Resources for Stealth Threat: What is Terrorism?

Islamist Lawfare on Steroids

FrontPage Magazine
By David Meir-Levi
June 28, 2011
The term “lawfare” is used today to describe a weaker side’s exploitation of a judicial system to advance the goals of conventional warfare in an asymmetric conflict.  By means of lawfare, the weaker side can drain the greater power’s time and resources, and achieve public relations victories through the media coverage of the legal battle.  In short, lawfare is the use of law as a weapon of war to pursue strategic aims through legal maneuvers, also known as “legal jihad.”
In the last decade, lawfare has been used in the West by Islamic organizations in order to constrain the free flow of public opinion about radical Islam.  Muslim organizations have filed predatory lawsuits designed to intimidate, bankrupt, punish and silence those who criticize Islam in public discourse.  Some have been successful, resulting in significant fines and expenses to the defendants.  But the most important goal of Muslim lawfare is to put Western society on notice that the price of criticizing anything Muslim can be very high.  Publishing houses and newspapers, in the wake of successful lawfare, have begun to reject important works on counter-terrorism out of fear of becoming the targets of future lawfare suits.
Continue reading here.

FrontPage Magazine
By David Meir-Levi
June 28, 2011

The term “lawfare” is used today to describe a weaker side’s exploitation of a judicial system to advance the goals of conventional warfare in an asymmetric conflict.  By means of lawfare, the weaker side can drain the greater power’s time and resources, and achieve public relations victories through the media coverage of the legal battle.  In short, lawfare is the use of law as a weapon of war to pursue strategic aims through legal maneuvers, also known as “legal jihad.”

In the last decade, lawfare has been used in the West by Islamic organizations in order to constrain the free flow of public opinion about radical Islam.  Muslim organizations have filed predatory lawsuits designed to intimidate, bankrupt, punish and silence those who criticize Islam in public discourse.  Some have been successful, resulting in significant fines and expenses to the defendants.  But the most important goal of Muslim lawfare is to put Western society on notice that the price of criticizing anything Muslim can be very high.  Publishing houses and newspapers, in the wake of successful lawfare, have begun to reject important works on counter-terrorism out of fear of becoming the targets of future lawfare suits.

Continue reading here.

Dutch court acquits Wilders of anti-Islam hate speech

Associated Press
A Dutch court acquitted populist politician Geert Wilders of hate speech and discrimination Thursday, ruling that his anti-Islam statements, while offensive to many Muslims, fell within the bounds of legitimate political debate.
 
Presiding judge Marcel van Oosten said Wilders' claims that Islam is violent by nature, and his calls to halt Muslim immigration and ban the Muslim holy book, the Quran, must be seen in a wider context of debate over immigration policy.
 
The court said his public statements could not be directly linked to increased discrimination against Dutch Muslims.

Associated Press
June 23, 2011

A Dutch court acquitted populist politician Geert Wilders of hate speech and discrimination Thursday, ruling that his anti-Islam statements, while offensive to many Muslims, fell within the bounds of legitimate political debate.

Presiding judge Marcel van Oosten said Wilders' claims that Islam is violent by nature, and his calls to halt Muslim immigration and ban the Muslim holy book, the Quran, must be seen in a wider context of debate over immigration policy.

The court said his public statements could not be directly linked to increased discrimination against Dutch Muslims.

Continue reading here

Universities: The breeding grounds of terror

The evidence that British student campuses have become hotbeds of Islamist radicalisation is overwhelming, says Anthony Glees. It is time to get tough on those who refuse to believe it.

Read more here.

Islamic "Sharia-Compliant" Banking Takes Root in Europe

Hudson New York
By Soeren Kern
May 19, 2011
The European Union is emerging as a major center of Islamic finance, based on Islamic Shariah law, and which critics say amounts to "financial Jihad" by Islamists intent on Islamifying the West.
The spectacular growth prospects for the Islamic financial services industry in many European countries is being fuelled by Muslim mass immigration; despite a difficult economic climate on the continent, Islamic banking is growing faster in Britain, France and Germany than it is in many Islamic countries in the Middle East and Asia.
The key role that Europe is playing in establishing Islamic finance in the West was the central theme of the 8th Islamic Financial Services Board Summit, an annual conference that promotes Islamic banking around the world. Hosted by the Central Bank of Luxembourg from May 10-13, 2011, it was the first time the event was held in a European country.
Proponents of Islamic finance depict the Islamic banking system as a morally superior alternative to the Western banking model. Structured around a strict code of ethics and based on the Koran and Islamic Shariah law, Islamic banking is (in theory) supposed to make it possible for Muslims to conduct financial transactions while observing Islamic prohibitions against charging interest (riba), risk or uncertainty (gharar) and/or investing in forbidden (haram) products and activities such as alcohol, entertainment and gambling.
Critics of Islamic finance, however, point out that although there are some practices in conventional capitalist finance that do not involve charging interest (for example, venture capital or investing in stocks) or risk or uncertainty (for example, investing in government bonds), it is impossible to have a financial and banking system that avoids both. As a result, much of contemporary Islamic banking is shrouded in a variety of deceptive legal fictions and subterfuges (hiyal) that enable Muslims to engage in business transactions that circumvent and evade Shariah prohibitions on interest.
Continue reading here. 

