Thursday, September 30, 2010

Jihad Watch Mr. Robert Spencer. on coptic crisis and international minorities - vedio













Hello
Please find blow the links for the interview with Mr. Robert Spencer. He is the director of Jihad watch as well as a very well known author of many books such as "the truth about mohamad".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmoEZlC-xvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q15w0wChtwo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7L4O8ZfHhs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euZWGZ19NNU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAlSlCsXPxM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z-yH50Ju9k


Thank you
--
Nabil Mikhail -
Human rights activist,
President of Peace for Minorities Organization,
protecting minorities in the Muslim World.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

The Two Faces of Feisal Rauf

Journalist and author Fareed Zakaria has made some grave accusations against those who oppose the building of the Islamic center near Ground Zero, and has predicated his own approval of the project on the moderateness of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Zakaria wrote that Abdul Rauf “has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical — but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day.”

Yes, indeed — you are likely to read similar “stuff” on the Huffington Post, since Rauf has written there. But how can that possibly constitute a convincing defense of Rauf? Many Huffington Post writers are anti-American, and believe that the U.S. had 9/11 “coming to it.” They still have not learned that 9/11 had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy.

Rauf evidently has not learned that lesson either. On Sept. 30, 2001, 60 Minutes host Ed Bradley asked him if he thought the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks. Rauf replied, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. . . . We have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”

It is worth noting Rauf’s words carefully. The atrocity is characterized in the passive: “a crime that happened.” This allows Rauf to avoid stating that it was Islamists who committed it. In his book What’s Right with Islam, Rauf even objects to the term “Islamism” — one that was actually concocted to avoid indicting Islam directly — since, he argues, it falsely implies that Islam is the source of the militancy.

The United States is accused of being an “accessory,” of somehow having “created” Osama bin Laden. According to Rauf on page one of What’s Right with Islam, because many Muslims around the world support Osama bin Laden, the United States is doing something wrong.

And incidentally, what Rauf wrote in the Huffington Post, soon after the rigged Iranian elections of June 12, 2009, is evidence that he is an admirer of the tyrannical theocracy in that country. After endorsing the “official results,” Rauf praised the 1979 revolution: “The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was in part to depose the shah, who had come to power in 1953 after a CIA-sponsored coup overthrew democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddeq. And in part it was an opportunity to craft an Islamic state with a legitimate ruler according to Shia political theory. . . . After the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took the Shiite concept of the Rightly Guided Imam and created the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, which means the rule of the jurisprudent. This institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. The Council of Guardians serves to ensure these principles.”

Then Rauf claims that the elections in Iran were a slow-but-sure step towards democracy: “[Obama’s] administration understands that what is going on now in Iran is an attempt by the Iranian people to live up to their own ideals. Just as American democracy developed over many years, the United States recognizes that this election is part of the process of an evolving democracy in Iran.” I wonder what Iranians in exile, or those risking their lives to protest that hideous regime, think about Rauf’s complacency about what is happening in Iran.

Here is Rauf’s advice to the president: “He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution — to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.”

Rauf praises the tyrants in Iran and is apparently ready to accept their money for the Islamic center at Ground Zero, but he fails to explain the term vilayet-i-faqih to American audiences. The term, literally “the guardianship of the jurist,” was developed by Ayatollah Khomeini in a series of lectures in 1969, and became the guiding principle of the government of Iran after he came to power in 1979. The concept is but an extension and slight modification of the Shia idea of walī, in which Ali and the imams succeeding him were considered guardians of the community, acting on behalf of God himself. Under this concept, the people of Iran are the wards of the ayatollahs, and the people of Iran owe the guardians absolute obedience in accordance with Sura IV verse 59 (”O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you . . .”). Secondly, the exclusive right of interpretation of Islamic law belongs to religious scholars. Thus there is nothing democratic about it — its totalitarian character should be evident. Rauf’s endorsement of this principle makes him the unequivocal defender of totalitarian Khomeinism.

CONTRADICTIONS AND PREVARICATIONS

Rauf says one thing to Western audiences and another to Muslim audiences. He is quite capable of writing reassuring things, as in the New York Daily News earlier this year: “My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.”

But when presented with actual opportunities to “interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society,” Rauf and most of his fellow Muslims decline. Nearly ten years ago, I was the guest of the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies (PISAI) of Rome. PISAI is dedicated to interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. But as the director at the time said to me, “There is no real dialogue, since Muslims never reciprocate the goodwill gestures made by the Christians. The result is we sit down together, and the Christians say what a wonderful religion Islam is, and the Muslims say what a wonderful religion Islam is.” Rauf was invited to give a sermon in a church and did so, but he never reciprocated by inviting a Christian to give a sermon in a mosque. This, for Rauf and his ilk, would be unthinkable.

