OOTDnews: 05/22/11

Sunday, May 22, 2011

( Associated Press ) - Ahmed al-Tayeb, Sheikh of al-Azhar, the top Islamic institution in Egypt, left, and Pope Shenouda III, head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, right, meet together at the Coptic cathedral in Cairo, Egypt Tuesday, May 17, 2011.

By Associated Press

CAIRO — Muslims and Christians pelted each with stones in a Cairo suburb Thursday over the reopening of a church the former regime closed years ago.

The church is one of three to be reopened as part of the Egyptian authorities’ plan to try to defuse recent religious tensions. They have promised to reopen nearly 50 churches across Egypt in an attempt to appease Christian protesters who have been holding a sit-in for more than a week along the Nile.

The protesters are also demanding the prosecution of those behind recent attacks on at least three churches in Cairo following the popular uprising that toppled former President Hosni Mubarak on Feb. 11.

Thursday’s clashes began when police accompanied a group of Christians to reopen the Church of the Virgin in the suburb of Ain Shams. More than 1,000 Muslims, including dozens of ultraconservative Salafi Muslims, tried to block the way, and the sides pelted each other with stones, a security official said.
Police detained a number of those involved and the scuffle was quickly contained, said the o
fficial, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media. No injuries were reported.

The Christians then entered the church while a smaller protest continued outside, the official said.

Meanwhile, hundreds of Christians who have been camping out along the Nile river outside the TV building decided not to break up their protest camp in anger at the harassment.
“It was a farce,” said Girgis Atef, a protest organizer.

About 10 percent of Egyptians are Christians. Earlier this month, mobs of Muslims, apparently urged on by the ultraconservative Salafi sect of Islam, stormed the Virgin Mary Church in the Cairo neighborhood of Imbaba and set it ablaze.

The attack was sparked by a rumor that a Christian woman planned to marry a Muslim, which some religious purists consider to be forbidden.

Fifteen people were killed and more than 200 were injured in the clashes

Meanwhile, Egypt’s military rulers said parliamentary elections will be held no later than Sept. 30, as stipulated by the constitutional declaration that has replaced Egypt’s suspended constitution.

The rulers announced a new law regulating the voting in the upcoming elections, saying it allowed for Egyptians living abroad to vote, a right long denied to millions of them.

However, Maj. Gen. Mamdouh Shaheen said the logistics of organizing a vote by expatriates have not been worked out, indicating the decision is not final.

“There are rules and regulations that organize this operation ... The law stipulates that there must be a judge monitoring every ballot box, not a consul,” said Shaheen, a member of the governing armed forces council. His statements were carried on the official news agency MENA.

The law also allows Egyptians to vote using their national ID card, skipping the registration phase required during Mubarak’s rule — something rights activists said allowed the former regime to fix and inflate the registry in their favor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/muslim-christian-clashes-erupt-over-reopening-of-church-in-egyptian-capital/2011/05/19/AFQJ7F7G_story.html

Punjab, anti-Christian violence: nurses sequestered, families evicted from home

PAKISTAN

by Jibran Khan

A Muslim colleague steals mobile phone and cash, then accuses two nurses of theft. The women, held in solitary confinement for nine hours, were subjected to physical violence. Muslims raid homes of two families in Gujrat. The episode ordered by a former lawmaker who wants to take possession of the land. Muslim doctors refuse treatment to Christian policeman.

Lahore (AsiaNews) - In the province of Punjab, Pakistan's most populous area, new cases of anti-Christian violence are emerging. Two nurses at the Fatima Memorial Hospital, Lahore, were attacked and abducted for several hours by a fellow Muslim. The man also charged them with theft after stealing their mobile phone and a sum of money. In a second incident, a group of Muslims - at the behest of a former MP of the area - attacked the houses of two Christians, to force the owners to abandon them and transfer the land ownership over to him.

Nusrat Bibi and Muneeran Bibi are two Christian nurses at Fatima Memorial Hospital in Lahore. A hospital source reports that in recent days the two women were attacked and abducted by a Muslim doctor, who works in the same building. He allegedly stole Nusrat ‘s mobile phone, a sum of money from Muneeran and when the girl put up resistance he attacked her. Then it was Nusrat’s turn to suffer, as the doctor beat her repeatedly with a wooden stick reducing her clothing to tatters.

The source speaking on condition of anonymity, added that the nurses "were segregated for more than nine hours." The hospital administration contends that the two Christian women are guilty of theft, although they were not found in possession of any object. Fr. Joseph Xavier, priest and local activist, speaks of a "brutal act" against two workers who "did not steal anything" and whose only crime is "being Christian" and "victims of brutality."

