Terror threat and the border

Looming threat from illegals: terror

By BRIGITTE GABRIEL

Last Updated: 10:01 AM, July 30, 2010
Posted: 12:01 AM, July 30, 2010

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/looming_threat_from_illegals_terror
_fxLo773X6OkZJXUCLXVIXJ

Arizonans will be grateful for some extra help from the National Guard, starting Sunday, in protecting the border and fighting drug violence -- especially now that a federal judge has blocked key parts of their recent illegal-immigration law. But there's a more pressing border issue that goes beyond Arizona: the alliance between drug cartels and groups that aim to smuggle terrorists into our country through the Mexican border.

Last week's detonation along the Texas-Mexico border of an Improvised Explosive Device similar to those used in Iraq and Afghanistan strongly suggests that Hezbollah is working with the drug cartels -- and that America is unsafe. Law-enforcement officials and intelligence analysts believe that terrorist groups like al Qaeda have been working with such gangs as the ruthless MS-13 to smuggle terrorists into America.

Intel briefings and other sources suggest that al Qaeda spends as much as $50,000 to smuggle in a single terrorist, while Hezbollah, funded by Iran, pays as much as $10,000.

Indeed, some analysts estimate that thousands of terrorists have already been smuggled into the United States through the Mexican border since 9/11. Last year, a worker at the Mexican embassy in Beirut was caught selling visas to enter Mexico for $3,000 apiece. Hezbollah terrorists know that once they get to Mexico they can make their way here through our southern border.

A congressional report on homeland security acknowledges this threat. The report, "A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border," addresses the alarming rate at which the number of aliens referred to as "other than Mexican," or OTMs, are crossing the border. Many OTMs are nationals and terrorists from countries such as Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our biggest threat is that a nuclear, dirty or biological bomb could be smuggled by OTMs into America soon.

Hezbollah, the most sophisticated terrorist organization today, trains al Qaeda members in centers in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley before they leave for terror destinations via Syria, my sources there report. The organization manufactures IEDs in Lebanon and has perfected their use since the 1980s.

An alliance between the drug cartels and Hezbollah is a symbiotic, win-win situation for both parties. Hezbollah can share its expertise in tunnel-engineering and bomb-making with the drug cartels. The cartels can then smuggle dealers and drugs through these tunnels, several of which have been discovered in recent years, while Hezbollah smuggles terrorists and munitions to be used in terror missions in America.

Hezbollah is Iran's proxy army and is trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. As Iran and America head into a confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, Iran must ensure it has sufficient operatives in America to retaliate when the time comes, and this alliance provides the means to get them here. That time is coming faster than we think.

Intelligence analysts think Hezbollah has at least 11 cells in America, including one in New York City. If provoked, perhaps via an Israeli strike, it is likely Iran will retaliate not only against Israel but against its strongest ally.

Our border-security crisis extends beyond illegal workers and employers looking for cheap labor. A suitcase bomb or biological bomb detonated in any major city in America would kill untold numbers of civilians and wreak havoc on our economy. Health care, prison housing and other costs for illegal immigrants would ultimately pale in comparison to such devastation.

Terrorists now have operational centers all over South America. They're learning Spanish and obtaining fake Spanish papers in case they're caught crossing over the Mexican border. The Tri-Border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay in South America has become a haven for international Islamic extremists. A State Department report notes that Hezbollah and other terrorist groups were using bases in Latin America to "raise millions of dollars annually via criminal enterprises."

Americans must put politics aside and act now to secure the Mexican border. Arizona families are in need of protection from the drug violence, but we must protect the millions of Americans living in major cities who are threatened by a suitcase bomb or the like smuggled through the Mexican border.

The time for bickering is over.

Terrorism analyst Brigitte Gabriel, author of "Because They Hate," is president of ACTforAmerica.org.

Ron Ramsey, Tenn. Lt. Gov: Islam May Not Be A Religion (VIDEO)

At a campaign event in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Lieutenant Governor and gubernatorial candidate Ron Ramsey (R) said that freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, may not apply to Islam because it could be considered "a cult."

During a question and answer session, an attendee said that he was concerned with an "invasion" from "the Muslims." Ramsey responded that the uproar over a "mosque" (in reality, the expansion of an existing Islamic community center) is justified because Sharia law is "scary":

... I've been trying to learn about Sharia law. I've been trying to learn what it is: not good, if that's what's going on. You can even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, a way of life, or a cult -- whatever you want to call it -- and we do protect our religions. But at the same time, this is something that we are going to have to face.
Ramsey, who trails Rep. Zach Wamp in the Republican primary, said that he was "all about the freedom of religion," but "you cross the line when they start trying to bring Sharia law into the United States."

WATCH: Ron Ramsey explain why he is opposed to the Murfreesboro Islamic Center (question begins at the 3:08 mark):

In an e-mail to Talking Points Memo, Ramsey elaborated on his thoughts on one of the world's oldest religions:

"My concern is that far too much of Islam has come to resemble a violent political philosophy more than peace-loving religion," he said in an email. "It's time for American Muslims who love this country to publicly renounce violent jihadism and to drum those who seek to do America harm out of their faith community."
The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has become a target for conservatives after a 52,000 square foot expansion was approved. Lou Ann Zelenik, a Republican candidate running for Congress, called the center an "Islamic training center," the AP reported Saturday. Over 250 Muslim families live in the community.

Egyptian Governor Suspends Church Renewal until Bishop's Home is Torn Down

Written by Mary Abdelmassih
28 July 2010



Bishop Agathon, 75 clergy and nearly 150,000 Copts from parishes all over the Diocese of Maghagha & Edwah have staged a sit-in in Maghagha since Sunday 25 July 2010, protesting against the intransigence of the Governor of Minya.

During the sit-in, the Copts held banners asking for their rights to have a church, amidst chants of "With our soul and our blood, we will build our church."

Governor Ahmad Dia-Eldin has suspended the licence obtained for the renewal of the diocese in Maghagha, including the church after the old complex was pulled down as agreed. The pretext given was that the 45 sq. metres rooms where the Bishop lives and the public toilettes were
not pulled down as well.

The Bishop said that during negotiations, the Governor agreed verbally in front of all those present to keep the Bishop's rooms until new ones have been built. "Otherwise where will I put my head
to sleep and keep my papers? Said His Grace. The Governor now changed his mind and insists on adhering to the written agreement without his 'giveaways' and requires as a condition their immediate removal.

After nearly three and a half years of negotiations and appeals to President Mubarak, an agreement was reached early March 2010, between the Governor and the Bishop. The signed conditions were that the old buildings of the Coptic Diocese of Maghagha including the falling-apart church, which was built in 1934 through a Royal decree, were to be pulled down and in exchange the Governor of Minya would issue a licence for the renewal of the Diocese on adjacent land owned by the Church.

After the church was pulled down, the Bishop and congregation celebrate masses since March 16, 2010, in a make shift tent in the summer heat exceeding 45C. "Where stones are hurled inside the tent at us by Muslims," said one local Copt.

" Ever since the Islamist governor Ahmed Dia-Eldin took office in Minya in April 2008, Copts have only seen misery and persecution," said one of those interviewed at the rally, who wanted to remain anonymous. "Minya has now become the centre of Islamists and terrorists. Churches are destroyed, minor girls are abducted, never to be seen again, Copts are attacked and forcibly evicted from their
villages, to be replaced by Muslims."

