who is also under ICC indictment for genocide in Darfur, as governor of South Kordofan where the Nuba Mountains and Abyei are located, indicates Winter’s analysis concerning possible annihilation of the Nuba is a looming reality. Like in Darfur where the ethnically cleansed Muslim African tribes were replaced by Arabs, the attack on the Nuba may be the beginning of a similar, sinister colonial project.

As during the 1983-2005 civil war, American evangelical Christians are taking the lead in demanding an end to the North’s aggression against the Nuba and the African Dinka tribe in Abyei. Sarah Palin, for example, was to visit the Abyei region next month with Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, but cancelled due to scheduling problems. Before the recent Addis Ababa agreement, Khartoum had ethnically cleansed an estimated 60,000 Dinka from Abyei with tanks.

American evangelical organizations have passionately advocated against Christian persecution and slavery in Sudan and elsewhere in the world. Appeals from American evangelicals to George W. Bush were instrumental in causing the former president to broker the CPA. Under its terms, peace was established and thousands of Nuba and southern Sudanese African slaves were able to return home from Arab northern Sudan.

“George W. Bush did more to free modern-day slaves than any other president,” wrote author E. Benjamin Skinner in A Crime So Monstrous, his book about human trafficking.

In comparison, America’s political Left, which never concealed its disdain for Bush and his evangelical Christian supporters, has remained relatively silent about Sudan’s suffering black African population. This is surprising when one considers the Left is in the forefront of calling for reparations for descendants of Atlantic slave trade victims. The Left was also very loud and effective in ending the terrible apartheid system in South Africa.

But since many leftists appear to believe only whites can be oppressors, its non-action on Sudan makes sense. It is probably also for this reason leftists so vehemently protest the expulsion by Israel of a few Palestinian terrorists from the West Bank and vigorously prepare flotillas for Gaza, while remaining largely mute when tens of thousands of terrorized black Africans, fearing death and enslavement, are forcibly expelled from their homes in Abyei. Since there is no such white villain in the Sudanese situation, leftist moral outrage on Sudan, in comparison, is nearly non-existent.

Much the same can be said about the America’s African-American leaders. Their concern about the decades-long black slave trade in Sudan has been minimal. This disinterest was so shameful that Al Sharpton was moved to criticise his fellow black leaders after his 2001 visit to Sudan.

“I am outraged that more of us, particularly of the African American leadership, have not talked about the slave trade that I witnessed with my own eyes in the Sudan,” Sharpton said after his return.

But since then, it has been noted Sharpton has not said much about the plight of black African Sudanese. Jesse Jackson has also not made their desperate situation a priority, although he was Bill Clinton’s special envoy to Africa during Clinton’s second term. One critic believes that if America’s black clergy had not pressured Sharpton and Jackson to comment, nothing would ever have ever been said about the Sudanese slave trade. For his part, Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, casts doubt on whether slavery even exists in Sudan.

This leaves President Obama, America’s first African-American president and, one would think, the Afrcian Nuba people’s best hope for survival. In a statement released last week, the president called the situation in South Kordofan “dire.” Obama also recognised the bombings by the Sudanese military and “reports of attacks based on ethnicity.” Incredibly, though, the president’s statement did not mention who is carrying out these “ethnic” attacks and which ethnic group was made homeless. And instead of threatening Khartoum with a call for a Libya-like, no-fly zone over Abyei and the Nuba Mountains to protect civilians from the bombings, Obama mildly praised the recent accord on Abyei, commending both parties “for taking this step forward toward peace…”

But instead of peace, Obama’s naïve and less than insightful approach to Khartoum’s hard-line and continued aggression is sure to produce only more of the same for Sudan’s long-suffering, southern Sudanese and Nuba populations: war, enslavement and death.