Like Tariq Ramadan, also touted by the unvigilant and ill-informed as a great moderate Muslim, Rauf is a master of double talk and prevarication. When asked if he considered Hamas a terrorist organization, as it is labeled by the State Department, Rauf ducked, weaved, and sidestepped: “Look, I’m not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. There was an attempt in the ’90s to have the U.N. define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that.” The interviewer persisted. Rauf, clearly flustered, replied, “I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”

This unwillingness to criticize Hamas is hardly surprising, given his views on Israel. In a letter published on Nov. 27, 1977, in the New York Times, he wrote, “In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. . . . In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.”

While he indulges in ecumenical blather in front of Western audiences, Rauf reveals his true intentions and philosophy in Muslim newspapers, magazines, and websites. He spells out in unequivocal terms his desire to establish sharia in the West, to reestablish the Islamic caliphate, and to do away with the separation of religion and state.

For instance, in an article for the Jordanian newspaper al-Ghad entitled “Sharing the Essence of Our Beliefs,” Rauf wrote, “People asked me right after the 9/11 attacks as to why do movements with political agendas carry [Islamic] religious names? Why call it ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ or ‘Hezbollah (Party of Allah)’ or ‘Hamas’ or ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’? I answer them this — that the trend towards Islamic law and justice begins in religious movements, because secularism has failed to deliver what the Muslim wants, which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . . . The only law that the Muslim needs exists already in the Koran and the Hadith.” A state based on the Koran and Hadith could only be called a theocracy.

In an interview he gave in 2007 to the website HadieIslam, Rauf said, “So the question in our era throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians is [whether] an Islamic state can be established in more than just in a single form or mold, [whether] it can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed. . . . And we also suggest to the governors and political institutions to consult [Muslim] religious institutions and [Muslim] personalities in the field as to assure their decision making to reflect the spirit of sharia.”

In the Washington Post, Rauf commented on a 2008 lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, about sharia and British law. The archbishop hinted that the application of sharia in certain circumstances seemed unavoidable if we want to achieve cohesion and take seriously people’s religions. Rauf writes, “The addition of Sharia law to ‘the law of the land’, in this case British law, complements, rather than undermines, existing legal frameworks. The Archbishop was right. It is time for Britain to integrate aspects of Islamic Law.” Rauf immediately follows this suggestion with a reassuring proviso: “Sharia law is unequivocally clear that Muslims who live as minorities in non-Muslim majority communities are required to abide by the law of the land. That doesn’t prevent British Muslims from practicing aspects of Sharia that don’t conflict with British law . . .”

However, there is a coda to that sentence: “. . . or from seeking changes in British law.” Here we have the real intentions of Rauf: abide by Western laws for now but seek to change them until they reflect sharia. Neither the Archibishop of Canterbury nor Rauf ever spell out how all this was going to work in practice: Are they asking for parallel courts? How exactly would sharia “complement” British law? Would sharia courts be voluntary? Would Muslim apostates be executed? Adulterers stoned to death? Would non-Muslims be judged by Islamic laws?

The 64 sharia courts that already operate in Britain severely undermine the rights of women, as has been thoroughly documented in an important study by the group One Law For All.

Part Two

The problems with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s book What’s Right with Islam begin with the title. As Andrew McCarthy noted on National Review Online, the book, whose full title is now What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West, was previously called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America; before that, it was published in Malaysia as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America post-9/11. In one edition published by HarperCollins, the copyright page told us that the “edition was made possible through a joint effort of The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the office of Interfaith and Community Alliance of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Funding for this project was provided by IIIT.” The HarperCollins edition no longer contains this telling information, and with reason. McCarthy reveals that both ISNA and IIIT have promoted Hamas, and were demonstrated “by the Justice Department [to be] unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.”

Dawa is the invitation, addressed to men by God and the prophets, to believe in the true religion, Islam. The term can mean propaganda, but more specifically, it refers to Islamic missionary work, which is not limited to efforts to convert individuals but includes efforts to convert entire societies and establish Islamic states. Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, predicts that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” through Dawa.

In the book’s chatty and ostentatiously friendly preface, Rauf tells us that he is an American and a Muslim, and proud to be both. Then comes this sentence: “September 11, a day that will live in infamy for having provoked the United States into a war, confused and frightened many non-Muslim Americans about Islam.” Note that in this description of why 9/11 will “live in infamy,” there is not a word about Islamic terrorists killing 2,976 people. We saw earlier how Rauf characterized 9/11 as “a crime that happened”; now it is a provocation.

It is not unusual for Rauf to dismiss or ignore the victims of 9/11. During a lecture he gave in Australia in 2005, Rauf said, “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was secretary of state and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.”

In his preface and introduction, Rauf presents a picture of Islam that is historically almost totally false, and doctrinally so watered down as to be hardly recognizable as Islam. Like President Obama in his Cairo speech — not surprising, since Rauf claims the speech was drawn from his writings — Rauf pegs the number of Muslims in the United States at between 5 and 7 million. This is a common Muslim tactic: to overstate their numbers, like the frog in the fable who puffed himself up. The real number, according to the Pew Research Center, is something like 2.5 million. That is less than 1 percent of the population.