The second incident occurred on May 18 in Jattan Jalal, a town in the Gujrat district. A group of Muslims, hired by a former local lawmaker, invaded the homes of two Christian families to seize the buildings and surrounding farmland. Local priest Fr. Naveed Dominic confirms that the politician “'has set his sights on the land" belonging to Christians, who in the past "have received threats from various groups " but have never wanted to "leave their property. "

The group of Muslims threw furniture out of the house and property of the Christian families, attacking the women present at the time of the raid. Some local residents tried to contact the police, but officers refused to intervene. Fr. Dominic adds: "The church has received threats not to meddle in the affair." The priest confirms that "the authorities are turning a deaf ear, because cases of persecution and anti-Christian violence reported" do not seem to interest them. "

The climate of indifference, marginalization and violence against the religious minority is confirmed by a third episode. On 18 May the health care workers of the General Hospital in Lahore refused to treat a policeman wounded in a shooting earlier, because of his Christian faith. The ER chief doctor delayed his admittance on discovering that police agent Mushtaq Shaukat Masih was of Christian faith. Even a doctor who intervened later supported his colleague’s decision.

Wounded and exasperated by the situation, the policeman pulled the service weapon striking the doctor with the butt of his gun. He did not, however, noticed that it was loaded and, in the collision, a shot was fired wounding a person present at the time. The Christian policemand was taken to another facility where he received appropriate medical care. Doctors at the first hospital have filed a complaint against him, but from the earliest records, judges seem to be willing to drop the charges because the victim was provoked.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Punjab,-anti-Christian-violence:-nurses-sequestered,-families-evicted-from-home-21614.html