In an interview with Freecopts advocacy, the Bishop said that he believes that the Governor suspended the renewal licence because during the negotiations, he tried to seize the land of the pulled down
old diocese, insisting that the land has be donated to the governorate. "When we refused, explaining that this land is an endowment to the Church and cannot be donated further, he held agrudge against us because of our refusal he suspended the licenselater."

It was agreed that this vacant land is to be used, subject to the Church's financial circumstances, for erecting a free health care centre to be used by Christians and Muslims alike, as is always the case with Church services.

The Governor also wanted that all of the fence surrounding the old Diocese to be pulled down immediately as well, explaining that whoever is walking in the street would see that the church was removed
and feel at peace!" Bishop Agathon told activist Wagih Yacoub in an aired interview. "We have pulled down the whole fence, except for two gates. However this has angered the Governor as those had a Cross on them." The Bishop added that after 90 days when the diocese was subjected to thefts and assaults, we had to rebuild it temporarily until the renewal licence is issued. “It is not safe for the Bishop to stay without a guarding fence,” he added.

Bishop Agathon said that his holiness Pope Shenouda III saw this problem coming when he knew that the Governor insisted that the Diocese buildings have to be pulled down before a licence is granted for renewal. "His Holiness told me that he doubts whether they will allow us to build a new one."

Commenting on the toilette issue, Bishop Agathon said:"Is this something over which to suspend the licence? Besides, if it was agreed that a new Bishopric with a church is to be built, where will the labourers and public go if they want to use the toilettes until such time?"

The Governor of Minya went out on the Egyptian TV on June 25, saying contrary to the truth, that the Bishop of Maghagha wants two dioceses near each other, failing to mention that all buildings including the church of the old diocese was pulled down. (Freecopts video showing the pulled down diocese
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRqVq4lVDUA&feature=player_embedded


The US-based Coptic human rights TV channel Hope-Sat, interviewed the Governor, who had no answers to the questions put to him, regarding the toilettes and the fence. He also said that a 7-storey building has not been pulled down. The Bishop who was also live on air answered him that the so-called 7-storey building is a 45 sq.metres rooms where he lives at the moment and to which the Governor has "kindly agreed to leave for the time being, as somewhere for me to sleep and to keep the diocese papers."

When outspoken Father Morcos Aziz, who serves in one of the Coptic Church in California, joined on air and asked the Governor what does he think of suspending the licence because of his insistence on the immediate removal of the toilettes? And what sort of impression does this give to the outside world about Egypt? The infuriated Governor, ended the conversation and put his phone down. "I hope the outside world sees what the Christians in Egypt have to go through to build just one church," commented father Morcos.

On July 27, the Governor decided that the rebuilding works need a new decree from President Mubarak, while the Bishop of Maghagha insists that the Royal decree is valid as "this is not a new church but a
renewal of a church that was falling apart."

The sit-in will continue at the Maghagha tent-come-church until Saturday July 31 and if the problem is not solved by then, the congregation from the Diocese Maghagha & Edwah which serves 250,000 Copts, will travel to Cairo to continue their sit-in at the Coptic Patriarchate in Cairo, after presenting a petition signed by 160,000 Copts from the Diocese to President Mubarak.

"The people insist on complaining against the Governor" Bishop Agathon told activist Wagih Yacoub. "It is not possible that oneperson could deprive the people of their right to pray."

Mary Abdelmassih

The Cop on the Banks of the Nile

Written by FOUAD AJAMI
The Wall Street Journal
28 July 2010

No great upheaval has taken place in the Egypt of Hosni Mubarak. But the country has stagnated, and some of its children have blamed the U.S. and embraced terror.


Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, right, and Vice
President Hosni Mubarak on the reviewing stand
during the Oct. 6, 1981, military parade. Shortly
after this photo was taken, soldiers opened fire
at the reviewing stand, killing Sadat and injuring
Mubarak.

He was there on the reviewing stand on Oct. 6, 1981, when the assassins struck down his flamboyant predecessor, Anwar Sadat. Few thought that Hosni Mubarak, an unassuming military officer, would survive the tumult of Egypt's politics.

The country was on the boil, the assassins who took Sadat's life had been brazen beyond imagination. They had stormed the reviewing stand on the eighth anniversary of the October War of 1973. Lt. Khalid Islambouli, the leader of this band of assassins, told Mr. Mubarak to get out of the way for they had come only after "that dog."

Mr. Mubarak was spared that day, and still, three decades later, he rules. Rumors of poor health swirl around him, and the Egypt he has dominated for so long is a crowded, broken country. "I shot the Pharaoh," Lt. Islambouli said, without doubt or remorse. He and his band of plotters had no coherent plan for the seizure of power. They would kill the defiant ruler, for them an apostate, make an example of him, and hope that his successors would heed his fate.

Mr. Mubarak would confound the militants. In his years at the helm, he would stick to the big choices Sadat had made: He would stay in the orbit of the Pax Americana, and he would maintain the "cold peace" with Israel. The authoritarian, secular state, with the army as its mainstay, would keep its grip on political power. But there is no denying that Mr. Mubarak had internalized the lessons of Sadat's assassination.

Where Sadat openly embraced the distant American power, flaunted his American connections, and savored the attention of the American media, Mr. Mubarak has had an arm's length relationship with his American patrons. There was no need, he understood, to tempt the fates and to further inflame the anti-Western and anticolonial inheritance of his countrymen.

America had come into Egypt in the aftermath of the 1973 October War. There were Egyptians who took to this new world and its possibilities, so keen were they to put the dreaded radical past with its privations and restrictions behind them. But a fault line divided the country. The pious and the traditionalists and those who believed that Egypt's place lay in the Arab world were offended by this new order. Mr. Mubarak would take U.S. aid. Second only to the American subsidy to Israel, it was crucial to his regime. There would be joint military exercises with U.S. forces. But the Egyptian ruler was keen to show his independence from American tutelage.

Mr. Mubarak was at one with the vast majority of Egyptians in his acceptance of peace with Israel. He hadn't made that peace. It was not for him the burden it was for Sadat. Egypt was done with pan-Arab wars against Israel. She had paid dearly in those campaigns. Her national pride had been battered, her scarce treasure had been wasted, and the country had become an economic backwater. And so Mr. Mubarak honored the peace with Israel, but there would be no grand spectacles, no big visit to Israel, no stirring speeches to the Israeli Parliament. This had been Sadat's way.

Mr. Mubarak was under no compulsion to come up with an "electric shock" diplomacy of his own. He would, under duress, make a single, brief visit to Israel in 1995 for the burial of Yitzhak Rabin. He said little. The memorable funeral oration was made by the Jordanian monarch, King Hussein.

If Mr. Mubarak was spared the wrath of the traditionalists, it must be acknowledged that he has never led or defended a modernist course for his country. This was no Mustapha Kemal Ataturk pushing his people into a new culture and a new world. A suspicious autocrat, he has stepped out of the way as a toxic brew came to poison the life of Egypt—a mix of antimodernism, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.

Egypt has struggled mightily since the mid 1800s to belong to the modern world of nations. It had something of a democratic inheritance; the Mediterranean bordered this country and brought it its gifts. In the interwar years, there had been a parliamentary system in place.