Hudson New York
By Soeren Kern
May 19, 2011

The European Union is emerging as a major center of Islamic finance, based on Islamic Shariah law, and which critics say amounts to "financial Jihad" by Islamists intent on Islamifying the West.

The spectacular growth prospects for the Islamic financial services industry in many European countries is being fuelled by Muslim mass immigration; despite a difficult economic climate on the continent, Islamic banking is growing faster in Britain, France and Germany than it is in many Islamic countries in the Middle East and Asia.

The key role that Europe is playing in establishing Islamic finance in the West was the central theme of the 8th Islamic Financial Services Board Summit, an annual conference that promotes Islamic banking around the world. Hosted by the Central Bank of Luxembourg from May 10-13, 2011, it was the first time the event was held in a European country.

Continue reading here

Fin de Régime in Syria?

The revolt in Syria offers great opportunities, humanitarian and geo-political. Western states should quickly and robustly seize the moment to dispatch strongman Bashar al-Assad and his accomplice. Many benefits will follow when they reach their appointed dustbin of history.
Syrians pulling down pictures of al-Assads, Bashar (left) and his father Hafez.
Foreign: The malign but tactically brilliant Hafez al-Assad blighted the Middle East with disproportionate Syrian influence for decades. His son, the feckless Bashar, has continued this pattern since 2000 by sending terrorists to Iraq, murdering Lebanon's prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, overthrowing his son Saad, aiding the Hezbollah and Hamas terror groups, and developing chemical and nuclear weapons. His riddance will be a universal boon.
But Bashar's main role internationally is serving as Tehran's premier ally. Despite Westerners usually seeing the Syrian-Iranian alliance as a flimsy marriage of convenience, it has lasted over thirty years, enduring shifts in personnel and circumstances, due to what Jubin Goodarzi in 2006 called the two parties' "broader, long-term strategic concerns derived from their national security priorities."
The Syrian intifada has already weakened the Iranian-led "resistance bloc" by exacerbating political distancing Tehran from Assad and fomenting divisions in the Iranian leadership. Syrian protesters are burning the Iranian flag; were (Sunni) Islamists to take power in Damascus they would terminate the Iranian connection, seriously impairing the mullah's grandiose ambitions.
Kurds protesting for citizenship in Qamishli, Syria, in April 2011.
The end of Assad's rule points to other important consequences. Bashar and the ruling Islamist AK party in Turkey have developed such close relations that some analysts see the Assad regime's removal leading to a collapse of Ankara's entire Middle East policy. Also, unrest among the Kurds of Syria could lead to their greater autonomy that would in turn encourage co-ethnics in Anatolia to demand an independent state, a prospect that so worries Ankara, it sent a stream of high level visitors to Damascus and urgently pushed a counter-insurgency accord on it.
Turmoil in Syria offers relief for Lebanon, which has been under the Syrian thumb since 1976. Similarly, a distracted Damascus permits Israeli strategists, at least temporarily, to focus attention on the country's many other foreign problems.
Domestic: In a smug interview discussing developments in Tunisia and Egypt, and just weeks before his own country erupted on March 15, Bashar al-Assad explained the misery also facing his own subjects: "Whenever you have an uprising, it is self-evident that to say that you have anger [which] feeds on desperation."
The word desperation nicely summarizes the Syrian people's lot; since 1970, the Assad dynasty has dominated Syria with a Stalinist fist only slightly less oppressive than that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Poverty, expropriation, corruption, stasis, oppression, fear, isolation, Islamism, torture, and massacre are the hallmarks of Assad rule.
Vogue's puff-piece on the wife of Bashar al-Assad in its March 2011 issue.
Thanks to Western greed and gullibility, however, outsiders rarely realize the full extent of this reality. On one hand, the Syrian regime financially supports the Centre for Syrian Studies at the University of St Andrews. On the other, an informal Syria lobby exists. Thus, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refers to Bashar al-Assad as a "reformer" and Vogue magazine publishes a puff-piece on the tyrant's wife, "Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert" (calling her "glamorous, young, and very chic—the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies").
One potential danger resulting from regime change must be noted. Expect not a relatively gentle coup d'état as in Tunisia or Egypt but a thorough-going revolution directed not only against the Assad clan but also the Alawi community from which it comes. Alawis, a secretive post-Islamic sect making up about one-eighth of the Syrian population, have dominated the government since 1966, arousing deep hostility among the majority Sunnis. Sunnis carry out the intifada and Alawis do the dirty work of repressing and killing them. This tension could fuel a bloodbath and even civil war, possibilities that outside powers must recognize and prepare for.
As impasse persists in Syria, with protesters filling the streets and the regime killing them, Western policy can make a decisive difference. Steven Coll of the New Yorker is right that "The time for hopeful bargaining with Assad has passed." Time has come to brush aside fears of instability for, as analyst Lee Smith rightly observes, "It can't get any worse than the Assads' regime." Time has come to push Bashar from power, to protect innocent Alawis, and to deal with "the devil we don't know."
Mr. Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of three books on Syria.
May 24, 2011 update: For additional thoughts that could not fit into this column, see my weblog entry, "More on Regime Change in Syria."