Moosa and the Madrassas

May 22, 2011

By Stephen Schwartz

At the end of a week in which U.S. military forces in Pakistan carried out the execution of Osama bin Laden and the Afghan Taliban declared that the death of "Sheikh Osama bin Laden will give a new impetus to the current jihad against the invaders in this critical phase of jihad," a stunning display of Islamist insensitivity and arrogance took place at the University of California, Berkeley. On Friday, May 6, 2011, Ebrahim Moosa, a South African Muslim and professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University in North Carolina, speaking at a UC Berkeley workshop on "Religious Norms in the Public Sphere," defended Deobandism, the madrassa-based radical ideology that inspires the Taliban.
The workshop was cosponsored by the Center on Institutions and Governance of UC Berkeley's Institute of International Studies; the Center for Islamic Studies at its Graduate Theological Union; the Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs at Berkeley Law; the Partner University Fund, which is supported by the French government; and the Social Science Research Council.
A subdued audience of fewer than twenty people and speakers arrayed around a square set of long tables constituted the event, which was held at the Bancroft Hotel adjoining the UC Berkeley campus.Moosa was one of the May 6 "speakers/performers" -- a perhaps unintentionally accurate description -- as were UC Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian and French Islamologist Olivier Roy.
Moosa is, indeed, quite a "performer"; he has gained a reputation as an Islamic moderate based on his 2005 study of the twelfth-century Muslim theologian Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali and his editing of the last book of the late scholar of Islam Fazlur Rahman, of the University of Chicago.
In his "keynote lecture," Moosa reveled in a defense of Deobandism and its main madrassa, Dar Ul-Uloom Deoband, located in India. The title of his presentation was innocuous: "Norms in the Madrassa-Sphere: Between Tradition, Scripture, and the Public Good." Nevertheless, after an introduction by GTU Islamic Studies director and assistant professor Munir Jiwa, Moosa made clear early in his presentation that his aim was to cleanse the "narrative" on madrassas, in which, he claimed, madrassas have been "treated in [the] media with dread as a threat to Western security."
Moosa gave no ground to those who would argue that many madrassas, especially in South Asia, are centers for radical Islamist indoctrination. He dismissed in a passing reference reports that Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban chief for whose capture the U.S. government has offered a $10-million reward as an accomplice of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, was a student at Dar Ul-Uloom Deoband. According to Moosa, Mullah Omar's involvement with the madrassa "caused Deoband to be identified with the Taliban," as if the association was trivial or manufactured by media. In reality, the murderous extremists in Afghanistan were inspired by Deobandism, and Mullah Omar was not the sole alumnus of its madrassa system among their ranks.
According to journalist Ahmed Rashid in his 2001 book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, "at least eight Taliban cabinet ministers [...] were graduates of Dar Ul-Uloom Haqqania," a madrassa established in Pakistan in conformity with the model at Deoband in India, and "dozens more graduates served as Taliban governors in the provinces, military commanders, judges, and bureaucrats."Treating the entire subject benevolently, Moosa declared that the Deobandi network had spread internationally through support from British and South African Muslims, as well as donations by Indian Muslim business leaders. He failed to mention that, as noted by Rashid, "funds from Saudi Arabia to madrassas and parties which were sympathetic to the Wahhabi creed" -- the most violent fundamentalist movement ever identified with Sunni Islam -- "as the Deobandis were, helped these madrassas turn out young militants."Referring to the Deobandi history of aggression against spiritual Muslim Sufis, Moosa conceded that the madrassa system that spawned the Taliban was "severe" in its attitude. This is an understatement typical of those who try to absolve Islamist fundamentalists by describing them as "puritan" or "austere" and ignoring that their tendencies towards "Puritanism," "austerity," and even "reform" lead to the murder of dissenters. Moosa was equally benign in noting the emergence of the radical Tabligh-i-Jamaat da'wa (missionization) movement from the Deobandi environment, and in casually praising Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the world-famous Islamist hate-preacher headquartered in Qatar and banned from entry into Britain and the U.S.
It should be noted that Moosa is himself a graduate of Deobandi theological training, which he recalled lyrically between comments on recondite Islamic theological distinctions throughout the remainder of his presentation. According to his website biography, Moosa "earned his M.A. (1989) and Ph.D. (1995) from the University of Cape Town. Prior to that, he took the `alimiyya [clerical] degree in Islamic and Arabic studies from Darul Ulum Nadwatul `Ulama," a Deobandi campus at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Moosa was shocking -- or so one would expect in left-leaning Berkeley -- in his apologetic description of two controversies involving the Deobandi madrassas. In 1964, Muslim clerics in his native South Africa were upset when a Deobandi scholar held that Islamically prohibited interest, or riba, could be collected in Muslim business transactions in the country, because it was not a Muslim-majority territory. Moosa noted pleasantly that the apartheid state had allowed shariah-based banks and insurance companies to function without hindrance. The bien-pensant Berkeley audience, accustomed to the false charge that Israel imposes apartheid upon Arabs, was unfazed by Moosa's amiable approval of the tolerance for shariah under the government that invented the term "apartheid." Moosa's website biography also states that he "advised the first independent South African government after apartheid on Islamic affairs," yet he seemed amnesiac about the discrimination Muslims had suffered under South African apartheid.The audience remained unruffled when Moosa then evoked a fatwa issued by the Deobandi clerics in India in the 2005 "Imrana rape case." Imrana, a resident of the Muzaffarnagar district in Uttar Pradesh, aged 28 and the mother of five children, was raped by her father-in-law, Ali Mohammad, 69. Her full name was never disclosed in the Indian press, but a council of five elders, or panchayat, in the village where she lived, Charthawal, ordered that Imrana separate from her husband, Nur Ilahi, because she was now the sexual partner of her father-in-law. That she was violated, and that her "adultery" or other alleged transgression was involuntary, was ignored. Imrana defied the elders and continued living with her husband. The Deobandi school issued a fatwa endorsing a mandatory divorce but denying that such an outcome would be Islamic. Imrana's husband supported her and said, "We neither sought advice nor counsel from Deoband. We have not raised the issue before clerics."
The "Imrana case" caused a scandal in India, and the father-in-law was found guilty of rape in 2007 and sentenced to ten years in prison. Moosa described the abominable action of the Deobandi clerics with equanimity, adding blandly that they "blamed the controversy on Western media and condemned those Muslims who criticized them." He contributed a mild rebuke, stipulating that in the treatment of Imrana, Islamic law "turned into a brutal practice." He then returned to, and concluded with, a stream-of-consciousness commentary about the Deobandi concept of Islamic spirituality.Moosa is perhaps best-known by the U.S. public for his co-authorship of a document issued in 2010 aimed at dispelling concerns about radicalization of American Muslims, titled "Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans." That report was financed by grant no. 2007-IJ-CX-0008, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which also published it. Moosa's colleagues in that instance were David Schanzer, an associate professor at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy, and Charles Kurzman, an expert on Iran and sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Their intent was to demonstrate that self-policing by the American Muslim community had prevented the spread of jihadism -- an obvious inaccuracy, but their ameliorative rhetoric gained the dubious report considerable attention and even credibility in American media.
Moosa has a blog titled "Dihliz: The Spaces Between," and he is a supporter of Zaytuna College, the flamboyantly promoted project for a purported "first accredited Islamic university" in the U.S. The Zaytuna enterprise is directed by Moosa's friends: Hamza Yusuf Hanson, the well-known radical Muslim preacher; Hanson's main disciple, Zaid Shakir; and the aforementioned Hatem Bazian, senior lecturer in UC Berkeley Near Eastern studies department and director of the "Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project" at the university's "Center for Race and Gender." With the guidance of such as Moosa, Hanson, and Bazian, it would seem that rather than becoming a Western-style university -- if it is ever realized as an institution -- Zaytuna would be a madrassa in the fundamentalist Deobandi tradition.

Ebrahim Moosa has received funding from the Carnegie Corporation to research madrassas, and he has announced the forthcoming publication of a new book on the topic, to be titled What Is a Madrassa? During his Berkeley lecture, it seemed that neither Moosa nor his audience had absorbed the recent news about the death of bin Laden or the lessons of a decade of bloodshed caused by Wahhabi and Deobandi fanaticism in the U.S., Western Europe, and the South Asian and other Muslim lands. For Moosa and those studying under him -- about whom he bragged of his mentorship and their adulation -- it was as if little in radical Islam was worthy of serious concern, much less disapproval. He made it all seem faraway and abstract. And a Berkeley audience that would supposedly pride itself on its antiracism and feminism sat passively through his shameful "performance."

