An Afghan parliamentary delegation, that recently visited the Islamic Republic, has reported that over 3000 Afghans there are awaiting their execution…

Reporting back to the 249 member lower house of the bicameral parliament, Mr. Mujahid stated, “They (Officials of the Iranian Supreme Court) have provided us these figures that in 5630 Afghans are in Iranian prisons and from them more than 3000 of them have been sentenced to death on the basis of final verdicts of the Supreme Court.”

How much longer will we have to wait for a demonstration at a Canadian university against the “Islamic Republic’s war on Muslims”?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The army is not the post office or the tax department. It’s entire raison d’etre is security. Because of its unique mission and the practical realities of war, the armed services already gets away with rules that would not be tolerated in any other career field — women are discouraged from direct combat roles. Gays operate under a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. These rules are clearly discriminatory, yet society for the most part accepts and understands these restrictions.

Would rules prohibiting Muslims serving in the armed forces fall into this category of non-egalitarian yet necessary rules? It’s tempting to think so and frankly, seems worthy at least of discussion at this point — though we’re not quite there yet.

Many pundits and army representatives have noted it would be better to have even more Muslims serving in the armed forces. They say this for reasons of multiculturalism and the responsibility of all sectors of society to do their part to defend democracy. But there are more practical front-line reasons as well. Muslim countries will be overrepresented as centers for chaos, thugocracies and terror in the coming decades. Their sclerotic societies are far more likely to degenerate into Hamas-type territories than into a benign democratic Caliphate. So if Western soldiers are going to be sent anywhere, it will probably be into these types of places.

Continuing with this line of thinking, part of the problem troops sent into these countries in connecting with local populations is inability to communicate and adapt tactics based on local cultural habits. In a land where innocent misunderstandings can quickly evolve into insane firefights to safeguard “honor”, you want to keep potential instigating incidents to an absolute minimum. It makes sense for American troops to receive “cultural” training and direction in the field from those who can better understand conditions and communicate with the people on the ground. They need more people who speak Arabic and can talk to the locals in a way that they’ll understand, while listening for signs of danger from double-talking “allies”.

But according to the Americans’ own estimates, there are no more than a few thousand Muslim soldiers in their combined armed forces. Could the armed forces meet these needs for training and front-line communication through unarmed civilian contractors accompanying the troops? Undoubtedly, this could be done, removing the access of American Muslim soldiers to guns and explosives they could turn on their fellow soldiers. Besides removing this direct threat, the morale of many non-Muslim soldiers could be positively affected, with troops no longer distracted by the possibility of getting fragged by a suddenly pious fire-team partner.

As things stand right now, such a course of action would be beyond the pale. But if another Fort Hood-type attack occurs in the next few months, or we even see multiple copycat atrocities, American generals will be hard-pressed to keep principles of diversity and American egalitarianism above the lives and well-being of their soldiers. So we’ll see what happens.

But in the meantime, another insidious danger lurks. American soldiers and their fellow citizens have been reminded (as if anyone with a functioning brain would require such a lesson) that the proclaimed desire to see Infidels beheaded, with boiling oil poured down their throats, is not merely an eccentric example of cultural diversity to be tolerated or ignored. But will the troops, or law enforcement, or ordinary citizens still only report threatening behavior that meets that threshold of brutality?

In other words, does someone actually have to advocate suicide bombing in front of multiple witnesses in order to get turfed from the army? Will there need to be proof of email correspondence with Al Queda cells? If a soldier — or private citizen, for that matter — advocates merely “harming” Americans or “making them suffer”, will they get a free pass? How about if a sergeant starts going on about the need to impose Sharia law and establish the Islamic Caliphate (in benign theoretical terms and while off-base, of course). What happens then?

The commanders of the American armed forces should lay down clear and sweeping rules about the kinds of behavior that will get a soldier discharged immediately to mitigate the risk of future security breaches.