The revolt in Syria offers great opportunities, humanitarian and geo-political. Western states should quickly and robustly seize the moment to dispatch strongman Bashar al-Assad and his accomplice. Many benefits will follow when they reach their appointed dustbin of history.

Foreign: The malign but tactically brilliant Hafez al-Assad blighted the Middle East with disproportionate Syrian influence for decades. His son, the feckless Bashar, has continued this pattern since 2000 by sending terrorists to Iraq, murdering Lebanon's prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, overthrowing his son Saad, aiding the Hezbollah and Hamas terror groups, and developing chemical and nuclear weapons. His riddance will be a universal boon.

But Bashar's main role internationally is serving as Tehran's premier ally. Despite Westerners usually seeing the Syrian-Iranian alliance as a flimsy marriage of convenience, it has lasted over thirty years, enduring shifts in personnel and circumstances, due to what Jubin Goodarzi in 2006 called the two parties' "broader, long-term strategic concerns derived from their national security priorities."

The Syrian intifada has already weakened the Iranian-led "resistance bloc" by exacerbating political distancing Tehran from Assad and fomenting divisions in the Iranian leadership. Syrian protesters are burning the Iranian flag; were (Sunni) Islamists to take power in Damascus they would terminate the Iranian connection, seriously impairing the mullah's grandiose ambitions.

The end of Assad's rule points to other important consequences. Bashar and the ruling Islamist AK party in Turkey have developed such close relations that some analysts see the Assad regime's removal leading to a collapse of Ankara's entire Middle East policy. Also, unrest among the Kurds of Syria could lead to their greater autonomy that would in turn encourage co-ethnics in Anatolia to demand an independent state, a prospect that so worries Ankara, it sent a stream of high level visitors to Damascus and urgently pushed a counter-insurgency accord on it.

Turmoil in Syria offers relief for Lebanon, which has been under the Syrian thumb since 1976. Similarly, a distracted Damascus permits Israeli strategists, at least temporarily, to focus attention on the country's many other foreign problems.

Domestic: In a smug interview discussing developments in Tunisia and Egypt, and just weeks before his own country erupted on March 15, Bashar al-Assad explained the misery also facing his own subjects: "Whenever you have an uprising, it is self-evident that to say that you have anger [which] feeds on desperation."

The word desperation nicely summarizes the Syrian people's lot; since 1970, the Assad dynasty has dominated Syria with a Stalinist fist only slightly less oppressive than that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Poverty, expropriation, corruption, stasis, oppression, fear, isolation, Islamism, torture, and massacre are the hallmarks of Assad rule.

Thanks to Western greed and gullibility, however, outsiders rarely realize the full extent of this reality. On one hand, the Syrian regime financially supports the Centre for Syrian Studies at the University of St Andrews. On the other, an informal Syria lobby exists. Thus, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refers to Bashar al-Assad as a "reformer" and Vogue magazine publishes a puff-piece on the tyrant's wife, "Asma al-Assad: A Rose in the Desert" (calling her "glamorous, young, and very chic—the freshest and most magnetic of first ladies").

One potential danger resulting from regime change must be noted. Expect not a relatively gentle coup d'état as in Tunisia or Egypt but a thorough-going revolution directed not only against the Assad clan but also the Alawi community from which it comes. Alawis, a secretive post-Islamic sect making up about one-eighth of the Syrian population, have dominated the government since 1966, arousing deep hostility among the majority Sunnis. Sunnis carry out the intifada and Alawis do the dirty work of repressing and killing them. This tension could fuel a bloodbath and even civil war, possibilities that outside powers must recognize and prepare for.

As impasse persists in Syria, with protesters filling the streets and the regime killing them, Western policy can make a decisive difference. Steven Coll of the New Yorker is right that "The time for hopeful bargaining with Assad has passed." Time has come to brush aside fears of instability for, as analyst Lee Smith rightly observes, "It can't get any worse than the Assads' regime." Time has come to push Bashar from power, to protect innocent Alawis, and to deal with "the devil we don't know."

Mr. Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of three books on Syria.

3 Things About Islam

3 Things About Islam

Three surprising things you probably didn't know about Islam.
This subject WILL affect you in the near future, so take the chance to inform yourself now - before it does.