This article was originally published here

The US Need to Expand its Focus in Fighting Radical Islam

By Tawfik Hamid
www.tawfikhamid.com
The US costs in the War on Terror has exceeded, in some estimates, 2 trillion dollars. Despite this huge cost, the phenomenon of Islamic radicalism and terrorism has not been defeated. Killing Bin Laden has been a great step but it is certainly not the end of the story. Terrorist acts are still threatening the world and lately the attacks on Non-Muslim minorities have been on the rise in many parts of the Muslim world.
The US has reached the point where it MUST reevaluate its strategies in fighting Radical Islam.
The primary focus of the US in the war on terror has been to target the terrorists themselves. This approach, while needed, has proved to be unsatisfactory.
Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." This is a very important lesson to be learned by the US administration. They need to start thinking in alternative and more efficient approaches to fight Islamic Radicalism. The US cannot simply spend another 2 trillion dollars using the same approach again and again and hope for a different result. This approach is not going to defeat Islamic Radicalism and expecting a different outcome will be disastrous.
The US must consider expanding their primary focus in the war on terror from the Jihadists to include the Mullahs and scholars who incite hatred, violence, and dehumanization of others. The hate-filled teaching of Mullahs and scholars ultimately manifest itself as terrorism. The US must interrupt the radicalism cycle at the incitement stage. This approach is much more effective than a late intervention when terrorists have already been created.
The advantage of this approach is that the scholars who incite the use of violence-unlike the Jihadists-are fewer in number, more visible, and above all want to live. The latter point is extremely important. Targeting Jihadists does not deter other Jihadists from committing acts of terrorism because a Jihadist's motivation is martyrdom. Conversely, many of the scholars who preach violence, without participating in the Jihadi activities, are interested in living and enjoying their political power and occasionally wealth.
An example to illustrate how violent teaching can materialize can be found in the Islamic scholar from Egypt (Ashraf Abou Anas) who recently said to his followers, in a province called Imbaba, "We will not be real men if we did not burn every church in Imbaba." This simple statement that appeared on You Tube triggered thousands of Muslims to attack churches in Cairo and resulted in burning of churches and the killing of many innocents. Some of these innocents were burnt alive.
When the scholar's statement was put on YouTube, he realized that he would be prosecuted and severely punished by the authorities. He immediately released another statement to change his message of hate. He replaced his message of hate with a new message, a message that promoted peace, love, and harmony. This obviously was an attempt to save himself from punishment. This illustrates how preaching can incite violent atrocities and how the scholars who incite the violence can turn to peaceful preaching but only if they believe that they will be held responsible for the violence that results from their teaching. Conversely, the threat of being punished will not easily change the beliefs of a true Jihadist.
When scholars who promotes violence realizes that they will be persecuted as terrorists and judged as a criminals they are likely to change their violent message to a peaceful one. This change can prevent many terrorist acts and atrocities. Targeting these scholars must also include targeting the individuals and organizations that help them promote their violent message. Therefore, promoting violence against others needs to be treated as material support for terrorism.
Some may argue that those who incite violent acts or justify them are protected by the laws of freedom of speech. Pastor Terry Jones, who recently burnt the Quran, was not allowed by a US court decision to demonstrate peacefully in front of a mosque. The US authorities made this ruling in the belief that this demonstration could disturb peace. Therefore, if the act of a peaceful demonstration in front of a mosque is seen as disturbance to the peace in our society; then how should the teaching of young Muslims to declare war on Non-Muslims to spread Islam is a religious duty be seen?. This same principle needs to apply to those who promote that the life of Non-Muslims is inferior to the life of Muslims. These beliefs are being taught from many Sharia books which give Jihadists the justification that they may kill Non-Muslims.
Many violent and deadly Muslims riots were initiated by Mullahs who incite violent acts. In addition, some leading Islamic scholars such as Sheik Youssof Al-Quradawy have justified suicide bombings against Israeli civilians (to including pregnant mothers). If these scholars knew that they would be prosecuted in international courts for inciting such hatred and violence, perhaps many of them would change their message of hatred. This in turn would protect many young Muslims from the destructive outcome of violent teaching.
Expanding our focus in the fight against Islamic Radicalism is imperative. The US needs to change from just targeting the Jihadists, who conduct the terror acts, to targeting the scholars, who promote violence. Treating and persecuting the scholars who promote violence as terrorists and criminals will be a more effective tool in weakening the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. 

By Tawfik Hamid
www.tawfikhamid.com

The US costs in the War on Terror has exceeded, in some estimates, 2 trillion dollars. Despite this huge cost, the phenomenon of Islamic radicalism and terrorism has not been defeated. Killing Bin Laden has been a great step but it is certainly not the end of the story. Terrorist acts are still threatening the world and lately the attacks on Non-Muslim minorities have been on the rise in many parts of the Muslim world.

The US has reached the point where it MUST reevaluate its strategies in fighting Radical Islam.

The primary focus of the US in the war on terror has been to target the terrorists themselves. This approach, while needed, has proved to be unsatisfactory.