Some will say that such rules will only force the hard-core sleeper cases to simply be more careful at hiding their hate, while bluntly curtailing freedom of speech.

But as much of a pessimist as I can be sometimes, I doubt there are more than a handful of Nadal Hasan’s brutal type left in the American armed services. If there are more, they will probably get taken care of in short order as their spooked and no-longer silent colleagues report the clues they’ve seen. Besides, a force meant to safeguard freedoms was never intended to also safeguard the freedom of citizens to commit terror and treason. Again, that need for vigilance and vocalization, even at the risk of causing offense to the innocent, applies to Americans both in uniform and on the civilian street.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The satellite the Koreans were trying to put into orbit sadly fell back to Earth, burning in the atmosphere. The plucky Koreans are surely undeterred. You can depend on them to ultimately succeed.

As for the peace talks I mentioned, they will probably go nowhere fast, just like most recent efforts. But even if they do make progress, it really doesn’t matter. Real peace, not just fragile cease-fires pretending to be peace, will require a different kind of thrust than mere diplomacy.

Let us imagine that the latest announcement of a new beginning for peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians leads to something really genuine. Further suppose that talks gather momentum, somehow breaking the perennial deadlock of settlements, borders and the status of Jerusalem. Finally, let us visualize, on the eve of the signing of this historic treaty, the leaders of all of the Arab states and Iran are swept up by this peace fever and line up at the UN to sign a 1000-year peace treaty with Israel.

It would not matter.

Treaties may get both sides to not shoot at each other (which for the most part, has already been achieved, even between Israel and the Arab states with which it is still formally at war). But a lasting peace in the Middle East will not come so long as terrorists (think Hamas and Hezbollah) or revolutionaries (a la the innumerable Islamist political opposition groups) threaten to overthrow the Arab regimes. The horrendous social and economic conditions of the Arab make it likely that any peace agreement that might be reached in the short term would be overturned by radicals aching to tear up those treaties the deposed regime made with the “Zionist entity”.

This is not to let Israel and its backers off the hook. Peace in the region is still a far greater guarantor to Israel’s security than it’s current military superiority. But to truly achieve something more than a decades-long ceasefire, radicalism among its neighbors must be squelched.

Anti-Semitism plays a part, but is certainly not the most important reason why increasing numbers of Arabs are turning to radical Islam. Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Iran and others just have too many young people, not enough jobs to go around, and no ability to change their situation so long as the thuggish regimes of the Middle East continue to hold sway. To drain the swamp of radicalism, these states themselves will have to open up their sclerotic political and economic systems, provide some measure of freedom and prosperity to their people and thus engender the kind of stability that can lead to true peace in the Middle East.

This brings us back to Korea. From a xenophobic and technologically backward hermit kingdom at the turn of the twentieth century, this place went on to be in turn an enslaved Japanese colony, a splintered yet liberated American protectorate, and finally a devastated war-torn mass of ruined villages and refugees the North Koreans left in their wake in the South. In 1950, this tiny country was broken, worse off even than the Arab Middle East of the time.

Sixty years later, South Korea is the 15th largest economy in the world, with an entrenched democratic political system and, despite the temporary setback of this week, an active space program. No one worries that South Korea, or a radical group within that country, will suddenly provoke war with it’s neighbor (which is particularly nice, since now we only have to worry about the North Koreans setting off a war along the most heavily fortified border on the planet). And Korea is merely one of the more dramatic examples of what a nation bereft of natural resources but willing to invest in its human capital can achieve within two generations.

But back in the Middle East, all of the Arab states, comprising a far larger population and geographic area than South Korea, have a combined GDP less than the country of Spain (at one time a Muslim outpost in Europe). Space program? The closest thing to an Arab astronaut we might see in the next while could only be a Hamas suicide bomber strapped to an augmented Ashoura rocket.