Why Using the Word "Islamophobia" is Misleading

 

By Tawfik Hamid
www.tawfikhamid.com   
Name-calling with the term Islamophobia is an aggressive tactic popularized by apologists for Radical Islam to silence individuals who attempt to tell the truth about Jihadist Islam.  
In the spirit of "the best defense is a good offence," accusations of Islamophobia were first slung broadly in this country to suppress attention to the Islamic Jihadist motivations of the perpetrators of the September 11th Twin Towers attack.  Most recently Islamophobia name-calling has been utilized with renewed vigor to discredit Rep. Peter King (US) whose Congressional Hearings threatened to expose the realities of the ideological basis of terrorism. The accusations of Islamophobia have been also used to silence European Politicians such as Geert Wilders and UK Academics such as Patrick Sookhdeo.
The psychological term phobia describes an excessive and irrational fear.  So-called Islamophobia, by contrast, is appropriate willingness to heed the solid evidence of who commits terror acts and their motivations. 
The statistics are striking.  According to a recent survey by the Justice department, while Muslims constitute about 1% of the American population, they contribute 80% of the Home Grown Terrorism. According to these data, the probability of an American Muslim to conduct a terrorist act in the US is approximately 400 times the probability of American Non-Muslims to an act of terror.  Furthermore, the vast preponderance of the last decade's worldwide terror acts have been conducted by Radical Islamic groups (A list of these terror acts has already exceeded 15 thousand acts by Radical Islamists since September 11th -is available at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com ).
In addition, the ONLY nations that punish or kill in our modern times for religious crimes are majority Muslim states. 
Likewise, one of Sharia (Islamic) Law's central ideals which is approved by ALL the main schools of Islamic Jurisprudence-even to today- is declaring wars against Non-Muslims to spread Islam across the globe. This has led several of its practitioners to believe that violent acts are a legitimate means of accomplishing that goal.  
The above can be just added to the practices of Sharia laws in Muslim countries such as killing apostates & sorcerers, hanging gays, Honor Killing, stoning adulteries and using violence against women. The reality is that, it is seldom, in our modern times, to see similar atrocities practiced in the name of any religion other than Islam. 
The lack of a powerful denouncement in the Muslim world or by leading Islamic scholars to the formerly mentioned atrocities just adds more salt to the wound.  In fact, many-if not most-of Islamic institutes and scholars actually promote such values. These are facts-NOT irrational beliefs. Therefore, labeling fear of Islam "Islamophobia" is clearly inappropriate and misleading.   
 
American health authorities recently have begun conducting tests to evaluate nuclear irradiation in foods imported from Japan.  The Japanese people are not labeling these actions that protect the American people from fallout from the distressed Japanese nuclear reactors as "Japano-phobia."  They are not complaining that this information-gathering is a discriminatory response to Japan. 
Similarly, singling out Muslims for evaluation in the counter-terrorism Congressional hearings of Rep. Peter King or in other forms of research is an appropriate response to the facts and dangers of Islamic terrorism.   
Failure to take appropriate steps to evaluate a statistically validated danger violates the Constitutional mandate that the federal governmental protect its citizens from "domestic violence."  Moreover, the outcomes of ignoring terrorism's Islamic roots can be disastrous. Yet, perhaps because of the American spirit of goodwill plus prevailing winds of political correctness, the intimidation tactic of name-calling with the term "Islamopobia" has been all too effective in inhibiting our political leaders and the American media from pursuing an understanding of the role of religious ideology in Islamic terrorism.  The result has been a confused public and muddled understanding within our State Department, Congress, and Department of Homeland Security. 
In conclusion, fear of Islam cannot be described as "Islamophobia" as this fear is based on facts and realities rather than irrationality as the word 'phobia' would indicate. American concerns that religious teaching is the primary factor in contemporary terrorism must be heeded, not suppressed by name-calling tactics.  Americans who allow themselves to be silenced by "Islamophobia" accusations serve as radical Islam's enablers. Finally, fear from Islam can ONLY be changed when the Muslim world challenges itself to change the above mentioned frightening facts and realities. 

By Tawfik Hamid

www.tawfikhamid.com   

Name-calling with the term Islamophobia is an aggressive tactic popularized by apologists for Radical Islam to silence individuals who attempt to tell the truth about Jihadist Islam.  

In the spirit of "the best defense is a good offence," accusations of Islamophobia were first slung broadly in this country to suppress attention to the Islamic Jihadist motivations of the perpetrators of the September 11th Twin Towers attack.  Most recently Islamophobia name-calling has been utilized with renewed vigor to discredit Rep. Peter King (US) whose Congressional Hearings threatened to expose the realities of the ideological basis of terrorism. The accusations of Islamophobia have been also used to silence European Politicians such as Geert Wilders and UK Academics such as Patrick Sookhdeo.