Stephen Schwartz is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. He is a UC Berkeley alumnus and was a staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle from 1989 to 1999. He wrote this article for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

By Stephen Clark

Published May 21, 2011

| FoxNews.com

With a shocking altercation between Philadelphia police and a 25-year-old IT worker putting the spotlight back on open-carry gun laws, local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.

Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, told FoxNews.com that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.

"Philadelphia, in certain areas, is very dangerous," he said. "There's a lot of gun violence." Several officers have been killed in the line of duty in the past three years, local authorities say.

The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.

After Fiorino released the audiotape, he was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He now faces up to two years in prison.

"The police department and assistant district attorney are coming after me, in my opinion, to make an example of me because I stood up to them and exposed them for their lack of knowledge," Fiorino said, who called the trial "absolutely inappropriate and a waste of taxpayer money."

Fiorino said he did nothing reckless, nor did he endanger anyone's life.

"I had a gun pointed at my chest," he said.

Only seven states ban the practice of openly carrying guns, and Pennsylvania isn't one of them, according to OpenCarry.org, which advocates gun rights. In Philadelphia, a permit is required to carry handguns openly. But on Feb. 13 a police sergeant who was unaware of the law -- which dates back to at least 1996 when the state Supreme Court referenced it in an unrelated ruling -- stopped Fiorino, who was walking to an auto parts shop in Northeast Philadelphia with a gun on his hip.

Sgt. Michael Dougherty can be heard yelling out to Fiorino as "Junior," and asking him to show his hands as Fiorino protests having a gun pointed at his chest, prompting Dougherty to call for backup.

Dougherty grows increasingly agitated as Fiorino offers to show his permit when he is ordered to get on his knees, causing Dougherty to threaten to shoot if he makes a move. Dougherty then unleashed a string of profanities as the two argued over the legality of open carry.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty yells.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino responds."It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

When several other officers arrive, Fiorino is forced to the ground as he tries to explain that he's not breaking the law.

"Shut the f---- up!" Dougherty yells.

Police found the recorder while searching Fiorino's pockets. Officers eventually released him after speaking to the department's lawyer and being told that he was within his legal rights.

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey took issue with Dougherty's language and his lack of knowledge about the law during the altercation, Evers said, but not with the stop itself.

Evers, who has been an officer for nearly 20 years, said "very rarely do people open carry in Philadelphia." But he added he wasn't make excuses.

"We weren't as up on that crime code as we should have been," he said, adding that officers are being re-educated on open carry in response to the incident.

Dougherty is facing disciplinary action pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation, Evers said.

Fiorino's trial is scheduled to begin in July and the district attorney's office emphasizes that Fiorino's response to the police, not his gun rights, are at issue.

"This office respects and upholds the rights of a citizen to lawfully carry a firearm," Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said in a statement emailed to FoxNews.com. "The permit to carry a concealed weapon, however, does not mean that a permitholder can abuse that right by refusing to cooperate with police."

Jamerson said Fiorino "allegedly became belligerent and hostile" when police officers "were legally attempting to investigate a potential crime."

But Fiorino's attorney, Joseph Valvo, said the case is larger than Fiorino.

"It's my position that this entire prosecution is an effort by Philadelphia authorities to send a message to legitimate gun owners that open carry as a practice is not welcome in Philadelphia despite the fact that it's constitutionally protected behavior and that's offensive to me as a citizen and as a lawyer," Valvo said.

Gun rights advocates say they're are also offended.

John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org said, Philadelphia police have sent a clear message to gun owners that will chill their rights to openly carry.

"Even if it's legal, we can punish you financially and by disruptions in your life," he said.

But the district attorney's office dismissed as "ludicrous" claims it is seeking retaliation or trying to send a message.

"This office only charges people with offenses that we think we can prosecute," Jamerson said in an interview with FoxNews.com. "We just don't willy-nilly charge a person with a crime as retaliation for an incident."

The February incident wasn't the first time Philadelphia police officers have confronted Fiorino about his unconcealed gun. Since July, he has been stopped twice and he has had an audio recorder on him each time in case a cop is having a bad day or doesn't understand the law, he said.

His handgun was confiscated once for five months, but neither occasion escalated like the third encounter.

Fiorino said he studied Pennsylvania law for a year before he started openly carrying a gun. He said he carries the gun openly because some of his friends have been held up at gunpoint and he's not willing to allow himself to be helpless.

Police spokesman Evers said Fiorino appears to be inviting trouble from the law by "surreptitiously" recording his encounters with police.

"If you put everything together, it was more than him walking down the street to go to an auto parts store -- without a jacket in the middle of winter," Evers said.

But Fiorino denies that he was looking for trouble.

"How many times does a convenience store need to be robbed to be justified in putting up a security system?" he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/21/altercation-philadelphia-police-say-wont-look-way-open-carry-gun-owners/?test=latestnews

Israelis slam Obama's dangerous peace policies

Sunday, May 22, 2011 | Ryan Jones

Israeli officials on Sunday had harsh criticism for US President Barack Obama a day after he sided with Arab "peace" demands and strongly suggested that Israel is the obstacle to peace in the region.