The point being, that for real, sustainable peace between Israel and its avowed enemies to take hold, extreme transformations must take place in the Arab world and Iran. Economic development alone is no guarantor of peace, since certain Arab states and Iran may simply continue to buy more weapons or fund terrorist groups. The transformation will be more about their young people getting trained to produce and sell the products and ideas that the rest of the world wants, rather than spending long hours considering the evil of Western influence and the extent to which Jews are biologically related to pigs and monkeys. It will be about political leaders focusing on building themselves up, not on the evils of foreign devils. These societies surely won’t change in order to make peace with Israel, but rather because this kind of development is what their people want. Peace could simply be a by-product.

With great resolve from the concerned nations of the Middle East to meet their internal challenges and defeat radicalism, “peace in the Middle East” can mean far more than just ink on paper .

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Evidently, Jund Ansar Allah accused Hamas of “not being Islamist enough”. The upstarts got sick and tired of waiting for Gaza’s rulers to declare an “Islamic Emirate” and went ahead and did it themselves (perhaps even these whackos recognized a territory the size of Gaza wouldn’t quite cut it as a “Caliphate”, given the grand imperial connotation).

Anyone else sick of the latest demonstration that while ordinary Palestinian people suffer from shortages of food, fuel and medicine brought on by the closure of Gaza’s borders by Israel and Egypt, the Hamas rulers and this terror group seem to have no problem at all smuggling in endless supplies of ammunition and rockets? Priorities, people? Just throwing it out there.

The video below provides ample insight into Hamas’ moderate views that Jund Ansar Allah thinks don’t quite make the cut

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Dr. Qemany’s crime? Advocating a secular movement in a society thoroughly penetrated by Islamist thugs.

Read his heart-breaking appeal. Spread the word.

In the context of my academic research and practical work I have been able to provide an important set of motion in the stagnant Egyptian situation. I have attempted to make reforms from the inside and worked on the disarmament of those who exploit Islam politically and make it a source of livelihood at the expense of the simple, good people of Egypt. I have therefore created a secular movement that has imposed its presence, although still at a formative stage.

In a free ballot of Egyptian thinkers, I was granted the State Award for Social Sciences, on June 25th 2009. The hard-line radical militant groups considered that the state has adopted this intellectual secular trend officially, infuriating the mentioned group which called on the State to withdraw the prize with the declaration of my defection from Islam and excommunication which means in our country, I could be slain; any citizen is allowed to kill me and be awarded by God in Paradise.

The following parties have participated in the statements of excommunication (takfir), noting that none of them have read a single word of what I wrote, and have not been able to hold a dialogue to discuss my ideas:

1 – Al-Azhar Scholars Front headed by Yahya Ismail Habloush, which issued the first statement of excommunication on July 10, 2009.
2 – The Islamic Group (condemned terrorist group) issued a statement of excommunication on July 10, 2009.
3 – The Muslim Brotherhood hailed the excommunication, and were represented at the parliament by Hamdi Hassan requesting the withdrawal of the award and the declaration of religious-defection and excommunication on July 7, 2009. The Muslim Brotherhood also declared my excommunication on Mohwar Channel on July 11, 2009 and on Al Faraeen Channel on July 13, 2009.
4 – The Salafi (Fundamentalist) Group (condemned terrorist group) dedicated its Internet site named “The Egyptians” for excommunicating me and incitements to kill me, since the date of obtaining the prize until today.
5 – Al Nas channel, which represents the theoretical side of bloody terrorism which declared excommunication and demanded “all citizens who can” to kill me immediately, on July 24 and 25, 2009.
6 – The Hisbah Sheikh Youssef Al Badri in Egypt declared on the channel “ON TV” on July 3, 2009 that I have cursed God and the Prophet Mohammad in my books even though I have challenged him and others to refer to a single text written by me where such claims were made. Due to this proclamation, he has issued an incitement to kill me.
7 – A member of the Al-Azhar scholars, Sheikh Mohammed El Berry, on Mihwar TV Channel on July 11, 2009 announced my excommunication as he also said that he did not read any of my writings since he does not read “garbage”. He repeated the same words on the channel “ON TV” on July 22, 2009
8 – Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the former Chairman of the “State Religious Affairs Advisory Board”, issued a statement declaring my infidelity and calling for slaying me for “insulting the Prophet of Islam, the God of Islam” on July 24, 2009.
9 – The Sheiks of more than 5,000 mosques on Friday prayers on July 24, 2009 declared the incitement to kill me, especially in my hometown, which led to the rampage against my family and relatives, and that could possibly evolve to some serious consequences in the coming weeks.