The psychological term phobia describes an excessive and irrational fear.  So-called Islamophobia, by contrast, is appropriate willingness to heed the solid evidence of who commits terror acts and their motivations. 

The statistics are striking.  According to a recent survey by the Justice department, while Muslims constitute about 1% of the American population, they contribute 80% of the Home Grown Terrorism. According to these data, the probability of an American Muslim to conduct a terrorist act in the US is approximately 400 times the probability of American Non-Muslims to an act of terror.  Furthermore, the vast preponderance of the last decade's worldwide terror acts have been conducted by Radical Islamic groups (A list of these terror acts has already exceeded 15 thousand acts by Radical Islamists since September 11th -is available at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com).

In addition, the ONLY nations that punish or kill in our modern times for religious crimes are majority Muslim states. 

Likewise, one of Sharia (Islamic) Law's central ideals which is approved by ALL the main schools of Islamic Jurisprudence-even to today- is declaring wars against Non-Muslims to spread Islam across the globe. This has led several of its practitioners to believe that violent acts are a legitimate means of accomplishing that goal.  

The above can be just added to the practices of Sharia laws in Muslim countries such as killing apostates & sorcerers, hanging gays, Honor Killing, stoning adulteries and using violence against women. The reality is that, it is seldom, in our modern times, to see similar atrocities practiced in the name of any religion other than Islam. 

The lack of a powerful denouncement in the Muslim world or by leading Islamic scholars to the formerly mentioned atrocities just adds more salt to the wound.  In fact, many-if not most-of Islamic institutes and scholars actually promote such values. These are facts-NOT irrational beliefs. Therefore, labeling fear of Islam "Islamophobia" is clearly inappropriate and misleading.   

American health authorities recently have begun conducting tests to evaluate nuclear irradiation in foods imported from Japan.  The Japanese people are not labeling these actions that protect the American people from fallout from the distressed Japanese nuclear reactors as "Japano-phobia."  They are not complaining that this information-gathering is a discriminatory response to Japan. 

Similarly, singling out Muslims for evaluation in the counter-terrorism Congressional hearings of Rep. Peter King or in other forms of research is an appropriate response to the facts and dangers of Islamic terrorism.   

Failure to take appropriate steps to evaluate a statistically validated danger violates the Constitutional mandate that the federal governmental protect its citizens from "domestic violence."  Moreover, the outcomes of ignoring terrorism's Islamic roots can be disastrous. Yet, perhaps because of the American spirit of goodwill plus prevailing winds of political correctness, the intimidation tactic of name-calling with the term "Islamopobia" has been all too effective in inhibiting our political leaders and the American media from pursuing an understanding of the role of religious ideology in Islamic terrorism.  The result has been a confused public and muddled understanding within our State Department, Congress, and Department of Homeland Security. 

In conclusion, fear of Islam cannot be described as "Islamophobia" as this fear is based on facts and realities rather than irrationality as the word 'phobia' would indicate. American concerns that religious teaching is the primary factor in contemporary terrorism must be heeded, not suppressed by name-calling tactics.  Americans who allow themselves to be silenced by "Islamophobia" accusations serve as radical Islam's enablers. Finally, fear from Islam can ONLY be changed when the Muslim world challenges itself to change the above mentioned frightening facts and realities. 

 

First, Shariah-Compliant Financing, Then, Shariah Law

 