In a televised foreign policy speech last Thursday, Obama stated that "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines," and insisted that "the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential."

A day later, Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. During their joint press conference following the meeting, Netanyahu flat-out rejected Obama's premise that peace must be based on the 1967 borders.

"While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines because these lines are indefensible [and] because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground," explained Netanyahu.

Netanyahu went on to note that "before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide. ...And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive."

The Israeli leader warned that basing a future peace deal on the 1967 borders, as the Arabs insist, will result in "a peace based on illusions [that] will eventually crash on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality."

Writing for the leftist Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, top political analyst Ari Shavit said that Obama's speech was good for Israel in that it opposed Palestinian efforts to unilaterally secure independence, slammed Mahmoud Abbas' unity deal with Hamas, and recognized Israel as the Jewish state, and called on the Palestinians to do the same.

But, Shavit said, Obama erred critically in his insistence on the 1967 borders.

"Instead of presenting the 1967 borders as the end of the process, Obama made them its start. Instead of tying them to the end of demands and the end of the conflict, they were tied to greater demands and continued conflict," wrote Shavit.

He continued:

"Without intending any harm, Obama presented Israel with a suicidal proposition: an interim agreement based on the 1967 borders. It's a proposal that runs along the same lines as the Hamas offer of a hudna - a long-term cease-fire."

Shavit warned that by setting the 1967 borders as the starting point for final status negotiations, Obama had allowed the Palestinians to make the "right" of millions of so-called "Palestinian refugees" to flood Israel the focal point of continued negotiations.

Israelis from across the political spectrum reject the Palestinian effort to demographically destroy the Jewish state by bringing in those millions of foreign-born Arabs. If the Palestinian "right of return" becomes the primary topic of discussion, there is little to no hope of concluding a peace deal.

Right-wing Israeli lawmaker Yaakov Katz (National Union) was less forgiving, cautioning in a letter to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):

"Don't fall for Obama's magical oratory. He put a gun to Israel's head and asked it to commit suicide."
According to some reports, Netanyahu recognized the danger of Obama's words, and the two leaders had a tense discussion during their White House meeting.

Netanyahu dismissed reports of increased tension between himself and Obama, insisting that their disagreements on certain details of the peace process are "differences of opinion...among friends."

But many believe the writing is on the wall, and Obama will soon push Israel into a dangerous peace deal. His clear suggestion that Israel's repeated stalling, rather than Palestinian peace infractions, is the main reason for a lack of peace today is telling.

"The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome," said Obama in his Thursday foreign policy speech. "The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation."

In his remarks following the White House summit, Obama said the current political changes across the Arab world offers an opportunity for his vision of peace to be realized.

"There is a moment of opportunity that can be seized as a consequence of the Arab Spring," said Obama.
In an interview last month with Israel Today, Israeli political analyst Yoram Ettinger said the opposite is in fact true. The reality, said Ettiger, is that the "Arab Spring" demonstrates just how fragile the Arab world is, and how foolish it would be to trust Israel's security to a Palestinian regime that could be swept aside in a moment.
Obama's reiteration that without
a state the Palestinians cannot reach their true potential and must live in humiliation also ignored realities on the ground.

In the upcoming issue of Israel Today, average Palestinians told us that they don't want an independent state ruled by Abbas and his thugs, and that they already live in peace and prosperity with the Jews around them.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/tabid/178/nid/22797/Default.aspx

Interfaith Service at St. John’s Parish in Montclair

BY Megan Schaefer | Thursday, May 19, 2011

This Sunday morning, May 22, at 10 a.m., the sounds of the
adhan — the Muslim call to prayer — will ring out in
St. John’s Episcopal Church Montclair.

While there’s no minaret at the church, the words of “Allahu akbar,” (God is greater) will none-the-less invite both Christians and Muslims to worship side by side. During the interfaith service, verses from the Holy Qur’an will complement readings from the Holy Bible, including during Communion, embracing the traditions of both religions.

Reverend Andrew Butler, Rector of St. John’s parish since September 1, 2010, decided to have this service in order to demonstrate that both Islam and Christianity stem from Abrahamic roots, as well as to dispell negative stereotypes about the Muslim faith.

“I’ve grown concerned about the demonization of Muslims. I want Montclair to develop an understanding of the religion.” Reverend Butler stated.

In addition to Butler, speakers will include Anisa Mehdi, a scholar and journalist who will describe what it means to be a Muslim in America and Abdul-Alim Mubarak-Rowe, an assistant Imam at Masjid Waarith ud Deen in Irvington, a media consultant to the American Muslim Alliance and a journalist.

The Reverend went on to say, “We are trying to find ways to blend our community through religion. It’s hard, but we can accomplish it through this organic event and working together through outreach and other ministries of compassion.”