But this was not Mr. Mubarak's impulse. He rules by emergency decrees and has suffocated the country's political life, reducing the political landscape to something barren that he has been comfortable with: the authoritarian state on one side, the Muslim Brotherhood on the other. Nothing stirred or grew in the middle.

No democratic, secular opposition was allowed to sprout. For Mr. Mubarak, the appetite grew with the eating. The modest officer of yesteryear had become a pharaoh in his own right. He flew under the radar, as Egyptian authoritarianism was never on a par with the kind of terror unleashed on Libya, Syria or Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He has refused to give his country an orderly process of succession. He would never name a vice president, even as his country clamored for that. By his own lights a patriot devoted to his country, he left it prey to the doubts and dark thoughts that cripple the life of "Oriental despotisms." He let loose on Egyptians the steady speculation that he had in mind dynastic succession, bequeathing a big country to his son.

Egyptians with a feel for their country's temperament have long maintained that Mr. Mubarak is a creature of his social class. He hails from middle peasantry. He had made his way to the armed forces and remained at heart a man of the barracks. He never trusted crowds and the disputations of politics. (Sadat was formed in the 1930s and 1940s when Egypt was a veritable hothouse of political ideas, with doctrines and opinions at the ready.)

In the police state he rules, radical Islamists are hunted down or imprisoned. The prisons are notorious for their cruelty. In time, Islamists from Egypt, survivors of its prisons, would make their way to the global jihad. They hadn't been able to topple the Mubarak regime, so they struck at lands and powers beyond.

A young physician, then 30 years of age, a Cairene of aristocratic pedigree, one Ayman al-Zawahiri was picked up in the dragnet that followed Sadat's assassination. He was imprisoned and tortured, then made his way to the Afghan jihad and to the world of terror, rising to second in command of al Qaeda. It was Zawahiri, learned but merciless, who drew a distinction between the "near enemy" (the regime at home) and the "far enemy" (the American patrons of the regime), and who opined that it was the permissible and proper thing to strike at distant enemies in preparation for bringing down the tyrant at home.

In the same vein, a blind preacher from a once-tranquil town on the edge of Egypt's Western Desert, Omar Abdul Rahman, quit his country for Jersey City and Brooklyn. He carried the fire and the rage with him to the New World, and was eventually tried and convicted for crimes stemming from the investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Mubarak's Egypt had grown skilled at channeling its troubles to distant places.

No great upheaval has taken place in the Egypt of Hosni Mubarak. But the country on the banks of the Nile has stagnated. Its good cheer—one of its fabled attributes—has given way, and the crowded country now is an unhappy, bitter place.


Egyptians had led the march of Arab modernity, and for decades they lived on that sense, and memory, of primacy. All this is of the past. Other Arabs have gone their way and negotiated their own terms with the world. A sense of disappointment now suffuses Egypt's political and cultural life. There is peace with Israel, but it is unloved. There is a dependency on the U.S., but one of bitter resentment on the part of most Egyptians. There are ideas of a big country at the crossroads of three continents, but the reality of an unimaginative autocracy.

Grant Mr. Mubarak his due: He has not dispatched his countrymen on deadly expeditions and needless wars. He has kept the peace, he has been the cop on the beat. But Egypt needed and deserved something better, more ennobling, than a tyrant's sterile peace.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution

The Tragedy of Egypt's Copts ...

Written by Tarek Heggy
Middle East Analysis
28 July 2010



In Egypt, the Copts are being denied access to certain high positions, deprived from the freedom to build new churches, and suffering from increasing suffocating fanaticism from all directions.

My special interest in the Coptic question, which is known to many people, led me to conduct an in-depth study of the history of Christianity in Egypt, in an attempt to acquaint myself with the source of the Coptic culture in all its dimensions and aspects. This entailed establishing close relations with hundreds, not to say thousands, of Copts, including many prominent figures of the Egyptian church. A number of Coptic friends believe that the Coptic question has reached a critical stage, and others dismiss this as an imaginary problem with no basis in reality.

Before going into the subject, I would like to state that the basic premise from which my thought proceeds is that the Copts are (or should be) genuine Egyptian citizens, that is, first-class citizens. Egypt is their country; they are not living here by the grace of others, but are fully entitled to enjoy the status and rights of nationhood, as full partners, not as charity cases.

If this premise is disputed, there can be no dialogue. This essay is neither addressed to those who regard our fellow countrymen of the Coptic faith as second-class citizens allowed living amongst us thanks to our tolerance and magnanimity, nor, a fortiori, to those who call for the imposition of the jizya (the poll-tax payment required of non-Muslims) on members of the Coptic community.

To engage in a debate with anyone who rejects the basic premise of this essay is to embark on an exercise in vain. No purpose would be served in trying to initiate what would essentially be a dialogue of the deaf. On the other hand, if the reader accepts the basic premise of this essay as an incontrovertible truth, then there is room for dialogue, provided, however, that no one presumes to speak in the name of the Copts, whether in expressing their grievances or in denying that these grievances exist.

Actually, not a single individual or entity in Egypt today, official or unofficial, can claim that the Copts have no problems or complaints. In writing these lines, therefore, I do not presume to speak for the Copts but only to convey to the reader what I have heard over and over again from ordinary Egyptian Coptic citizens, who cannot possibly be classified as rebels or extremists. I am familiar with the allegations of the extremists, which I will not go into here. I will only write what I have heard over the years – and believe to be true – from those who can only be described as moderate Copts. The basic issue is: "Do the Copts in Egypt suffer from serious problems in their own country?" The only possible answer is: "Yes".

Yes, Copts fear for themselves, their families, their property and their safety much more than Muslims do, though the latter, too, are not completely safe.

Yes, Copts suffer from a public atmosphere of fanaticism characterized by severe animosity towards them.

A major grievance over which there is complete consensus within the Coptic community is that the right to construct new churches or restore old ones has until recently been severely curtailed by legislative and bureaucratic constraints. Although these constraints have been somewhat eased, most Copts believe the situation is still far from satisfactory. I believe that the only way out of what is clearly an untenable situation is to unify the laws governing the construction and restoration of all houses of worship, whether they are called mosques or churches.

These laws should lay down a set of rational rules applicable to all Egyptians, regardless of creed. For it is totally illogical that one segment of society should be subjected to arbitrary constraints, while another is allowed to enjoy unbridled freedom when it comes to constructing places of worship, or congregating to offer prayer when and where its members choose. Indeed, and it is often the case, even when, this leads to chaotic situations involving obvious violations of law, people are too intimidated to challenge the offenders, leaving them free to flout the law with impunity.

But while this is a major grievance, it is far from being the only, or even the main reason for the widespread feeling among Egypt's Christians that they are living a tense moment, not to say a crisis situation. They have a lot more to worry about than the need to obtain a license before they can build a new church, although this is a flagrant case of institutionalized discrimination that is totally unjustified. After all, what possible threat can the construction of a new church represent? Churches are used either as houses of worship or as community centers where people congregate for weddings and funerals; banning or constraining their construction is an abridgement of a basic human right. Still, the Coptic community has other more serious complaints that can be summed up as follows:

· The existence of a general climate that allows for the resurgence of a spirit of religious intolerance at different times and in certain areas of the country. Copts are finely attuned to this phenomenon, as sometimes the mere mention of their name is enough to trigger a hostile reaction.