Many devout Muslims are aware of the abysmal lack of scientific achievements of the Islamic world in the last thousand years — but they commonly have recourse to the ingenious notion that the Koran anticipated all the Western scientific discoveries of the last thousand years; thus one can find electricity, quantum mechanics, relativity, and embryology in it. Rauf does something similar with the Islamic world’s lack of American values, claiming that “America is substantively an ‘Islamic’ country, by which I mean a country whose systems remarkably embody the principles that Islamic law requires of a government.” For gullible multiculturalists and Western liberals, the thought that the U.S. Constitution is sharia compliant is most reassuring — “Ah! There is no real clash of civilizations after all. Rauf is a true moderate who wants to get along.” And for an Islamic triumphalist, it is a way to infiltrate Western institutions and eventually destroy them from within.

And of course, Rauf’s claim is complete nonsense. Sharia is totally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Women are inferior under Islamic law — their testimony in a court of law is worth half that of a man; their movement is strictly restricted; they cannot marry non-Muslims. Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries also have inferior status under Islamic law; they may not testify against a Muslim. In Saudi Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammad, who said that “two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia,” non-Muslims are forbidden to practice their religion, build houses of worship, possess religious texts, etc. Non-believers or atheists in Muslim countries do not have “the right to life”; all the major law schools, whether Sunni or Shia, agree that they are to be killed. (Muslim doctors of law generally divide sins into great sins and little sins. Of the 17 great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery, etc.) Slavery is recognized as legitimate in the Koran. Muslim men are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves, and they are allowed to take possession even of married female slaves. One does not have the right to change one’s religion if one is born into a Muslim family; here is how the great commentator Baydawi sees the matter: “Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.” And here are the punishments in store for transgressors against the Holy Law: amputation, flogging, crucifixion, and stoning to death.

In short, Islam and the United States Constitution represent totally different political theories. Under the latter, sovereignty lies with the will of the people; under the former, it lies with God. The U.S. Constitution emphasizes the rights of the individual, which no mythical or mystical collective goal or will can justifiably deny, whereas collectivity has a special sanctity attached to it under Islam.

Muslim countries and scholars have long recognized this incompatibility, and have accordingly issued their own human-rights schemes, such as the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1990 by 45 foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights of 1981, whose Islamic character is evident from the start (there are frequent quotes from the Koran and Hadith, and in the formulation of rights there are frequent references to Islamic concepts and principles).

Rauf is also misleading, and much of the time untruthful, when discussing suicide. The Koran is rather ambiguous; some Muslim scholars have taken Sura verses 27 through 31 to be a prohibition against suicide. But Hamas spokesmen, for example, do not use the term “suicide bomber,” but martyr (shahid), since those who blow themselves up fighting Israel and the U.S. die in the noblest of all causes, jihad — which is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Koran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined for the purpose of advancing Islam. While suicide is forbidden, martyrdom is everywhere praised, welcomed, and urged. Here are some quotes from the respected Hadith collection of Imam Muslim: “By the Being in Whose Hand is my life, I love that I should be killed in the way of Allah; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in His way”; “The Prophet said, ‘Nobody who enters Paradise will ever like to return to this world even if he were offered everything, except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him.’”

THE FORGOTTEN BOOK

The tactic of using two different discourses — one for a Western audience and quite a different one exclusively for a Muslim audience — is apparent when one examines and contrasts Rauf’s earlier book, Islam, A Sacred Law: What Every Muslim Should Know about Shariah, published in 2000, with What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West, published in 2004.

In his earlier book, explaining sharia to a Muslim audience, Rauf unequivocally defines jihad as “fighting a just war” and as “the effort applied in waging a war,” and a mujahid as “a warrior, or fighter” — in other words, jihad is used in a military sense, and only in a military sense. Yet in the later work, Rauf introduces the doctrinally suspect notions of “greater and lesser jihad,” which, as Prof. Reuven Firestone explains in his study Jihad, is nowhere to be found in the canonical collections of Hadith. Also in the later book, Rauf defines jihad as essentially “defensive,” but he knows perfectly well that Muslims include in their definition of a “defensive” war one waged against those who oppose the struggle to spread Islam.

Rauf also tries to enroll the Christian notion of a “just war” into his apologetics, likening it to jihad. But Ibn Khaldun explained the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad thus: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and the [obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. . . . The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. . . . Islam is under obligation to gain power over nations.”

While, in his later work, Rauf gushes about “our common Abrahamic faith,” and about the U.S. Constitution’s being “Sharia compliant,” in the earlier work, he states (rather than argues) that Islam and sharia are far superior to Judaism and Christianity, and also to any man-made laws such as those in the U.S. Constitution. He accuses both Judaism and Christianity of having “eviscerated the spiritual dimension from Sacred Law.” Islam is, says Rauf, repeating Sura 3 verse 110, “the best religion on earth.”