This interfaith service isn’t only trying to blend religions, is also a way to invite the public to visit St. John’s Episcopal Church. After the service, at 11am, conversation about Islam and Islam in America will continue.

St John’s Episcopal Church
55 Montclair Avenue
Montclair
(973) 746-2474

http://www.baristanet.com/2011/05/interfaith-service-at-st-johns-parish-in-montclair/

Tunisian Islamist Leader Predicts the end of Israel

Obama: '67 borders reflects long-standing policy

By BRADLEY KLAPPER, Associated Press Bradley Klapper, Associated Press – 41 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama warned America's pro-Israel lobby on Sunday that the Jewish state will face growing isolation without a credible Middle East peace process. He defended his endorsement of a future Palestine based on Israel's 1967 boundaries but subject to negotiated land swaps as a public expression of long-standing U.S. policy.

After a contentious couple of days, Obama sought to alleviate concerns that his administration was veering in a pro-Palestinian direction by placing Thursday's major Mideast policy speech in the context of Israel's security.

Hours before his scheduled departure on a European trip, the president told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that the border lines he referred to reflected U.S. thinking dating back to President Bill Clinton, and that it needed to be brought out into the open.

"If there's a controversy, then it's not based in substance," Obama said in a well-received speech at a Washington convention center. "What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace."

The event was eagerly anticipated after Obama outlined his vision for the changing Middle East on Thursday at the State Department and then clashed in a White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday.

Netanyahu said in a statement after Obama's remarks that he supported Obama's desire to advance peace and resolved to work with the president to find ways to renew the negotiations. "Peace is a vital need for us all," he said.

The prime minister will address the pro-Israel lobby Monday and Congress on Tuesday.

Obama didn't back off from any of his earlier comments about what it would take to reach a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Repeating a large section of his Thursday speech, he said the result must be derived through negotiation, and that provisions must ensure Israeli border security and protections from acts of terrorism. An Israeli withdrawal from territory should be followed by Palestinians taking responsibility for security in a nonmilitarized state.

"By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967," Obama said. That was before Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

"It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation," the president said. "It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides."

Obama made a big effort to soothe any fears about his commitment to Israel's security. His emphasis on what the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed land swaps — would mean reflected a part of the equation that Netanyahu largely disregarded. And he said U.S. support for Israel's long-term security would never waver.

But Obama also stressed that peace efforts needed to gain ground quickly.

"The march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations — will continue to gain momentum in the absence of a credible peace process and alternative," he said.

The talk last week of the 1967 borders prompted bitter criticism from Netanyahu. He called the demarcation "indefensible" and issued a flat rejection of the idea, in a blunt display of differences after his meeting with Obama.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat refused to address some of the issues raised by Obama, including his criticism of a reconciliation agreement between President Mahmoud Abbas' U.S.-backed government and the Islamic militant group Hamas.

Erekat also declined to react to Obama's strident rejection of Palestinian efforts to win U.N. recognition of an independent Palestinian state without a peace deal with Israel.

"I want to hear from Mr. Netanyahu," Erekat said, calling for the Israeli leader to conduct peace talks according to the principles Obama laid out. "Before he says `yes,' it's a waste of time to talk about a peace process. We are waiting for him to respond to the president."

Obama was heading late Sunday for Ireland, followed by stops in England, France and Poland later in the week. He's looking to tend to old friends in the Western alliance and secure their help with the political upheaval across the Arab world and the protracted conflict in Afghanistan.

The trip comes amid the continued NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya and a seemingly intractable conflict between Moammar Gadhafi's forces and Libyan rebels. Talks will also encompass economic concerns, as European countries make stark cuts in public spending and Obama and congressional Republicans try to hash out how to cut spending to bring U.S. debt under control.
___
Associated Press writers Amy Teibel in Washington and Karin Laub in Ramallah, West Bank, contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_us/us_obama

Whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood

by Janet Doerflinger
FrontPage Magazine

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/20/whitewashing-the-muslim-brotherhood/

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/11330

How well did Middle East studies professors at American universities interpret the Egyptian uprising, particularly the risk of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power? Among fifteen prominent professors who commented publicly on the uprising before and immediately after Mubarak's ouster, fully thirteen believed that overthrowing Mubarak would lead to democracy in Egypt and that the Muslim Brotherhood would play a constructive role. Instead of explaining the Brotherhood's Islamist agenda to the American public, they naively discounted it.

UC Irvine professor Mark LeVine predicted "real democracy" and a new, more just world order. Fawaz Gerges (Sarah Lawrence College and London School of Economics) expected "a new game of politics that focuses on democracy, on pluralism." Ian Lustick (Penn) likened the Muslim Brotherhood to European Christian Democratic parties. Mark Tessler (Michigan) compared the Brotherhood to American social conservatives. Carrie Rosefsky Wickham (Emory) said the Brotherhood "has earned a place at the table, and no transition to a democratic process can occur without it." And Bruce Rutherford (Colgate) wrote, "In political documents and myriad interviews over the past fifteen years, the Brotherhood's leadership has expressed a commitment to democracy and human rights."