· There is a widespread feeling among Copts that their participation in public life has gradually dwindled over the last fifty years. Their sense of marginalization is borne out by the facts like in 1995, when not a single Copt was elected to parliament.

· There is, moreover, the specter of communal violence, which can flare up at any time as it has done in the past, most notably in the Koshh incident.[1]

A few analytical remarks on the feelings of unease that these issues engender among the Copts may be useful here.

First, with regard to the general climate which breeds a spirit of hateful fanaticism, this did not come about by a governmental decree or a political decision, but was a natural result of the defeat of the Egyptian revival project, especially after the June 1967 debacle. The vacuum was quickly filled up by a fundamentalist ideology and culture, which put itself forward as an alternative to the movement for a new Egyptian awakening. With the spread of the cultural values of this trend (whose members committed many crimes, most notably the assassination of Anwar Sadat),[2] the general climate fell prey to the forces of conservatism and regression which inevitably bred a situation of hostility towards the Copts.

As a noted Egyptian intellectual once put it, whenever the revival project is defeated in Egypt, this has negative repercussions on two groups of Egyptians: women and Copts. The opposite is equally true; in a vital and dynamic cultural climate, the attitude towards these two groups is enlightened and in keeping with the values of civilization and progress. It may be unfair to blame the current regime for creating an environment which breeds fanaticism and allows the resurgence of religious intolerance, with the attendant risk of communal violence. However, it is a fact that the government could have done, and can still do much to limit the dangerous polarization that has come to characterize the cultural climate in Egypt today.

To that end, it must adopt a policy aimed at the positive reinforcement of a culture of religious tolerance to replace the spirit of fanaticism threatening us all. While educational curricula and information media are the right place to start, we must not forget the importance of religious pulpits in shaping public perceptions. For there can be no hope of progress if Islamic religious institutions oppose a cultural project aimed at eradicating the spirit of religious intolerance which has taken hold in our society. This is why Al-Azhar must follow the vision of the regime, not the other way round. To leave matters to the men of religion is to accept the spread of a theocratic culture; logic and experience prove that theocracy cannot possibly support a culture of tolerance and acceptance of the right of others to differ; neither can it accept the notion of unity through diversity.

I am well aware that what I propose is easier said than done, and that the Egyptian government faces a daunting challenge. But I also know that the role of any "leadership" (in the broad sense of the word; that is, the executive leaders), is to formulate a vision, and work towards achieving it. In order to succeed, they must lead, and not allow themselves to be led. It would be wrong to claim that the regime is by its nature unwilling to face up to the challenge, or that it is responsible for creating the ugly spirit of fanaticism that has come to pervade our society. However, it has turned a blind eye to this aberration for a long time, only slowly coming to realize that the ideology behind the culture of fanaticism is the main enemy of the regime. It is this ideology which spawned the assassins of Anwar Sadat, the would-be assassins of the Addis Ababa incident, and the perpetrators of many other crimes.[3]

Second, with regard to the widespread feeling among Copts that their representation in public life has shrunk considerably over the last few decades, this is borne out by official statistics. However, this should not be seen as a deliberate attempt by the regime to keep Copts out of public office. It should rather be seen as a negative phenomenon that grew insidiously over the years, unnoticed by successive governments and driven by its own dynamics, until it has reached its present unacceptable proportions.

But whatever the reason, the fact remains that the Copts are marginalized in Egyptian public life, and this is a situation that merits serious study. I, for one, believe that the explanation of this phenomenon lies in the mentality our public officials have developed in recent years, which is characterized by a refusal to admit to the existence of problems, and an insistence on claiming that all is best in the best of all possible worlds.

This mentality is rooted in another cultural specificity, namely a refusal to accept criticism and an inability to engage in self-criticism. To claim, as some do, that the situation is of the Copts' own making, that they have become marginalized because they are too passive and too taken up in financial activities, is to put the cart before the horse. It is true that the Copts are passive and that they are involved in financial and economic activities, but that is a result not a cause - the result of having too many doors closed to them despite their undeniable abilities.

Although I am deeply convinced of the truth of the above analysis, I am also aware that it is incomplete. The same doors that are slammed in the face of highly qualified members of the Coptic community remain closed to many highly qualified members of the Egyptian society in general. The political game in Egypt today is open only to those willing to play by certain rules established over the last few decades; these rules are by their nature repellent to skilled professionals with any sense of pride, they are based on personal loyalty, nepotism and other mechanisms having nothing to do with professional abilities.

Third, with regard to the violent communal clashes which flare up from time to time, most recently in Koshh and, before that, in Khanka[4] - to mention just two of the many violent confrontations to which our recent history bears witness -, these are the result of a number of factors, the most important of which are:

· An official line that seems determined to play down the gravity of the situation, in the mistaken belief that admitting to the existence of such problem would be detrimental to Egypt's reputation. In fact, Egypt's reputation would be better served by confronting the problem head on, rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

· The spread of a culture pattern characterized by ignoring problems, extolling achievements and singing our own praises.

· A failure to make use of the many worthwhile efforts made to study and analyze the root causes of such incidents, such as the famous report put out by Dr. Gamal Oteify[5] on the spate of communal clashes which broke out in the nineteen seventies. His findings and recommendations could have been put to good use, had it not been for a cultural propensity to dismiss the clashes as a minor problem instigated by external forces for the purpose of destabilizing Egypt.

The purpose here is not to accuse or blame anyone, but to present an objective and neutral study which aims, like the late Dr. Oteify's report, at casting light on some elements of the problem. To accuse the government of persecuting the Copts would be both illogical and unwise. But it would equally be illogical and unwise to pretend that they have no legitimate grievances and that their situation is ideal.

Therefore, to accuse anyone who speaks of these matters of being an agent of parties hostile to Egypt, or of being involved in a plot against Egypt is simply a bad joke, an insult to the truth and an affront to reason; the style of riffraff, and a reflection of the style of the security services' investigations department, which tends to abandon the heart of the matter and pursue marginal issues related to personalities, suspicions and conspiratorial thinking.

This security-service mentality is one of the factors that contributed to the collapse of objectivity and rationality in our thinking, and that made this kind of thinking so far removed from objective and civilized modes of analysis, which are one of the achievements of human civilization; its time has passed.

Nonetheless, I was visited a few years ago by a person whose high-level position and job had direct bearing on the Coptic issue; he asked me why I was so enthusiastically involved in what I call in my writings "the Coptic issue". I told him at the time that as an Egyptian, it was my obligation to do so, and this was also what made me support women's issues in Egypt - because Egypt, which is sick today, will never get on the road to recovery so long as Copts and women do not take part in treating Egypt's problems from a position of full and unimpaired citizenship.

An oppressed person whose rights are denied cannot participate in pushing forward the broken wagon. I was sure that this visitor did not understand what I told him, because he had been trained to treat the Copts as a threat to Egypt, despite the fact that they are the original Egyptians.

At the time, I also told him: "If the Coptic issue is not discussed here, in Egypt, it will eventually be discussed abroad, and if we don't recognize all the aspects of the problem, then the Copts abroad will take their cause from the stage of merely crying out that they are being oppressed, to the stage of calling it a human rights issue; then, many will pay attention to them on an international level, including important decision-makers."