Rauf also makes a clear distinction between the principles guiding a Muslim judge and those guiding a Western one: “The Muslim judge explicitly((SPACE))’reports to God.’ The judge who sits in a Western court is only explicitly responsible to the Constitution, the interpretations of a civil law and its rules.” Hence by its very nature, Islam cannot abide by a separation of religion and state, and is diametrically opposed to the political principles enshrined in the Constitution. Rauf, as a Muslim steeped in Islamic theology, cannot possibly relegate religion entirely to the personal; he must forever strive to introduce sharia as a guiding political principle in the public sphere, and eventually replace all man-made laws with God-given ones. In this sense, for Rauf, there cannot be a “moderate Muslim,” since all true Muslims by definition must demand to live under God-given laws, embodied in sharia. Rauf himself notes the totalitarian nature of Islam: “The Shari’ah thus covers every field of law — public and private, national and international — together with enormous amounts of material that Westerners would not regard as law at all, because the basis of the Shari’ah is the worship of, and obedience to, God through good works and moral behavior.”

In Islam: A Sacred Law, Rauf gives a positive account of Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of a particularly virulent form of Islam. For Rauf, Abd al-Wahhab is a reformer, a rationalist, and a “rejuvenator of the Hanbali school” who simply wanted to “return to the religious spirit of the forefathers who, for the basic principles of their religion, referred to the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet, and who fought against the blind imitation that ‘had killed among the Islamic people serious thought and the spirit of independence and had extinguished the flame of activity.’ He was a bitter antagonist of those who held to the excuse ‘we found our fathers so doing’ without subjecting such a heritage to the dictates of reason. Commentaries, texts, opinions and whims containing any of these elements were repudiated.”

But in What’s Right with Islam, Rauf changes his tune. He brands Abd al- Wahhab a racist and someone who denigrates reason, and talks of the “excesses” of Wahhabism. After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, Islam was scrutinized as never before, and many blamed the attacks on the Twin Towers, and more generally the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, on Wahhabism. Rauf could no longer get away with any whitewashing of Abd al-Wahhab, and he adjusted his discourse accordingly: “From Abd al-Wahhab’s point of view, most of the Muslim intellectuals — like Ibn Rushd (Averroes), who was a ‘Westerner’ from al-Andalus (Spain) — were foreign, not only geographically but also intellectually and psychologically. Abd al-Wahhab wanted to adhere to the tradition of his pious predecessors, not to traditions of ‘foreigners’ beyond the Arabian peninsula. We might colloquially say that Abd al-Wahhab yearned for an Arab Islam, not a Turkish, Persian, or Indian Islam, for wasn’t the Qur’an after all an Arabic Qur’an?”

Rauf concludes that “Wahhabism resulted in a selective interpretation of Islam that tried to filter out most of what it viewed as introduced by foreign elements, especially philosophical rationalism, spirituality, and foreign cultural elements.” In the earlier book, Abd al-Wahhab is described as subjecting the Islamic heritage to the dictates of reason, and in the later work as filtering out philosophical rationalism.

CONCLUSION

A Western liberal could easily pull reassuring “moderate Muslim” material from Rauf’s What’s Right with Islam, but this material does not harmonize well with his distasteful comments about September 11, his support for Ayatollah Khomeini’s legacy, his reluctance to call Hamas a terrorist organization, and so on.

When in the Islamic world, or in front of an Islamic audience, Rauf is eager to prove his Muslim credentials and pride in Islam — to present himself as a serious Muslim scholar with a firm grasp of Islamic theology, the Koran, Hadith, and sharia. This is necessary to drum up financial support for his real-estate venture in Lower Manhattan. To then argue that the United States Constitution is sharia compliant is a brilliant tactic that allows him to have it both ways — the Western liberals breathe a sigh of relief, while the Islamic triumphalists see a way to infiltrate the United States.

Rauf and his fellow Islamists, having learned from similar ploys at the United Nations by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, then hope to implement elements of sharia in the West. No need for alarm, Rauf reassures Westerners, “we are not trying to replace universal standards, we’re complementing them.” Simultaneously, he advises Muslims to obey Western laws — for now. Rauf is preying upon the unthinking, pathological niceness of the Western multiculturalist.

Rauf is a Muslim, and his major premises are Islamic, and therefore his conclusions by inexorable logic must also be Islamic: “It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions even though the idolaters hate it.”

By Ibn Warraq
National Review Online

Ibn Warraq is an independent scholar and the author of five books on Islam and Koranic criticism - Why I Am Not a Muslim(1995); The Origins of the Koran(1998); What the Koran Really Says(2002); Virgins? What Virgins? And Other Essays(2010); and the forthcoming Which Koran? This is part two of a two-part series.