Oddly, Rutherford, author of the 2008 book Egypt after Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam, and Democracy in the Arab World, discussed restrictions placed on presidential candidates in the Brotherhood's 2007 platform, but he seemed unaware that the same document also sought to enshrine Shariah (Islamic law) as the sole source of legislation and proposed establishing a clerical council above the legislative and executive branches of government. And shortly after Mubarak fell, the Brothers sought the authority to appoint clergy, which would give them direct control over such a council. Furthermore, it's hard to discern a commitment to human rights in the words of Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who favors mutilating the genitals of young girls and exterminating world Jewry. Rutherford conceded that other Egyptians mistrust the Brotherhood, and even helpfully suggested ways it might reassure the wary Coptic Christians. Perhaps those Egyptians know something about the Muslim Brotherhood that Rutherford doesn't.

While the Brothers' ultimate goal is a universal Islamic caliphate governed by Shariah, they subscribe to a doctrine of stages, of which stage two, da'wa, or peaceful outreach, must precede conquest. Therefore, we cannot extrapolate their circumspection under Mubarak into a future when they might judge conditions ripe for seizing power. Gerges, LeVine, and Wickham all made this error.

Wickham, author of the excellent 2002 book Mobilizing Islam: Religion, Activism, and Political Change in Egypt, has a more nuanced view of the Muslim Brotherhood than her peers, but seems to wear rose-tinted glasses. Writing in early February for CNN.com and Foreign Affairs, she focused on reformers, most of whom—by her own account—have left the Brotherhood. At the same time, she overlooked the Brotherhood's official policies, which show these reformers have not succeeded in changing the organization, and she dismissed as mere "rhetoric" the leaders' statements. She also whitewashed the Brotherhood's early history, which included terrorizing Egyptian Jews and Christians and collaborating with the Nazis.

Of the fifteen professors, only one, Jamsheed Choksy (Indiana University), strongly opposed empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. Not coincidentally, he was the only one who considered American strategic interests. By contrast, Rashid Khalidi (Columbia) explicitly opposed interfering with a Brotherhood ascendency, even if it hurt our geopolitical standing. Opining about foreign policy in a strategic vacuum is nonsensical, so Jamsheed Choksy stood out as an exemplary public intellectual.

Choksy viewed the Arab upheaval as the beginning of a new power struggle between secular democracy and Iranian theocracy. In his writings, he argues that both the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Iran advocate creating Islamic states, acquiring atomic bombs, ending the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, and curbing Western influence in the Middle East. Iran covertly funds the Brotherhood and formed ties with Tunisian Islamist Ghannouchi during his long exile. And shortly after long-time American ally Hosni Mubarak fell, Brotherhood leader Kamal al-Hilbawi flew to Iran for an Islamic unity conference, where he declared his wish to emulate Iran. Because of the dangers of a potential Iranian nuclear umbrella and Iran's skill at co-opting unrest among its neighbors, Choksy urged Western countries to take a proactive role in supporting democratic elements versus Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood.

In stark contrast to Choksy, Juan Cole (Michigan), Gerges, and Lustick promoted the ruling Turkish Islamist AKP party as a model for the Muslim Brotherhood. But the AKP is a poor example on both strategic and democratic grounds. Since its 2002 election victory, the AKP has reoriented Turkey away from the United States and Israel and towards Iran. It refused to let the U.S. attack Iraq from Turkish soil in 2003, and the Turkish government participated in the sordid Mavi Marmara affair. Domestically, the AKP has systematically eroded democracy by disarming checks and balances and arresting journalists, military officers, and others they accuse of being involved in the apocryphal Ergenekon and Balyoz conspiracies. Turkey currently holds more journalists in prison than any other country, and between 700 and 1,000 Turkish journalists face legal proceedings. AKP Prime Minister Erdogan famously commented, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off," and he seems to be living up to his ideals.

Regrettably, most Middle East studies professors failed to elucidate the ideology and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and explain why they are incompatible with both liberal democracy and a stable world order. The Arab upheaval presents both opportunities and dangers, and it is crucial that we understand what's at stake. Each country is different. While we hope in time the burgeoning new spirit of democracy will bear fruit, in Egypt, early elections will favor the Brotherhood over the poorly-organized and leaderless demonstrators. The military, which remains in power, seems closer ideologically to the Brothers than the democrats. And because of their oligopolistic business interests, the military officers are particularly unsuited to solve Egypt's severe economic problems, so another round of revolution may be in order, with unknown results. What is long overdue is a revolution at American universities — in the struggle against the entrenched apologists for radical Islam, the first cries for freedom have barely been heard.

Janet Doerflinger is a writer whose interests include public affairs and foreign policy. This article was written for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insider's plans t...