BY Raven Clabough 
April 7, 2011
Is there a Shariah threat to America? Some believe so and on Friday’s episode of the Glenn Beck program, guests discussed the threat of Shariah law to the United States and the manipulation of the American public into accepting Shariah through the imposition of Shariah-compliant financing.
Glenn Beck indicated that Shariah-compliant financing is the “practice of insuring that all monetary matters are in full compliance with Islamic law. Transactions may not involve the purchase of pork or alcohol. They have to avoid interest, etc.”  
Human Events describes the nature and success of Shariah-compliant financing:
Sharia-compliant finance is expanding among banks and securities houses eager to absorb the hundreds of billions of petrodollars cascading into the Middle East, thanks to $100-per-barrel oil. To lure this cash, financial companies increasingly offer vehicles that neither pay interest nor benefit from gambling, entertainment, alcohol, pork, or anything considered ‘haram’ or ‘un-kosher’ in Islam. Bahrain’s International Islamic Financial Market (IIFM) counts $97 billion in Islamic bonds in circulation with another $66 billion forecast through 2008-and SCF is not limited to the bond market.
Beck adds that Shariah-compliant banking also involves financial donations to charity, which on the surface is appealing. But which charities are being funded?  Well, that all depends on the advisers.
David Yerushalmi of the National Review analyzes those advisers:
To understand the rather opaque world of Islamic finance, one must understand the players. Since its founding, the modern SCF world has been driven by essentially two groups. The first we can label the Shariah fundamentalists. They come in the form of the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood “political Islamists” operating principally in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These Shariah-inspired financiers understand SCF as “financial jihad” — indeed, as part of a larger stealth campaign to institutionalize Shariah in the West.
For example, one of the most prominent Shariah compliant officers in the world is Yusufal Qaradawi. Qaradawi belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood and, as noted by Beck, “is the 9th most powerful Muslim on Earth.”He is the founder of Islamic American University and also serves as the chairman of its board of trustees. However, he must do so in absentia because he’s forbidden to travel to America because of his ties to Muslim terrorist groups.
Qaradawi has articulated some rather violent sentiments against Jewish people:
Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption.
and:
I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews.
Qaradawi was an adviser for a bank called Bank al-Taqwa, which was eventually shut down by United States Treasury Department for funding terrorism.
In a 2006 interview with BBC, Qaradawi clarified the charitable aspect of Shariah-compliant financing as he sees it. “I don’t like this word ‘donations’. I like to call it Jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money.”
Yerushalmi explains that despite the violent jihadist intentions of some of the key players, they have successfully convinced Westerners to partake in SCF:
What makes this institutionalization a bit tricky is that the financial jihadists must convince the Western financiers and their governmental counterparts that Shariah-inspired finance is somehow distinct from Shariah-inspired global jihad against the infidel West. In other words, how do you export a financial model among infidels when that model is built upon a doctrine that manifestly calls for the death and destruction of the infidels and their political and social systems? The answer to this quandary is found in the second group of SCF advocates: the Western facilitators.
The financial jihadists built their strategy upon both sovereign wealth and the cravenness and fecklessness of the Western facilitators who would sell their own well-being and physical security for a place among the Fortune 500. Led by the Saudis but also joined by the other oil-soaked Persian Gulf regimes, the Shariah-inspired jihadists learned quickly that Western financial institutions and their professional lackeys in the legal and accounting fields would do anything for that next billion-dollar transaction.”
Besides carrying out jihad, one of the many goals of Shariah compliant financing is to encourage “wider shariah acceptance.” Chris Holton, Vice President at the Center for Security Policy, which published the book called Shariah-The threat to America, explains, “The whole purpose of Shariah compliant finance is to promote Shariah. And promoting Shariah is something we should not have here in America. It is the enemy threat doctrine-antithetical to everything that is in our Constitution.”
Human Events observes, “Selling-shariah-compliant investments legitimizes a barbaric theocratic orthodoxy that should be defeated, not promoted.”
Holton notes that the goal has already been somewhat successful in Britain. “The whole problem here is if you go back to Great Britian and see what’s happening in Great Britain, the whole purpose of Shariah finance is to promote Shariah. And one of the ways that they’ve lulled the British to sleep and into accepting Shariah in their society is through finance.”
For example, the Bishop of Canterbury said a few years ago that British common law is going to have to start incorporating aspects of Shariah and said its not a big deal seeing as though they already have Shariah Compliant finance.
Islamic Banking is no stranger to the United States thanks to the efforts of Citigroup, HSBC, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, etc. Likewise, the United States, or more notably, the American taxpayer, is the owner of the largest purveyor of Shariah compliance insurance products in the world: AIG.
And as in the case of Britain, Shariah is becoming more readily accepted in the United States.
Just recently, a Florida Judge announced that he will use Islamic law to decide a case between a Tampa Bay mosque and several men who claimed to be wrongfully fired as the mosque’s trustees.
Last year, a New Jersey judge dismissed a Muslim woman’s charges of sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct against her husband, asserting that Islam permits spousal rape.
“[Shariah-compliant financing] is a Trojan horse,” for forced acceptance of Shariah law, Holton concludes.
Additionally, Shariah-compliant financing becomes a more clear threat when one considers that the industry is dominated by Iran. The largest Shariah compliant financial institutions in the world are actually state-controlled Iranian banks. In fact, Iran has over twice as many Shariah-compliant assets under management as Saudi Arabia.

The New American
By Raven Clabough
April 7, 2011

Is there a Shariah threat to America? Some believe so and on Friday’s episode of the Glenn Beck program, guests discussed the threat of Shariah law to the United States and the manipulation of the American public into accepting Shariah through the imposition of Shariah-compliant financing.

Glenn Beck indicated that Shariah-compliant financing is the “practice of insuring that all monetary matters are in full compliance with Islamic law. Transactions may not involve the purchase of pork or alcohol. They have to avoid interest, etc.”  

Human Events describes the nature and success of Shariah-compliant financing:

Sharia-compliant finance is expanding among banks and securities houses eager to absorb the hundreds of billions of petrodollars cascading into the Middle East, thanks to $100-per-barrel oil. To lure this cash, financial companies increasingly offer vehicles that neither pay interest nor benefit from gambling, entertainment, alcohol, pork, or anything considered ‘haram’ or ‘un-kosher’ in Islam. Bahrain’s International Islamic Financial Market (IIFM) counts $97 billion in Islamic bonds in circulation with another $66 billion forecast through 2008-and SCF is not limited to the bond market.