When I was young, I heard the Arab adage: "Most fires start from tiny sparks that people overlooked." Today, we realize that most troubles result from their having been ignored when they were small. We demand from the world that they believe our claim of being above reproach in our treatment of non-Muslims and women, and we relish repeating this, while the world looks at our deeds and finds them to be totally contrary to what we say.

To return to the issue of the Copts in Egypt, I contend that the fact that most senior officials continue to ignore the Coptic issue will bring Egypt to crises which I can almost make out on the horizon. They are similar to the crises of others in the region - others who were prey to the temptation of ignoring some problems, and especially of ignoring the realities of today's world, that is, the post-Cold War world.

This is a world in which the idea of sovereignty in its old sense, which had been stable for the many decades preceding the fall of the Berlin Wall, is no longer of any use to anyone. There are those who understand this new world, and there are those who are unable to understand and take in all the dimensions of this change…

I can think of no better way to conclude than with the following story: In the course of a debate on the Coptic question, someone asked me what the needs and demands of the Copts were. I began with their second demand, and then moved on to the third, fourth and fifth. But what, he asked, is their first demand? I replied that what they needed above all was a "social embrace", in the sense of being made to feel that there is a genuine desire to listen to them and hear their complaints and problems, in a spirit of brotherly love and sympathy based on the belief that they are equal partners in this land, not second-class citizens belonging to a minority that has to accept and bow to the will of the majority.

For a real and comprehensive solution to the Coptic question, we only need to look back at the time of Sa'd Zaghloul,[6] who established an exemplary model of communal relations that can serve as a glorious point of departure for a contemporary project to lay this nagging problem to rest once and for all.

There are good reasons making Sa'd Zaghloul the beloved of the Copts, and we would do well to emulate the example he set so many years ago.[7]

NOTES

[1] Koshh is a village in Upper Egypt in which hostility from rigid and intolerant Muslims took place more than once and ended (in 1999) by a massacre in which more than 20 Copts were murdered.

[2] (1918-1981 AD) Egyptian President from 1970 to 1981 AD Graduated from the Military Academy in 1938. Expelled from the army and imprisoned in the 1940's subversive political activities and suspicion of participation in plots to assassinate senior political figures. When he was released he rejoined the armed forces in 1950. He took part in the 1952 Free Officers Revolution and was a close ally of Gamal Abd-Al Nasser, who appointed Sadat in 1969 as his vice-president. When Nasser died, in September 1970, Sadat succeeded him as president. During the first years of his presidency Sadat quelled leftist opposition, surprised Israel in what was considered the victory of the 1973 war, reoriented Egyptian foreign policy towards the West (especially towards the USA), reversing its long pro-Soviet inclination. He introduced a series of economic and political reforms, promoting liberalization. In 1977, in a dramatic act and as a gesture demonstrating his will for peace, Sadat flew to Jerusalem and addressed the Israeli Knesset (parliament). The culmination of the process initiated by his visit was the signing of an Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement at Camp David. In his last years in power, Sadat's rule suffered from growing disillusionment and opposition (mainly from Islamic elements), manifested in the popular riots that broke out in 1977 and his assassination, during a victory parade, on 6 October 1981 by Islamic militants belonging to the Jihad group.

[3] Assassination of Egyptian President Sadat in 1981, attempt to the life of Egyptian President Mubarak in Addis Ababa in June 1995 ....

[4] Name of a suburb of the greater Cairo area where the Copts were subjected to Savage and intolerant hostility in 1972.

[5] Egyptian Minister of Culture under President Sadat.

[6] (1859-1927 AD).Egyptian political figure; served as prime minister of Egypt from 26 January 1924 to 24 November 1924.

[7] These reasons were exhaustively addressed in an old article of mine which was published in Al-Akhbar newspaper on 19 February 1987 under the title "Sa'd Zaghloul and the Unity of the Two Elements of the Egyptian Nation" and re- published later as a chapter in the author's book, "The Four Idols". Also available at
http://www.tarek-heggy.com/

More terror suspects must be sent home, peer tells MPs

Written by Martin Bentham
London Evening Standard
25 July 2010


Threat to UK: Abid Naseer

More foreign terror suspects should be returned to their home countries because of the threat they pose to national security, the Government's terrorism watchdog said today.

In a report to Parliament, Lord Carlile of Berriew said it was “not acceptable” that “large numbers” of dangerous overseas citizens were evading deportation on human rights grounds when their presence in Britain was placing the public in danger.

He said that ministers should adopt a more “imaginative approach” which would pave the way for more deportations by providing the courts with better evidence that mistreatment abroad would not occur.

His comments follow the controversy over al Qaeda terrrorists Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan, who were given permission to stay in Britain by the Court of Appeal because of the risk that they would be mistreated if returned to Pakistan, despite a judge concluding that they posed a threat to national security.

“It is not acceptable for large numbers of persons to remain in the UK when their presence is contrary to the national interest and national security,” Lord Carlile says.

“More could be done to persuade home countries of the importance of ensuring that returnees are treated in accordance with human rights standards; and to ensure that case-specific, credible, realistic and verifiable evidence to support return is placed before the courts.”

Lord Carlile backs the banning of groups such as al-Muhajirouna and its offshoots The Saved Sect and Al Ghurabaa, which have been involved in protests against returning British troops, on the grounds that they are prepared to use or encourage terrorism.

Allowed to stay

A graphic illustration of terror suspects' success in evading deportation was provided by a recent Court of Appeal decision on al Qaeda member Abid Naseer and his accomplice Ahmad Faraz Khan.

Mr Justice Mitting said Naseer posed “a serious threat” to national security and that Khan was a “committed Islamist extremist” and that they had been plotting to inflict “mass casualties” in the North-West.

But he vetoed the Government's bid to deport them to Pakistan, saying that it would breach their human rights because there was a risk that they would be tortured.

Naseer, 23, has since been arrested after an extradition request from the US where he is accused of involvement in a plot to bomb the New York subway.

Soon after his arrest, Khan, 26, decided to return to Pakistan voluntarily — an indication that his fear of mistreatment was not as great as had been suggested by his lawyers.

Geert Wilders: why I became anti-Islam

Written by Geert Wilders
Muslimsdebate.com
25 July 2010

Muslims Debate asked Mr. Geert Wilders why he became anti-Islam and what is his message to the Muslims?



I first visited an Islamic country in 1982. I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh. We were two almost penniless backpacking students. We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea.

I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people. I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were. While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.

I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.

It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, “cast terror into their hearts” (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of “imperialists” and “Zionists”, aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.

I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?

In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and “the curses it lays on its votaries.”

“Besides the fanatical frenzy, …, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy,” he wrote. “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. … The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. … Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.”

And Churchill concluded: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

The “indecently” dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice,” as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. “It is sinful to approach them,” the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.

Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom” (sura 43:17). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love – that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.”

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.

I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that “Nothing can be compared with Allah” (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.

Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps – let us certainly hope so – only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the “fearful fatalistic apathy” Churchill referred to.

The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: “About the immediate causes of things – precisely how they happen – they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. ‘Do you think it will rain?’ you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. ‘If God wills,’ is the answer. You pass the native hospital. ‘Are the doctors good?’ ‘In our country,’ the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, ‘we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.’ All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. ... They have relapsed – all except those who are educated according to Western methods – into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy.”