Due to the above, I call upon the conscience of all humanity in the free world to come to me and my children’s rescue by providing moral support and the condemnation and denunciation of the radical thinking with quick solutions to save us from the danger that is luring around us. This is a distress call to all bodies and individuals. A call to the consciences of every free individual in the world.

Signed
Sayed Mahmoud El Qemany- Researcher

Thanks to Terry for locating the distress call.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Some would contend that there’s nothing to defend here. Letter-writer Abubakar N. Kasim makes the case that the killings of four females in the Shafia family, even if it were motivated by imported cultural values, ought to be treated by authorities as an “ordinary” murder investigation. He believes the case is being used to tarnish Islam and intimidate Muslims across Canada.

As well, he Stageleft blog suggests Canadian authorities looking to crack down on so-called “honour killings” implies guilt of cultural insensitivity or racism. In his view, honour killings are premeditated murder; why should they be treated differently than any other type of murder? The Public Safety Minister must be a bigot.

Before we get into refuting the ideas of Mr. Kasim and Stageleft, it’s worth noting that much of the news coverage of the Shafia killings omitted any reference to Islam or Muslims. Especially early on in the case, but continuing to today, articles mention the possibility of a cultural factor in reference to the practice of “honour killings” yet fail to clearly define just which culture it is that we’re talking about. The reader is left to guess based on the names of the alleged killers and their victims. A case of self-censorship by reporters? If so, why?

A few examples of this odd journalistic omission are presented below (but a quick search on Google will furnish many more, if you’re of a mind):

* Shafia family will plead not guilty in alleged ‘honour killing’: lawyer
* Oldest canal victim feared for her life: siblings
* ‘Honour killing’ alleged in four deaths

In any case, Mr. Kasim and Stageleft are wrong. There is precedent for treating “honour” crimes more harshly in Canada and it’s got nothing to do with cultural insensitivity – quite the opposite, actually. According to our criminal code:

The courts may define the motivations of hate, bias or prejudice as aggravating factors when sentencing an offender for other offences, such as assault, damage to property, threatening, or harassment. The result is usually a more severe punishment

The victims of “honour killings” and the domestic violence that doesn’t always rise to the level of murder are always women. That these killings are perpetrated exclusively by a definable cultural minority should not be used to protect the perpetrators. It just makes it easier to understand that these crimes are hate crimes, in the same way that lynchings of blacks by whites, firebombings of synagogues and bashing of homosexuals are (categorically, if not legally designated) hate crimes.

Taking action to protect women against honour killings with better use of existing tools of our justice system isn’t bigoted. It’s the least a Public Safety minister can do when it comes to dealing with an increasing and abhorrent crime in Canada. Canada’s multicultural society is not required to accept all cultural imports, particularly those insidious abusive types of behavior that come from from countries where women have fewer protections.

Hat tip: Excellent analysis by Werner Patels on the need to confront the phenomenon of honour killings and eliminate the red herring of Islamophobia.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

An excerpt: This entire escapade is not just a threat to Maclean’s and Steyn specifically but to journalists generally, and also to pamphleteers, bloggers and just about anyone who might occasionally express a public opinion on a subject of public interest. It also threatens to invite the wrath of the Supreme Court of Canada, which should be expected if Maclean’s and Steyn find themselves forced to fight this all the way up. The result could cause great harm to the credibility and the legal clout of human rights tribunals across the country.

First, they came for Steyn…

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.