Beck adds that Shariah-compliant banking also involves financial donations to charity, which on the surface is appealing. But which charities are being funded?  Well, that all depends on the advisers.

David Yerushalmi of the National Review analyzes those advisers:

To understand the rather opaque world of Islamic finance, one must understand the players. Since its founding, the modern SCF world has been driven by essentially two groups. The first we can label the Shariah fundamentalists. They come in the form of the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood “political Islamists” operating principally in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These Shariah-inspired financiers understand SCF as “financial jihad” — indeed, as part of a larger stealth campaign to institutionalize Shariah in the West.

For example, one of the most prominent Shariah compliant officers in the world is Yusufal Qaradawi. Qaradawi belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood and, as noted by Beck, “is the 9th most powerful Muslim on Earth.”He is the founder of Islamic American University and also serves as the chairman of its board of trustees. However, he must do so in absentia because he’s forbidden to travel to America because of his ties to Muslim terrorist groups.

Qaradawi has articulated some rather violent sentiments against Jewish people:

Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption.

and:

I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews.

Qaradawi was an adviser for a bank called Bank al-Taqwa, which was eventually shut down by United States Treasury Department for funding terrorism.

In a 2006 interview with BBC, Qaradawi clarified the charitable aspect of Shariah-compliant financing as he sees it. “I don’t like this word ‘donations’. I like to call it Jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money.”

Yerushalmi explains that despite the violent jihadist intentions of some of the key players, they have successfully convinced Westerners to partake in SCF:

What makes this institutionalization a bit tricky is that the financial jihadists must convince the Western financiers and their governmental counterparts that Shariah-inspired finance is somehow distinct from Shariah-inspired global jihad against the infidel West. In other words, how do you export a financial model among infidels when that model is built upon a doctrine that manifestly calls for the death and destruction of the infidels and their political and social systems? The answer to this quandary is found in the second group of SCF advocates: the Western facilitators.

The financial jihadists built their strategy upon both sovereign wealth and the cravenness and fecklessness of the Western facilitators who would sell their own well-being and physical security for a place among the Fortune 500. Led by the Saudis but also joined by the other oil-soaked Persian Gulf regimes, the Shariah-inspired jihadists learned quickly that Western financial institutions and their professional lackeys in the legal and accounting fields would do anything for that next billion-dollar transaction.”

Besides carrying out jihad, one of the many goals of Shariah compliant financing is to encourage “wider shariah acceptance.” Chris Holton, Vice President at the Center for Security Policy, which published the book called Shariah-The threat to America, explains, “The whole purpose of Shariah compliant finance is to promote Shariah. And promoting Shariah is something we should not have here in America. It is the enemy threat doctrine-antithetical to everything that is in our Constitution.”

Human Events observes, “Selling-shariah-compliant investments legitimizes a barbaric theocratic orthodoxy that should be defeated, not promoted.”

Holton notes that the goal has already been somewhat successful in Britain. “The whole problem here is if you go back to Great Britian and see what’s happening in Great Britain, the whole purpose of Shariah finance is to promote Shariah. And one of the ways that they’ve lulled the British to sleep and into accepting Shariah in their society is through finance.”

For example, the Bishop of Canterbury said a few years ago that British common law is going to have to start incorporating aspects of Shariah and said its not a big deal seeing as though they already have Shariah Compliant finance.

Islamic Banking is no stranger to the United States thanks to the efforts of Citigroup, HSBC, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, etc. Likewise, the United States, or more notably, the American taxpayer, is the owner of the largest purveyor of Shariah compliance insurance products in the world: AIG.

And as in the case of Britain, Shariah is becoming more readily accepted in the United States.

Just recently, a Florida Judge announced that he will use Islamic law to decide a case between a Tampa Bay mosque and several men who claimed to be wrongfully fired as the mosque’s trustees.

Last year, a New Jersey judge dismissed a Muslim woman’s charges of sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct against her husband, asserting that Islam permits spousal rape.

“[Shariah-compliant financing] is a Trojan horse,” for forced acceptance of Shariah law, Holton concludes.

Additionally, Shariah-compliant financing becomes a more clear threat when one considers that the industry is dominated by Iran. The largest Shariah compliant financial institutions in the world are actually state-controlled Iranian banks. In fact, Iran has over twice as many Shariah-compliant assets under management as Saudi Arabia.

Joy Brighton of ACT! For America warns of the threat of Shariah-Islamic Finance, particularly since Wall Street has welcomed the institution. (Video, below)

Noting the links between Islamic finance and radical Islam, Brighton declares, “We are selling our soul and our security for money.”

 

Those interested in learning more about Shariah-compliant financing should read David Yerushalmi’s 72-page paper for the Utah Law Review, Shariah’s Black Box: Civil Liability and Criminal Exposure Surrounding Shariah Compliant Finance. Those interested in opposing the expansion of this institution in America are encouraged to join Act! For America.