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.

As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: “Fatalism is no option; ‘Inch’ Allah’ is a curse; Submission is a disgrace

Free yourselves. It is up to you.

Geert Wilders

Wilders’ Message to Muslims

(Editor’s note: the new site MuslimsDebate.com [1] asked Geert Wilders why he became anti-Islam and what his message would be to Muslims. Below is his response.)

I first visited an Islamic country in 1982.

I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh.

We were two almost penniless backpacking students.

We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea.

I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people.

I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were.

While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.

I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.

It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, “cast terror into their hearts” (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of “imperialists” and “Zionists”, aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.

I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?

In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and “the curses it lays on its votaries.”

“Besides the fanatical frenzy, …, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy,” he wrote. “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. … The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. … Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.” And Churchill concluded: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

The “indecently” dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice,” as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. “It is sinful to approach them,” the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.

Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom” (sura 43:15). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love - that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.”

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.

I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that “Nothing can be compared with Allah” (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.

Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps - let us certainly hope so - only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the “fearful fatalistic apathy” Churchill referred to.

The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: “About the immediate causes of things - precisely how they happen - they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. ‘Do you think it will rain?’ you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. ‘If God wills,’ is the answer. You pass the native hospital. ‘Are the doctors good?’ ‘In our country,’ the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, ‘we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.’ All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. … They have relapsed - all except those who are educated according to Western methods - into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy.”

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.

As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: “Fatalism is no option; ‘Inch’ Allah’ is a curse;

Submission is a disgrace.

Free yourselves. It is up to you.

Geert Wilders

[1] MuslimsDebate.com: http://www.muslimsdebate.com/

Who’s Paying for the Ground Zero Islamic Center?

By Rick Lazio, Special to CNN
(CNN) — In June, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque, was asked on live radio if he believed Hamas is a terrorist organization.

This isn’t a difficult question: Hamas employs suicide bombers and fires incendiary rockets at civilian targets within Israel. It calls for the destruction of the Jewish state followed by the establishment of a potentially fundamentalist and repressive regime.

Governments all over the world, including the United States and the European Union, rightfully consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization that willfully and indiscriminately targets innocent civilians. Yet Imam Rauf, after being asked this simple, straightforward question, refused to state whether or not he believed Hamas to be a terrorist organization. He said: “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.”

Now Imam Rauf wants to build and lead a $100 million, 13-story community center and mosque. It would be constructed on property currently occupied by a historic 150-year-old building that was seriously damaged by the landing gear of one of the hijacked jetliners that flew into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and he wants to unveil it on September 11th, 2011.

I oppose the center and mosque’s construction because I believe there should be an investigation into the sources of its funding. The main group behind its construction, The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by the Imam, is a registered charity in New York State. It is the responsibility of New York’s Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to ensure the mosque’s funding is coming from reputable sources.

The radio show comments were not the first time Imam Rauf has said troubling things or been associated with troubling activities. On CBS’ “60 Minutes,” less than a month after the attacks, he said American policies were an “accessory” to the crime of 9/11. “In fact,” he added, “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

Imam Rauf is also listed on the website of the Perdana Global Peace Organization as a “role player and contributor.” This group was a financial backer of the Gaza flotilla, which attempted in May to break the Israeli’s blockade of Gaza.

The Cordoba Initiative has reported less than $20,000 dollars in assets. Where the $100 million for his project would come from is anybody’s guess. Furthermore, it’s fair to ask why, exactly, Imam Rauf has insisted on building the mosque so close to Ground Zero, and why he wants to unveil it on the 10th anniversary of the attacks. This not an issue of religious freedom, but rather, a question of safety and security.

New Yorkers deserve to be safe and to feel safe, and we have a right to know who’s footing the bill for Imam Rauf’s project. Are foreign governments or other organizations involved? And why is there such secrecy about the source of the money?

The Cordoba Initiative is legally required to file disclosure reports with the office of the attorney general, and it could easily be asked under state law to open its books for the office if Cuomo would simply make that request.

We need to know who is paying for the center and mosque. We need to know what their motives are, and we need to know if the Imam is promising any potential benefactors anything in return for their support.

By Rick Lazio

Former Congressman Rick Lazio served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2001, representing the 2nd Congressional District. He is currently the Republican nominee for governor of New York running against Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, who is the New York state attorney general.

Disappearance of Priest's Wife Leads to Coptic Demonstrations in Egypt

Written by Mary Abdelmassih
23 July 2010
(AINA) -- The unexplained disappearance of a Coptic priest's wife in Upper Egypt has led today a sit-in staged by thousands of Copts at the Coptic Patriarchate in Cairo, to protest what they consider "collusion by the state security services." There are rumors that Islamists have abducted her.

They promised to continue with their sit-in until the state security divulges her whereabouts.
Nearly three thousand demonstrators, joined by clergy, protested the lack of protection for Copts by state security, chanting "They abducted the wife of our priest, tomorrow they will abduct us" and "Where are our abducted girls or is it because they are Christians?" (video)

Police surrounded the Cathedral to prevent the demonstrators from going out to the streets.

On Monday, July 19, Father Tedaos Samaan, priest at St. Georges Church in Deir Mawas, Minya Governorate, returned home to find that his wife was missing from the previous night. He said that he was on a short visit to his parents with his toddler son, as his teacher wife Kamila Shehata was on a short placement to another school.

According to Father Tedaos (aged 30), the last times he spoke to his wife (24) was at 9.15 PM when she told him that she was at home, and was on her way to overnight at her parent's home, 100 meters away. She never arrived there.

Anba Agapios, Bishop of the dioceses of Delga and Deir Mawas, deplored the treatment by officials of the state security apparatus in Minya. They told him that they have the priest's wife with them and promised to deliver her to her family within hours and then they came back and retracted their statements and their promises to him. Consequently he asked his congregations to go to Cairo and stage a sit-in at St. Mark's Cathedral, until state security acts. He appealed to Copts in all the Egyptian governorates to stand together alongside their brethren during their sit-in.

In an aired interview on July 21 with the newly launched US-based Coptic Hope TV, Father Tedaos said that nearly 3000 of Deir Mawas youths and the neighboring villages "have hired buses to go to the Cairo for the sit-in, however, state security intercepted and detained them on the roads. "Where is the freedom? Are we not allowed to go to our father's house [the Pope] and speak out of what is ailing us?" he said. "But their brothers in Cairo and the other areas will make their voice heard," he assured.



The priest complained of the treatment by the authorities. "Whenever I phone them, they say they have no news and they do nothing. They only give me pain-killers, nothing more." He said state security knows the whereabouts of everyone, "they can even find a needle anywhere in the whole of Egypt."

Father Tedaos said that he obtained the last calls his wife received on her mobile phone from her service provider, and it was a call from an Azhar (related to Al-Azhar) colleague. Father Tedaos went as far as saying in his interview that this Azhar colleague has been planning for one year to send his teacher wife to a placement to another village school. "I gave this information to the security officers, but no one bothered to interrogate him. Now he has completely disappeared," he added.

Coptic activist Sherif Ramzy said that the priest represents the Copts and any assault on him is an assault on all the Copts.

Father Tedaos said that apart from his wife, there have been five other Coptic females who were abducted from Deir Mawas in the last 50 days. "But to abduct a wife of a priest is something else, as he represents the Church," said Sherif Ramzy.