Egyptian Coptic Church Accused of Stockpiling Weapons

Written by Mary Abdelmassih
22 Sep 2010



(AINA) -- A new wave of defamation by Islamists against Coptic Pope Shenouda III and the Coptic Church is seen by many observers as a serious provocation to sectarian violence against the Copts, and the possibility of Egypt being dragged into civil war.

On September 15, Qatar-owned Al-Jezirah TV broadcast a program called Without Limits, presented by moderator Ahmad Mansour, who hosted the Islamist Dr. Selim el-Awah, former Secretary-General of the World Council of Muslim Scholars, which has stunned and enraged Copts inside and outside of Egypt. "El-Awah is simply threatening Copts that the forthcoming chaos after Mubarak dies will see mass violence against the Copts," says Magdy Khalil, Coptic activist and head of Middle East Freedom Forum.

The program alleged the Church has its own militia and hides weapons and ammunition in monasteries and churches, preparing for a war "against the Muslims." el-Awah said that "Israel is in the heart of the Coptic Cause," and the Church gets weapons from Israel. He cited as evidence an incident in mid-August, in which the son of a priest in Port Said, Mr. Joseph El-Gabalawy, was falsely accused of importing weapons from Israel. Although he was cleared of charges and released, as the imported goods were children's fireworks from China and did not belong to him, he is still detained by State Security.

The television program also charged the Church of concealing Muslim converts to Christianity, besides abducting and torturing Christian converts to Islam. Out of the thousands of Christian woman who converted to Islam, willingly or unwillingly, el-Awah mentioned only two wives of priests whom he claimed converted to Islam and consequently were imprisoned in monasteries, Wafa Constantine and Mary Abdallah. Speaking on the latest crisis over Camelia Shehata, about whom Muslims fabricated rumors of her conversion to Islam, he said that she never converted to Islam and was handed over by State Security to her two married sisters (AINA 11-1-2015).

The nearly two-hour program went on to accuse the Coptic Church of being a "State within the Egyptian State," allegedly taking advantage of the weakness of the present regime, behaving as if it is above the law. The Church was also accused of making an "inheritance" deal with the regime to support President Mubarak's son in succeeding his father as president in exchange for benefits.

Selim el-Awah said that ever since Pope Shenouda came out of detention, having been banished to a desert monastery by the late President Sadat in 1981 and released by President Mubarak in 1982, there has been "scientific preparation" to demand the division of Egypt into a Muslim State and a Coptic secular State"

He warned that if the status of the Church remains as such, the "country will burn" and called on Muslims to go out in demonstrations as the "only answer left to counteract the strength of the Church." He said "If they go out to the streets, who can control them?"

"For the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel," says Magdy Khalil, "someone has accused the Coptic Church of stockpiling weapons from Israel as a prelude to waging war on Muslims, claiming that Israel is at the heart of the Coptic issue."

In response to the seriousness of the accusations, the Church aired a program on its own TV channel, Agape, denying all allegations and accusing Al-Jezirah of being hostile towards Egypt. It discussed the whereabouts of the two priests' wives, who had marital problems but never converted to Islam. "Constantine chose to remain in a monastery and Abdallah lives in a house alone with her children paid by the church," said Father Abdelmassih Baseet.

In a Middle East Freedom Forum press release on September 20, Magdy Khalil said that what Dr. Selim el-Awah said "amounts to incitement to murder and ethnic cleansing of a minority, which are crimes in Egyptian and international law" and if Al-Awah's words of hate and incitement are overlooked by the Egyptian government, "this would mean that they are partners in these crimes." The Forum invited national lawyers, Muslims and Christians, to join its campaign for the prosecution of Dr. el-Awah for crimes of incitement.

Dr. Naguib Gobrail, legal counselor to the Coptic Church and president of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organizations, presented on September 20 a memorandum to the Prosecutor General against Dr. Selim el-Awah and Al-Jezirah's Egyptian moderator Ahmad Mansour, accusing both men of propagating lies which would affect social peace and harm national security. The memo went on to say that they accused the Church of storing weapons and Christians of "high treason," since these weapons would "normally be used against the State and their Muslim brethren," a claim, if true, would subject 15 million Christians to the charge of high treason, which carries the death penalty.

Coptic attorney Mamdouh Nakhla, head of AL-Kalema Centre for Human Rights, told Freecopts the TV program included reference to a terrorist plan for several massacres to be committed against the Copts. "el-Awah said that the simple Coptic citizen will be the real victim of those massacres, while the Coptic clergy will hide in the monasteries," said Nakhla. "Such remarks should not be ignored and el-Awah should be questioned about the facts and what information he knows about those plans." He added that he will present a complaint to the prosecutor general against el-Awah and Al-Jezirah Channel for spreading unfounded lies that could provoke incitement against the Church and the Copts.