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." This is a very important lesson to be learned by the US administration. They need to start thinking in alternative and more efficient approaches to fight Islamic Radicalism. The US cannot simply spend another 2 trillion dollars using the same approach again and again and hope for a different result. This approach is not going to defeat Islamic Radicalism and expecting a different outcome will be disastrous.

The US must consider expanding their primary focus in the war on terror from the Jihadists to include the Mullahs and scholars who incite hatred, violence, and dehumanization of others. The hate-filled teaching of Mullahs and scholars ultimately manifest itself as terrorism. The US must interrupt the radicalism cycle at the incitement stage. This approach is much more effective than a late intervention when terrorists have already been created.

The advantage of this approach is that the scholars who incite the use of violence-unlike the Jihadists-are fewer in number, more visible, and above all want to live. The latter point is extremely important. Targeting Jihadists does not deter other Jihadists from committing acts of terrorism because a Jihadist's motivation is martyrdom. Conversely, many of the scholars who preach violence, without participating in the Jihadi activities, are interested in living and enjoying their political power and occasionally wealth.

An example to illustrate how violent teaching can materialize can be found in the Islamic scholar from Egypt (Ashraf Abou Anas) who recently said to his followers, in a province called Imbaba, "We will not be real men if we did not burn every church in Imbaba." This simple statement that appeared on You Tube triggered thousands of Muslims to attack churches in Cairo and resulted in burning of churches and the killing of many innocents. Some of these innocents were burnt alive.

When the scholar's statement was put on YouTube, he realized that he would be prosecuted and severely punished by the authorities. He immediately released another statement to change his message of hate. He replaced his message of hate with a new message, a message that promoted peace, love, and harmony. This obviously was an attempt to save himself from punishment. This illustrates how preaching can incite violent atrocities and how the scholars who incite the violence can turn to peaceful preaching but only if they believe that they will be held responsible for the violence that results from their teaching. Conversely, the threat of being punished will not easily change the beliefs of a true Jihadist.

When scholars who promotes violence realizes that they will be persecuted as terrorists and judged as a criminals they are likely to change their violent message to a peaceful one. This change can prevent many terrorist acts and atrocities. Targeting these scholars must also include targeting the individuals and organizations that help them promote their violent message. Therefore, promoting violence against others needs to be treated as material support for terrorism.

Some may argue that those who incite violent acts or justify them are protected by the laws of freedom of speech. Pastor Terry Jones, who recently burnt the Quran, was not allowed by a US court decision to demonstrate peacefully in front of a mosque. The US authorities made this ruling in the belief that this demonstration could disturb peace. Therefore, if the act of a peaceful demonstration in front of a mosque is seen as disturbance to the peace in our society; then how should the teaching of young Muslims to declare war on Non-Muslims to spread Islam is a religious duty be seen?. This same principle needs to apply to those who promote that the life of Non-Muslims is inferior to the life of Muslims. These beliefs are being taught from many Sharia books which give Jihadists the justification that they may kill Non-Muslims.

Many violent and deadly Muslims riots were initiated by Mullahs who incite violent acts. In addition, some leading Islamic scholars such as Sheik Youssof Al-Quradawy have justified suicide bombings against Israeli civilians (to including pregnant mothers). If these scholars knew that they would be prosecuted in international courts for inciting such hatred and violence, perhaps many of them would change their message of hatred. This in turn would protect many young Muslims from the destructive outcome of violent teaching.

Expanding our focus in the fight against Islamic Radicalism is imperative. The US needs to change from just targeting the Jihadists, who conduct the terror acts, to targeting the scholars, who promote violence. Treating and persecuting the scholars who promote violence as terrorists and criminals will be a more effective tool in weakening the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. 

Muslim Woman Seeks to Revive Institution of Sex-Slavery

 

By Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
June 6, 2011
Last week witnessed popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini boast about how Islam allows Muslims to buy and sell conquered infidel women, so that "When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her."
This week's depraved anachronism comes from a Muslim woman—Salwa al-Mutairi, a political activist and former parliamentary candidate for Kuwait's government, no less: She, too, seeks to "revive the institution of sex-slavery."
A brief English report appeared over the weekend in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):
Mutairi: "In the Chechnyan war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations."
Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants "casting spells" on them, would be better to purchase women from an "enslaved maid" agency for sexual purposes. She [Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. "We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

By Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
June 6, 2011

Last week witnessed popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini boast about how Islam allows Muslims to buy and sell conquered infidel women, so that "When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her."