"It is a sin what is happening to the Christians in Egypt," Father Tedaos said. "If the Islamists want to kill us, let them go ahead and do it," he said.

Father Tedaos appealed to President Mubarak for the return of his wife.

Mary Abdelmassih

Man accused of trying to join Islamist militants appears in court

This undated picture released by the SITE Institute shows Zachary Chesser, 20, standing in front of the White House.

Alexandria, Virginia (CNN) -- A Virginia man accused of attempting to travel to Somalia to join the Islamist militant group Al-Shabaab appeared in federal court Thursday, requesting that an attorney be appointed for him.

Zachary Adam Chesser, 20, did not speak except to answer the magistrate judge's question regarding the attorney. He was dressed in a short-sleeved blue shirt and off-white cargo pants.

Chesser will remain in custody, Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan ruled. A detention hearing is set for Friday.

Prosecutors say Chesser, of Fairfax County, Virginia, had exchanged e-mails with Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose name has been linked to an attack and an attempted attack on the United States. Chesser allegedly tried to fly on July 10 to Uganda and then on to Somalia.

According to an affidavit, he tried to take his infant son with him, telling his wife it was part of his "cover" to make it less likely anyone would suspect he was trying to go to Somalia to join Al-Shabaab. He was arrested Wednesday.

Chesser had been on the FBI's radar previously. He was questioned in 2009 about his Internet postings and e-mail communications with al-Awlaki. U.S. officials revealed at some point they began court-ordered electronic surveillance of Chesser.

In April, Chesser, who also goes by the name Abu Talhah al Amrikee, authored a post on the radical Islamic website Revolutionmuslim.com that included a warning to the creators of the TV cartoon series "South Park" after an episode included an image of the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit.

The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com says: "We have to warn Matt (Stone) and Trey (Parker) that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by an Islamic extremist in 2004 after making a short documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com features a graphic photograph of van Gogh with his throat cut and a dagger in his chest.

The entry on Revolutionmuslim.com goes on to advise readers: "You can contact them [the makers of 'South Park'], or pay Comedy Central or their own company a visit at these addresses ..." and lists Comedy Central's New York address, and the Los Angeles, California, address of Parker and Sloane's production company.

Chesser told CNN at the time that providing the addresses was not intended as a threat, but to give people the opportunity to protest.

Chesser is charged with providing material support for terrorism. If convicted, he could face a prison sentence of up to 15 years.

Several people who attended Thursday's hearing, including a woman wearing a burqa who appeared to be weeping, refused to speak to reporters.

The court documents said Chesser was not allowed to depart the country on July 10, was told by the airline he was on the "no-fly list," and was questioned by a Secret Service agent. He was not arrested and, according to the documents, he contacted an FBI agent and said he wanted to provide information about Al-Shabaab.

In subsequent interviews with the FBI, Chesser allegedly said he had been in contact with Al-Shabaab, felt he would have no problem joining the group when he reached Somalia and knew it had been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government.

Court documents say Chesser thought that after training he would be placed in the group's media branch but that people in that position still engage in fighting. He allegedly said he also unsuccessfully attempted to travel to Somalia in 2009.

In 2009, he allegedly told the FBI that he had sent several e-mail messages to al-Awlaki and that the cleric replied to two of them. U.S. officials say al-Awlaki also had communications with Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, who is accused of attempting to blow up an airliner over Detroit, Michigan, on Christmas, and with Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is accused of the shooting deaths of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November.

An FBI agent who interviewed Chesser last year said Chesser said that "although he didn't support acts of terrorism or violence, he wanted the U.S. to fail in its overseas military efforts, and he acknowledged that its failure would require many deaths," according to the affidavit. Chesser allegedly told the agent he had wanted to travel overseas to fight but changed his mind and had moderated his views.

He also allegedly told the FBI in 2009 he was not on good terms with mother "as a result of death threats that she received following postings he made on the Internet regarding the South Park television show," the affidavit said.

In the April post, Revolutionmuslim.com posted audio of al-Awlaki over photographs of Parker, Stone, van Gogh and others.

The sermon, recorded some time ago, talks about assassinating those who have "defamed" the Prophet Mohammed -- citing one religious authority as saying "Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that." U.S. officials say al-Awlaki is on a list of al Qaeda leaders targeted for capture or assassination.

The clip ends with a warning on a graphic directed at Parker and Stone, saying "The Dust Will Never Settle Down."

Chesser said at the time the purpose of including the al-Awlaki sermon in his posting was to remind Muslims that insulting the prophet is a severe offense for which the punishment in Islam is death.

Revolutionmuslim.com, based in New York, was the subject of a CNN investigation last year for its radical rhetoric supporting "jihad" against the West and praising al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Its organizers insist they act within the law and seek to protect Islam.

Are Egyptians ready for equal rights regardless of religion

Written by Yasser Khalil
CGNews
22 July 2010



Cairo - Egyptians are tired of the problems that have persisted for decades: the corruption and bribery that paralyse the nation’s law enforcement and legal system; the perpetual poverty that 20 per cent of the population suffers from; the nearly constant 10 per cent rate of unemployment; and a flawed educational system that has resulted in 27 per cent illiteracy.

Change is certainly on most Egyptians’ minds but are they truly ready for the democratic and practical changes that Mohamed ElBaradei, former Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and potential candidate for the 2011 presidential election, is promising?

A 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner, ElBaradei’s popularity exploded a few months ago, especially among the nation’s youth. His main Facebook support group, "ElBaradei for Presidency of Egypt 2011", has more than 240,000 members, seven per cent of the approximately 3.4 million Facebook users in Egypt. He is also supported by the 6th of April Youth Movement, a Facebook activist group which was started in 2008 to support striking industrial workers in a northern Egyptian town. The group is primarily comprised of young activists, bloggers and citizen journalists who rally online and in the streets for various political causes.

ElBaradei is also respected amongst the older generation, evidenced by the broad support for his National Association for Change organisation, which advocates for a political system based on genuine democracy and social justice. Supporters of this organisation include the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s largest political opposition group.

These constituencies support ElBaradei’s seven-point political reform plan for a better Egypt. This plan includes, among other reforms, ending the state of emergency in effect since 1981, enabling the judiciary to supervise the polling process, simplifying voter requirements and limiting the presidency to two terms.

Accomplishing these goals will require the modification of various articles in the Egyptian Constitution. And though many Egyptians view certain modifications as a necessary next step, ElBaradei – usually perceived as an open-minded liberal both in the media and by the people – stirred up a heated debate over Article II of the Constitution, which states that Islam is the official state religion and that Islamic law is the principle source of legislation.

Though he didn’t specifically mentioning changing the article, ElBaradei said that while he respects Egypt’s Muslim-majority, he also has to protect the rights of the Coptic Christian minority – and every Egyptian – regardless of faith, as they are guaranteed the same rights in the Constitution.

As a result, certain Islamic television channels, and the youth wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, published videos and articles against Elbaradei online. Many people commented that they would no longer vote for ElBaradei because he wants to separate religion from the state. And while the Muslim Brotherhood still supports ElBaradei’s candidacy, they disagree with his ideas for democratic change that includes a separation of state and religion.