The Egyptian media has accused el-Awah of claiming the Church is storing weapons without having any evidence. Al-Jezirah was accused by renowned writer Salah Issah, editor of Cairo Daily, of not adhering to the Press Charter, which prohibits covering anything that would cause sectarian strife, stressing the network has committed professional errors.

Observers see that el-Awah statements of September 15, coming only two days after the call of the banned Front of Al-Azhar Scholars, on September 13, to boycott Coptic businesses, professionals and schools, only confirms that there is secret coordination between the Islamist religious groups, "who have one thing in mind, which is to burn the homeland," say Muslim thinker Ayman Abdel Rassol. He added that weapons are stored in mosques, especially in upper Egypt. Abdel Rassol called for the prosecution of Dr. el-Awah for crimes of incitement.

A Muslim demonstration is called for Friday September 24, in Alexandria demanding the disposal of Pope Shenouda III.

Khalil recollects similar circumstances taking place at the end of the seventies when rumors circulated about a plan by Pope Shenouda to establish a Coptic state in the Upper Egyptian Province of Assiut, and about the storage of weapons in monasteries, "those rumors were justifications for a series of attacks against the Copts over decades," he said.

He believes that this dangerous talk by Dr. el-Awah is an introduction to the destruction of the Copts in the event of a the outbreak of chaos in Egypt after Mubarak's death. "It will not be like what happened in the seventies, but it could evolve to become like the Armenian genocide that occurred in Turkey in 1915," said Khalil.

Mary Abdelmassih

Obama, Dhimmi President

Written by Carol A. Taber
American Thinker
18 September 2010

We have a dhimmi president, and he's asking that we accept our dhimmitude, just as he has.



The slumlord Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has spent the past several weeks lecturing us that if we don't allow him to build a mosque at Ground Zero, we will be provoking Islamic violence. "Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do," he intoned on CNN.

[T]he headline in the Muslim world will be Islam is under attack in America, this will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment, this will put our people -- our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens - under attack in the Muslim world and we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism.

President Obama has echoed this message with regard to the near-burning of the Koran by Pastor Terry Jones last week. He said that burning a Koran would provoke "serious violence" against Americans in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that it would provide a "recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda." Whether the success of a "strong horse" building a triumphal mosque/community center on the ruins of Ground Zero also would be used as a "recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda" was not mentioned. This is odd, because everyone who knows an atom about the Islamist mindset knows this interpretation of the world to be absolutely, although not uniquely, theirs.
It's predictable enough to hear this Americans-exercising-their-rights-causes-terrorism-so-it's-their-fault message from a terror-supporter like Rauf, who considers it his obligation to push America into dialogue with terrorist groups like Hamas. But from President Obama, our nation's Commander-in-Chief, whose most important responsibility is to protect American citizens from "enemies both foreign and domestic," this message is disgustingly candy-assed.

As Mr. Obama is fond of saying, this was a teachable moment...or it could have been. It was not a moment to teach the Muslim world about how we value the Koran or to teach Americans about how or why we should respect Islam. It could have been a teachable moment for the Muslim world. It was a chance for the President of the United States to demonstrate to the Muslim world that we will not back down in the face of psychotic ragefests, that we will continue to exercise our rights as we see fit, and -- the truest lesson in tolerance -- that we will allow people to commit offensive acts with which we disagree even if we disagree with them.

Instead, Obama shilled on behalf of the Islamists yet again. He made excuses for primitives across the globe to engage in their favorite party game: berserk, vein-popping raging; burning American flags; and blowing up such worthless items as human beings of all stripes and 7th-century statues of Buddha. Obama justified their violence. He was the ridiculous third-grade teacher who watches two kids call each other names, then observes as one of the kids breaks a coke bottle over the other one's head, and then finally condemns the bleeding-from-his-eyeballs kid for having engaged in the great unwashed, uncivilized act of name-calling.

You'd never hear the we-cause-violence message from Obama with regard to domestic politics. When crazed wretches like Joe Stack fly planes into buildings, Obama wrongly attempts to blame conservative talk show hosts. He'd never blame a suffocating tax policy for enraging Stack, as Stack himself declared. Yet when Muslims fly planes into buildings, Obama blames America's insensitivity and hegemony and insists that we all bow to the impulses of people who steadfastly prefer open sewage to flushing toilets.

In 2007, Christopher Hitchens wrote a piece for Salon.com in which he talked about "Rage Boy," a random Muslim protester who was constantly in the eye of the camera whenever the West "provoked" the so-called Muslim street. "We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world," Hitchens penned, "but we ought not to do their work for them." Obama does their work for them.

At worst, this could be construed as Obama's openly Marxist predilection for the Muslim world over Western civilization. At best, this is dhimmitude in action.