Designation of Army of Islam

Media Note

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

May 19, 2011

The Secretary of State designated Army of Islam (AOI) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Secretary also designated AOI under section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224. AOI is a Gaza Strip-based terrorist organization founded in late 2005, which has been responsible for numerous terrorist acts against the Governments of Israel and Egypt, as well as American, British and New Zealander citizens. These actions include a number of rocket attacks on Israel, the 2006 kidnapping of two Fox News journalists in Gaza (an American and a New Zealander) and the 2007 kidnapping of a British citizen, journalist Alan Johnston, in Gaza. The group is also responsible for early 2009 attacks on Egyptian civilians in Cairo and Heliopolis, which resulted in casualties and deaths.
The group is led by Mumtaz Dughmush and operates primarily in the Gaza Strip and Palestinian territories. It subscribes to a Salafist ideology of global jihad together with the traditional model of armed Palestinian resistance. AOI has previously worked with Hamas and is attempting to develop closer al-Qa’ida contacts.

On May 7 the group released a eulogy for Osama bin Laden via its Al Nur Media Foundation.
These designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to abandon terrorism. The consequences of these designations include a prohibition against U.S. persons providing material support or resources to, or engaging in other transactions with, AOI, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States, or the control of U.S. persons. The Department of State took these actions in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury.

PRN: 2011/799

Netahyahu: 1967 Lines Are Indefensible, Can't Negotiate With a Governme...

Egypt: Reports of "surge in disappearances of Coptic girls"

Again, what better subterfuge is there than to accuse your enemy of what you yourself have engaged in for years? And the fabricated stories of Muslim women (or alleged converts to Islam) being abducted by Christians in Egypt have indeed provided a handy cover for a new string of disappearances.
Abductions of Christian girls are nothing new, as Coptic Pope Shenouda III observed even in 1976 that "there is a practice to convert Coptic girls to embrace Islam and marry them under terror to Muslim husbands." And our own archives are full of over seven years of such reports. Meanwhile, the world looks the other way, or now pleads, "but, but... Tahrir Square!"
Wishful thinking in Western think tanks and governments won't un-abduct these girls and women. As Islamic groups -- "Salafis" and others -- are emboldened by the lack of challenges they have encountered in the wake of the revolution, there will only be more stories like this. "No Going Back for Egypt's Converted Copts," by Angela Shanahan for The Australian, May 20:

Amid the upheavals in Egypt since January, reports have begun to emerge of a surge in disappearances of Coptic girls.

One priest in Cairo estimates that at least 21 young girls, many as young as 14, have disappeared from his parish alone.

In most cases, when a Christian girl who disappears is found by her family, she has been converted to Islam and married. The Coptic authorities, have even set up a series of refuges in monasteries to handle the growing numbers of girls who wish to return to their families, many of whom are not accepted by their family of origin.

But a worse problem for these women is that their conversion to Islam is irreversible.

It is worth noting that this is a refreshingly frank report.

Religion is stated on Egyptian ID documents and even though secular law provides for reversions, under the growth of sharia they are very difficult, except for those affording legal advocacy.

This situation is not unique to Egypt. There have been consistent reports of girls being coerced into Islamic conversion and marriage in India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

That many of these girls are initially runaways is not in doubt. However, there is also evidence that a huge number are converted and married against their will.

The situation was documented in a controversial report published in 2009 on conversion and forced marriage of Coptic women by Washington DC-based Christian Solidarity International. The authors are Washington academic Michele Clark and Egyptian Coptic broadcast journalist Nadia Ghaly, based in Melbourne.

Between 2005 and 2008 they interviewed and documented 50 Egyptian women, mostly aged between 14 and 25, who had decided to return to their families. All claim to have been tricked, coerced or raped, converted to Islam and married. Most of the interviewees were trying to reconvert to their Christian identity, with limited or no success. The report's conclusions were printed in several major publications, including Forbes magazine.

Since the so-called Arab Spring, and the ensuing riots at Christian churches, the authors are trying to bring the subject of forced conversion and marriage to greater prominence.

Riots by Muslims. Christians aren't being sent out into the street enraged by Sunday's homily.

Both groups live extremely closed, highly traditional separate lives and the norms surrounding marriage and sex are almost medieval, says Ghaly.

So, for example, it is not unheard of for a young Christian girl from a poor family to run away from an arranged marriage. Yet a high proportion of these women claim coercion, even rape, despite the shame that such a claim will cause if the girl wishes to return.

Many claim they were kept as virtual slaves. Others who were able to leave could not bring their children. Ghaly claims this is more than overt religious oppression, and amounts to "a form of cultural genocide".

She cites a document published by Human Rights Watch in November 2007, which says that even if Coptic women can obtain a divorce from their Muslim husband, those who wish to return to Christianity "meet with refusal and harassment from the Civil Status Department of the Ministry of Interior".

Under sharia law, reconversion is considered apostasy punishable by death.

Cultural baggage? The innovation of modern "extremists?" No. That comes from Muhammad's own orders.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/egypt-reports-of-surge-in-disappearance-of-coptic-girls.html

OOTDnews