This week's depraved anachronism comes from a Muslim woman—Salwa al-Mutairi, a political activist and former parliamentary candidate for Kuwait's government, no less: She, too, seeks to "revive the institution of sex-slavery."

A brief English report appeared over the weekend in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):

Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants "casting spells" on them, would be better to purchase women from an "enslaved maid" agency for sexual purposes. She [Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. "We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

Continue reading here

 

Jihad in the Digital Age

IPT News
May 31, 2011
Jihad has gone digital.
Al-Qaida has long embraced the Internet and modern technology, but loosely-affiliated jihadists are hunting for new ways to fight the West in the Information Age. At the cutting edge of technology, from Apple IPad 2 to using new internet protocols, jihadists are carrying the 7th century idea of an Islamic Caliphate well into the 21st century.
Recently, jihadi hackers have produced a magazine of their own and Islamist programmers have modified a shooting game for al-Qaida. A major jihadi commentator even released his first message to the 'brothers' on Facebook, a sign that Western social media is being used by those who want its destruction. Collectively, there is a growing jihadi reliance on high technology, social media, and the Internet.

IPT News
May 31, 2011

Jihad has gone digital.

Al-Qaida has long embraced the Internet and modern technology, but loosely-affiliated jihadists are hunting for new ways to fight the West in the Information Age. At the cutting edge of technology, from Apple IPad 2 to using new internet protocols, jihadists are carrying the 7th century idea of an Islamic Caliphate well into the 21st century.

Recently, jihadi hackers have produced a magazine of their own and Islamist programmers have modified a shooting game for al-Qaida. A major jihadi commentator even released his first message to the 'brothers' on Facebook, a sign that Western social media is being used by those who want its destruction. Collectively, there is a growing jihadi reliance on high technology, social media, and the Internet.

Continue reading here

Will gays be 'sacrificial lambs' in Arab Spring?

CNN
Catriona Davies
May 27, 2011

The uprisings bringing political change and demonstrations across much of the Arab world have given millions of people hope of greater freedom. But some gay people in the Middle East fear exactly the opposite.
Homosexuality is illegal -- enforced to varying degrees -- in most Arab countries.
A 2011 report by the International Lesbian and Gay Association reported that homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries worldwide and punishable by death in five, including Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Despite the risks, there are those willing to speak out and campaign for gay rights across the Middle East.

The uprisings bringing political change and demonstrations across much of the Arab world have given millions of people hope of greater freedom. But some gay people in the Middle East fear exactly the opposite.

Homosexuality is illegal -- enforced to varying degrees -- in most Arab countries.

A 2011 report by the International Lesbian and Gay Association reported that homosexuality is illegal in 76 countries worldwide and punishable by death in five, including Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Despite the risks, there are those willing to speak out and campaign for gay rights across the Middle East.

Continue reading here

Saudi Women in the Driver's Seat

Women2Drive

The group Women2Drive is encouraging Saudi women to get in the driver's seat

Islam's Apartheid

 

Family Security Matters
By Amil Imani
May 19, 2011
The dictionary defines apartheid as: An official policy of racial segregation promulgated in the Republic of South Africa with a view to promoting and maintaining white ascendancy.
In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:
 
"Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them."[Italics are mine]
 
The declaration prohibits,
 
“Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’"
 
Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration. 
It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wanton practices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.
Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11
 
“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”
 
There are many many more “directives” that for all intents and purposes make women chattel of men. Here are some of the shameful rules and practices of Islamic misogyny.
 
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.” 
Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”
 
In this case Allah is half right. Women do menstruate. But He is also wrong. Extensive studies by impartial psychologists provide unequivocal documentation of the fact that women are equal in intelligence to men.
But don’t contradict Allah and his beloved unerring mouthpiece, Muhammad. Sadly enough, even many Muslim women prefer to be treated like “domestic animals” who “possess nothing themselves,” and are “stupid.”
Thus, life goes on for the Muslim women with all the trappings of the Islamic misogyny. Here are some rules that keep women in their Muhammad-stipulated place.
 
·         If a Muslim woman is murdered, her beneficiary is entitled to one-half dyyeh—blood money, or compensation—as that of a murdered Muslim male.
 
·         A woman’s testimony in the court of law is worth one-half that of a man.
 
·         A woman must provide four witnesses to substantiate her claim of being raped.
 