"Dhimmitude" is a word first used by historian Bat Ye'or to describe the phenomenon of non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Historically, under Koranic law, non-Muslims in Muslim areas were considered dhimmi and forced to pay a head tax, or jizya, simply to live there. They also had to find ways to go along to get along, which generally required silence to outrages and subservience to Islamic law.

Everything Obama is pursuing fits this profile. Born to a Muslim father, he spent critical part of his childhood living in a Muslim land. One presumes he is not now Muslim, and he professes to be a Christian. Nonetheless, he speaks dreamily about his love for the azaan, the Muslim call to prayer, which he told Nicholas Kristof was "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and he even went so far as to speak the first few lines to Kristoff "with a first-rate accent," according to the butt-kissing columnist.

He told the Muslim world that his job as President of the United States is to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." (Where that directive is in Article II of the Constitution isn't clear.) He even dedicates government resources to kowtowing to a single religion -- Islam -- hence NASA chief Charles Bolden's bizarre statement that his top priority is to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world" and the unsurprising yet peculiar act of Americans paying for mosque construction projects overseas. According to the Washington Times, the U.S taxpayers, among funding other mosque projects,

... helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque's namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country's Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of "Muslim triumphalism" glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument - and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

I wonder how many Americans know that?

Obama speaks like a dhimmi, acts like a dhimmi, and spends like a dhimmi. This latest incident, in which Obama acted as press spokesperson for unleashed Islamist crazies rather than as a president duty-bound to protect the clearly-spelled-out constitutional rights of law-abiding American citizens, simply demonstrates, in my opinion, that Obama doesn't believe we're in an American world. This is a Muslim world, Obama thinks, and we're just living in it. I tend to disagree. Aside from the "rich heritage" Obama claims that Muslims have here in America, you heard it here first: no pilgrim I ever knew prayed to Mecca five times a day. Take it to the bank.

As David French said in NationalReview.com, "If we can't possibly appease the enemy, why even contemplate giving up our freedoms?" Why? Because we appear to have a dhimmi president, and he's asking that we accept our dhimmitude, just as he has.

Where are the real men when we need them?

Carol A. Taber is president of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

WAKE UP AMERICA- mousl& islam Destroy America

WAKE UP AMERICA

Islam and Genocide, make your own judgment


Make your own judgment; is Islam a religion of peace as Obama and other politicians claim, or is it a bloody cult calling for genocide?
Please listen to honest subject-matter experts, specially non-Muslims who had the first-hand experience in the Islamic countries, and do not listen to the deceiving paid lobbyists.

Here are some verses, in plain English, of what the Koran says about the infidels (Non-Muslim):-

* Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)

* Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood (9:123)

* When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)

* Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

* Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)

* The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)

* Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam. (5:33)

* The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)

* Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
(22:19)

* Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)

* The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)

* Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)

* Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)

* Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels (8:60)

Shari'a Laws which sanction the abuse of Muslim Women). The Prophet Muhammad said, "The Woman is Vagina" and that is why the Qur'an orders the Muslim Women to cover their Bodies from head to foot, allows the Man to marry four women, Husban to beat his wife, Female Genital Mutilation , Female Child-Marriage, etc (Qur'an 33: 59 & 24: 31. 4: 3, 4: 34, 65: 4, Tirmizi, Volume II, hadith, No. 65, Sahih Muslim, hadith no. 349, Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89)



I strongly believe in the freedom of religion and, in my judgment, the above verses show clearly that Islam's holy book is against freedom of religion. Muslims demand freedom of religion only for themselves because Allah denies such freedom to infidels. It is a Divine right to them and a Divine duty to deprive others of it.
A major scandal in America, a mosque American children are forced non-Muslims of Islamic prayer - vedio click& watch


Muslims in New York Desecrate U.S. Flagvedio

These men should have immediately been arrested, jailed and deported after serving some time .
click& watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzXqCRwaj_w

Muslims Protest at London US Embassy and Burn Constitution and US Flags on 9/11
DeliDirk


click&watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DtwH5z_s0
Rival Mobs Threaten Each Other With Violence In London Over Religous Differences

click& watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRWohmu7U98

Morris Sadek, Esq
Egyptian Attorney.
Special Legal Consultant, D.C. Bar
National American Coptic Assembly













A major scandal in America, a mosque American children are forced non-Muslims of Islamic prayer - vedio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y&feature=player_embedded

Monday, September 20, 2010

Islam and Genocide, make your own judgment

Make your own judgment; is Islam a religion of peace as Obama and other politicians claim, or is it a bloody cult calling for genocide?
Please listen to honest subject-matter experts, specially non-Muslims who had the first-hand experience in the Islamic countries, and do not listen to the deceiving paid lobbyists.

Here are some verses, in plain English, of what the Koran says about the infidels (Non-Muslim):-

* Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)

* Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood (9:123)

* When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)

* Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

* Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)

* The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)

* Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam. (5:33)

* The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)

* Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
(22:19)

* Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)

* The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)

* Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)

* Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)

* Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels (8:60)




I strongly believe in the freedom of religion and, in my judgment, the above verses show clearly that Islam's holy book is against freedom of religion. Muslims demand freedom of religion only for themselves because Allah denies such freedom to infidels. It is a Divine right to them and a Divine duty to deprive others of it.