 

This article was originally published here

Destroying One Koran vs. Destroying Many Christians Which is Worse?

 

FrontPageMag.com
By Raymond Ibrahim 
April 8, 2011

FrontPageMag.com
By Raymond Ibrahim
April 8, 2011

The now infamous Koran burning by Florida pastor Terry Jones has created hysteria in the Muslim world. In Afghanistan alone, some twenty people, including U.N. workers, have been killed and beheaded to screams of “Allahu Akbar!” Western leaders around the globe—including Obama and members of Congress—have unequivocally condemned Jones’ actions (without bothering to point out that freedom of expression is a prized American liberty). Many are even blaming the deaths in Afghanistan directly on Jones; Bill O’Reilley says he has “blood on his hands.”

Yet, as Western leaders rush to profess their abhorrence at what one American did to one inanimate book, let’s take a quick look at what many Muslims are doing to many living and breathing Christians around the Islamic world—to virtually no media coverage or Western condemnation:

  • Afghanistan: A Muslim convert to Christianity was seized and, according to sharia’s apostasy laws, awaits execution.
  • Bangladesh: A Christian man was arrested for distributing Bibles near Muslims. Since Wednesday, thousands of Muslims have been rioting, injuring dozens—not because of Jones, but in protestation of women’s rights.
  • Egypt: A Muslim mob burned down another Coptic church and dozens of Christian homes; when Christians protested, the military opened fire on them while crying “Allahu Akbar,” killing nine. Another mob cut a Christian man’s ear off “according to sharia.”
  • Ethiopia: Muslims went on a rampage burning down nearly 70 churches, killing at least one Christian, and dislocating as many as 10,000. Christians living in Muslim majority regions are being warned to either convert to Islam, abandon their homes, or die.
  • Malaysia: Authorities detained and desecrated thousands of Bibles.
  • Pakistan: Two Christians were shot to death as they exited church; a Christian serving life in prison for “blasphemy” died in his cell under suspicions of murder.
  • Saudi Arabia: An Eritrean Christian has been arrested for sharing his faith with Muslims and is facing the death penalty; other missionaries continue to languish in Saudi prisons.
  • Somalia and Sudan: Christian girls—including a mother of four—were recently abducted, raped, and killed for embracing Christianity.

It should be borne in mind that none of these atrocities were performed in retaliation to Jones’ Koran burning; they’re just business as usual in the Muslim world. Moreover, the above list is but a quick and cursory sampling of the very latest in Christian suffering under Islam. Were one to include persecution from just a few months back, one could also mention the jihadist attack on a Baghdad church, killing 52 Christians; the New Year’s eve Coptic church explosion, killing 21; Muslim rampages that destroyed several churches in Indonesia, Nigeria, and the Philippines; Iran’s “round up” of some 70 home-worshipping Christians; and Kuwait’s—a nation that owes its very existence to U.S. war sacrifices—rejection to build a church.

Then there are the countless atrocities that never make it to any media—the stories of persistent, quiet misery that only the victims and local Christians know.

One would have thought that all this was at least equally deserving of media attention and Western condemnation as the burning of a Koran. This is especially so considering that, whereas only Jones is responsible for his actions, many of the aforementioned savageries—arresting and executing Christian missionaries and Muslim apostates, destroying or outlawing churches, seizing and desecrating not one but thousands of Bibles—are carried out at the hands of Muslim authorities and governments deemed U.S. “friends-and-allies.”

Such is the surreal and increasingly irrational world we live in, where irate Muslims and groveling Westerners obsess over the destruction of one book while ignoring the destruction of many human lives; where a guaranteed and hard-earned American right—freedom of expression—receives a lot of condemnatory huffing and puffing from those charged with protecting it, while murderous, barbarous—in a word, evil—behavior is devoutly ignored.

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum and author of The Al Qaeda Reader.

This article was originally published here

 

 

Turning the Revolution Islamist

 

IPT News
April 1, 2011
The "Arab Spring" has been synonymous with secular and peaceful demonstrators taking to the streets of the Middle East and, in some cases, taking up arms to fight for lost freedoms.
However, the latest issue of al-Qaida's Inspire Magazine, as well as the rise of renewed Salafist movements in the revolutionary states, suggest that religious ultraconservatives have no intention of ceding the future. The revolutions may have been secular, but the character of new governments is still up for grabs.

IPT News
April 1, 2011

The "Arab Spring" has been synonymous with secular and peaceful demonstrators taking to the streets of the Middle East and, in some cases, taking up arms to fight for lost freedoms.

However, the latest issue of al-Qaida's Inspire Magazine, as well as the rise of renewed Salafist movements in the revolutionary states, suggest that religious ultraconservatives have no intention of ceding the future. The revolutions may have been secular, but the character of new governments is still up for grabs.

Continue reading here