·         A man can divorce his wife by simply saying to her, “I divorce you,” three times.
 
·         A divorced woman is entitled to a miserly compensation and automatically forfeits her rights to her children.
 
·         Women are barred from the lucrative and powerful cast of clergy.
 
·         Husbands are entitled to punish their wives corporally.
 
·         Men are allowed to have four wives at any one time and as many concubines as they desire and can afford.
 
·         Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women such as: women are not allowed to drive; they are not permitted to leave the country without accompaniment or explicit permission of their male kin; they are barred from most government jobs and much much more.
 
·         Among other Muslims, such as the Taliban and the Pashtune of Afghanistan-Pakistan region, women are barred from education and not even allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male kin.
 
·         Since education, particularly professional education, is often denied to women in many Islamic societies, there is scarcity of women physicians and male doctors are often forbidden to treat women patients.
 
Such is the plight of women under Islam. There is hardly the need to provide an exhaustive list of Islamic misogyny to qualify it as a shameful, discriminatory and oppressive religious apartheid. 
Will Muslim women ever break out of their bondage and claim their rightful place among emancipated non-Muslim women? It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their equal human rights. Muslim men will resort to every means to maintain their privileged position and their cruel dominance over women, citing the Quran as justification. Any document that consigns one half of the human race to second class status is null and void.
Its constitutional sub-humanization of women aside, Islam has a raft of beliefs and practices that violate fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in general. A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religious apartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant “extremist” Islamic groups such as the Taliban to make the case. Even the most “mainstream” and “peaceful” Islam is guilty of systemic apartheid. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.
 
·         On December 16, 2006, Egypt’s Highest Administrative Court decreed that in order to receive an Identity Card, only Islam, Judaism, or Christianity must be entered on the application. No one of any other religion or no religion at all is permitted to list his belief or even leave it blank. Without the identity card, just about all the rights of citizenship are denied to minorities such as Baha’is, Hindus, and Buddhists. People are forced to choose between falsely claiming an approved religion and depriving themselves of just about all rights of citizenship such as jobs, education and medical care.
 
·         In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic law denies dyyeh to any and all people who are not Muslims or members of the only other three recognized religions. Every one of the 500,000 members of the Baha’i Faith can be murdered without the family receiving justice or compensation. As a matter of fact, the Islamic government itself has executed Baha’is for the sole “crime” of being Baha’is and has demanded that the innocently murdered person’s family reimburse it for the bullets they used to execute him.
 
·         The Islamic Republic of Iran’s President’s repeated threat to wipe out Israel from the map is ignored by some as an empty rhetoric of an unhinged fanatic. Yet, Ahmadinejad’s threats are far from the baseless saber-rattling of a zealot. Ahamadinejad’s government has recently ordered the comprehensive gathering of data regarding the Baha’is and all their activities. This order is deeply troubling, since it is almost a replica of what another fascist, Hitler, did before launching the genocide of six million Jews and some four million other “undesirables”. Ahamadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run on the Iranian Baha’is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other “undesirables,” following in the footsteps of the German fuehrer.
 
Islamic societies shamelessly practice all the sanctioned injustices listed in the U.N. charter on apartheid (see paragraphs 2 and 3, above). Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, is an inhumane, unjust and condemned practice. 
Islam cruelly practices its oppressive dogma on minorities in its lands; it is in clear violation of the provisions of Universal Human Rights. Ominously, Islam is encroaching in the traditionally non-Islamic parts of the world and doing all it can to impose its horrid doctrine on others. 
It is for this present and imminent danger that the free people of the world must rise and do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty. Muslims in the non-Islamic lands may seem harmless, and many of them indeed are harmless. Yet, Islam compels its leaders to uphold and promote its tenets at any and all costs to anyone. It is for this reason that on the one hand the Islamic governments sign the U.N. Charter that condemns apartheid, and on the other hand, these governments violate every provision of it when they are in power.
Islamofascism, the enemy of liberty, is inside the gate. It is the duty of every free human to defend freedom by defeating the enemy.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.

Family Security Matters
By Amil Imani
May 19, 2011

The dictionary defines apartheid as: An official policy of racial segregation promulgated in the Republic of South Africa with a view to promoting and maintaining white ascendancy.

In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:

"Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them."[Italics are mine]

The declaration prohibits,

“Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’"

Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration. 

It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wanton practices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.

Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11

“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”

Continue reading here

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.