Islam and Genocide, make your own judgment

Make your own judgment; is Islam a religion of peace as Obama and other politicians claim, or is it a bloody cult calling for genocide?
Please listen to honest subject-matter experts, specially non-Muslims who had the first-hand experience in the Islamic countries, and do not listen to the deceiving paid lobbyists.

Here are some verses, in plain English, of what the Koran says about the infidels (Non-Muslim):-

* Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them(2:191)

* Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood (9:123)

* When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)

* Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)

* Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)

* The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)

* Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam. (5:33)

* The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)

* Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
(22:19)

* Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)

* The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)

* Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)

* Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)

* Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels (8:60)




I strongly believe in the freedom of religion and, in my judgment, the above verses show clearly that Islam's holy book is against freedom of religion. Muslims demand freedom of religion only for themselves because Allah denies such freedom to infidels. It is a Divine right to them and a Divine duty to deprive others of it.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Glorifying terrorism in Islamهكذا يعلمون الاطفال الارهاب









Good Islamic Education



A Palestinian boy dresses as a suicide bomber during a 'Land Day' demonstration in the West Bank city of Ramallah, March 30, 2001.



Just a Muslim mother tenderly taking care of her child.











Terror in diapers




The Maariv newspaper printed the photograph under a headline that screamed: "Terror in diapers." The daily Yedioth Ahronoth called it a "hair-raising costume" and the Jerusalem Post printed the photograph with the headline: "Born to kill."

Relatives said it was a "joke"

Indeed

2 million ethnic Muslims adopted baptism in Russia - اتنين مليون مسلم اصبحوا مسيحين فى روسيا

Moscow, November 1, Interfax - The number of ethnic Muslims in Russia who adopted Christianity is 2 million, while the number of the Orthodox who have been converted to Islam is only 2,5 thousand, stated Roman Silantyev, executive secretary of the Inter-religious Council in Russia.

‘Christianization happens not so much as a result of some purposeful missionary activity (in which only Protestants are engaged) as under the influence of Russian culture which has express Christian roots’, Silantyev said in a interview published this week by the Itogi weekly.

According Silantyev, the converts are predominantly Muslims by birth, while ‘those who really confess Islamic values and attend mosque on a regular basis rarely change their faith’.

‘The assimilation of ethnic and religious minorities is an inevitable process in any society. In Russia it is accelerated due to extremist activities’, the Islamic researcher believes.

For instance, he says, as a result of what happened in Beslan, the proportion of Muslims in North Ossetia has decreased at least by 30%, while in Beslan itself, where Muslims had comprised from 30 to 40% of the population, their number has decreased at least by half.

‘As even Muslim sources confirm, after each terrorist action, thousands and may be even dozens of thousands of ethnic Muslims adopt baptism’, Silantyev stated.

At the same time, the expert accounts for the small number of ethnic Orthodox people who have adopted Islam for the last 15 years, among other things, by the fact that ‘for some reason Russians seem to be more willing to join sects than Islam’.

free christian voice the best site

Jihadists Train in Rural America - vedio

Saturday, September 4, 2010

AN OPEN INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE: PROTEST FOR GROUND ZERO MOSQUE








WAKE UP AMERICA



AN OPEN INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE: PROTEST FOR GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

AND DEMONSTRATION AGAINST ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATE CRIMES IN EGYPT

WHEN? Friday, September 10, 2010 between 1:00 PM until 4:00 PM.

Buses will leave from Bergen Ave. in front of Martin Luther King School, Journal Square, Jersey City, NJ at 6:00 AM

GOING TO WHERE? In front of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington D.C. 20045

WHY? We are protesting building Al-Gordoba Mosque at Ground Zero, in Manhattan, New York City. Also, we are going

to protest the bloodshed, murder, trials to vindicate the criminals of Nag Hammadi and playing the same game as

they did for the Al-Kosheh Massacre, abducting and Islamizing Coptic girls and destruction of Copts’ property, Hate crimes

and hate threats in the form of demonstrations of the Jihadists against our churches and H.H. Pope Shenouda III.,

BENEFITS: We may be able to stop building Al-Gordoba Mosque at Ground Zero. Your participation in the rally would

Also serve as a reminder to those in the Middle East who spread intolerance, hate, persecution and oppression, that their

actions are noticed and condemned. We believe that freedom loving people should be the voice of the weak, voiceless, and

the oppressed.

Who? The American Coptic Association, the International Christian Union, National American Coptic assembly, The Way

TV Channel and all other Coptic National and International Human Rights Organizations in and outside of the United States.

see protest on air from The Way channel plz click & watch
http://www.atvsat.com/