These heated reactions are creating concern amongst some Egyptians who think that the majority is not ready to embrace such drastic change, which would force the issue of assuring equal rights to religious minorities and would no longer require Islamic principles to be the primary sources of legislation.

Many Egyptians believe that ElBaradei’s reforms would also include the removal of religion from identity cards, ending the application of Islamic family law to marriage and divorce processes for non-Muslims, the elimination of stumbling blocks discouraging religious minorities from constructing houses of worship and an end to anti-proselytisation laws.

In fact, many also believe that if the country had truly free and fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood party – which rejects the notion of Christians and women running for the presidency – would be elected, bolstered by the conservative-leaning religious sentiments of the majority.

ElBaradei’s potential to win the Egyptian presidency is still limited by people’s sensitivity to religion. For example, if the debate surrounding ElBaradei’s religiosity dies down and he becomes an official candidate who goes on to win the 2011 elections, some Egyptians fear that he will be pressured into choosing between implementing his plan of widespread democratic change and risking being labelled an “Americaniser” or an “enemy of Islam”, or compromising with the current social and political elite and not following through on some of his promises, like giving equal rights to minorities.

In order to bring about a future where Egyptians come to know true democratic reform as promised by ElBaradei’s seven-point plan, Egypt’s well-respected religious leaders – both Muslim and Christian – must help him quell the current debate and become more vocal in their support for his campaign for a more equal, tolerant Egypt.

Egyptians must pool their efforts and advocate for ElBaradei within their own religious communities, helping to cultivate a culture of tolerance so that people accept equal rights for all, regardless of religious identity. Though shifting mindsets is a long process, support from renowned religious figures in the country could help ElBaradei recoup his losses and put him back on the campaign track for the 2011 elections.
###

* Yasser Khalil is an Egyptian journalist. This article is part of a series on Islamic law and non-Muslim minorities written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

www.commongroundnews.org

Egyptian Christian Mother and her Children Abducted by Veiled Woman

The role played by Muslim women in the abduction and forced
Islamization of Christian females in Egypt is on the rise, with
continuously changing methods of deception. Victims are mostly minor
Christian girls, however, one of the most recent abductions was a
Coptic Christian family.

In the morning of June 29, 2010, 37-years old Coptic mother Nagwa
Sargios, left her home in the 10th Ramadan district of Greater Cairo,
together with her daughter Marina (17 years) and twin sons Mario and
Michael (9 years), to visit her mother in hospital, where she was
duefor a heart operation.

"My sister and her children never arrived as promised, and their
mobile phones were switched off. Next day we contacted her land line,
and my sister's husband said that he thought his family was with us
all the time", said Adel Sargios, her brother.

The Sargios family did their own investigations, and after talking
with neighbors, they were certain, that his sister's Muslim neighbor
and her two daughters Marwa and Asma, all wear Niqabs, (the
head-to-toe Muslim veil) were behind Nagwa and her children's
disappearance, with the motive of converting them to Islam. "They
must have deceived and lured her and her family away" as the brother
puts it.

The information he collected about the Muslim neighbor who is
divorced, is that she is a charlatan earning her living by claiming
to practise sorcery, which Muslim women believe in its power and have
recourse to it.

The police refused to issue a report as 'abduction' as they considered
the Christian family to be only "missing".

After the incident, the Muslim neighbor and her two daughters have abandoned
their flat, empty of all furnishings and belongings.

The Sargios family did their own investigations again, successfully
tracing the whereabouts of the Niqab-clad family. The information was
relayed to the state security officer who insisted on visiting them
alone. However, when he returned to the police station he told the
family that the Muslim woman is innocent, and that they should look
somewhere else. "This way the investigation would deal with it as a
"missing" persons case and we have to look further for another
culprit," said Adel Sargios .

Top attorney Dr. Naguib Gobrail, president of the Egyptian Union of
Human Rights Organization (EUHRO), who got involved in the case
through the Sargios family, contacted state security in the presence
of the family. "The officer assured me that Nagwa and her children are
with state security, and that she did not convert to Islam," he said.
The officer also told Gobrail that the family could go and collect
their daughter and her children the next day.

When the family went to state security, with an activist from Euhro,
the officer denied having said anything of this sort to Dr. Gobrail,
and denied knowing the whereabouts of the missing family.

According to Dr. Gobrail there have been attempts to convert Nagwa
Sargios to Islam "by her veiled neighbor, but she rejected these
attempt and stuck to her Christian religion," reported Copts United.

"To our surprise, we learnt from our sources that the abduction of my
sister and her family was being planned for since two years," the
brother said.

Adel Sargios accused the state security of delaying and lying about
everything for three weeks. "I am certain that the officer is an
accomplice, he is giving time to the abductors to move Nagwa and her
family somewhere far," he commented.

Coptic Activist Medhat Kelada, believes that the Islamization of Copts
is a business which represents a permanent source of livelihood for
state security officials,
"Especially with the flow of funds from the rich and extremist
Wahhabis who try to Islamize the Egyptian Copts with the help of some
of the security service officers", he said.

While looking for his sister and the Niqab-clad woman in the area,
"We found tens of Coptic girls abducted from 10th Ramadan district,
and they even came back to live there after converting to Islam and
getting married to Muslims. Their defenseless Coptic families, who
feel humiliated and infuriated, are threatened by state security not
to open their mouth," Adel said.

The abduction and forced Islamization of Coptic girls, which has
started nearly 30 years ago, is a lucrative business for Muslims,
whether they are the brokers, abductors or state security officials,
who do their best to protect those involved in the crime. Price of a
Coptic girl vary according to her looks and her family's social
status. (http://www.aina.org/news/20090718111414.htm)

Magdy Khalil, political analyst and researcher in Coptic affairs
believes that abduction of Coptic girls is an organized crime, carried
out through an organized and pre-planned process by associations and
organizations inside Egypt with domestic and Arab funding.

Adel said that his older brother Ashraf has been intimidated by
state security and he himself has received numerous threats on his
mobile phone not to pursue the matter further or talk about the
incident in chat rooms on the internet. " I will never give up,
whatever they do. My family has already lost four of its members , it
does not matter if they also lose a fifth."

On July 19, 2010, the Coptic family filed a report with the police
officially accusing the Muslim neighbor of abducting Nagwa and her
three children.

By Mary Abdelmassih

Islam Experts: Ground Zero ‘Mega Mosque’ Is Political Statement

By Michelle A. Vu|Christian Post Reporter

Several experts on Islam, including the Son of Hamas author, are opposed to the idea of building a “mega mosque” near Ground Zero because they say the motivation is political not reconciliation.

“Why was this particular site selected? Because the need for a $100 million mosque is so great? Because 45-47 Park Place is the only place left in Manhattan to put a mosque?” posed Mosab Hassan Yousef, author of the bestselling book Son of Hamas, on his blog Friday.

“No. Because it will make a powerful political and religious statement.”

Yousef, like several other Christian scholars with expertise on Islamic strategies, warns that despite appealing reasons given for the mosque - such as improving interfaith relations and promoting tolerance - it will stand as a “bold affirmation” of the same Quran cited by the Muslim extremists who brought down the World Trade Center and killed thousands of American civilians in 2001.

“If Cordoba and other Muslim organizations in America would like to ‘do a huge amount of good,’ let them build a hospital instead of a mosque,” proposed Yousef, whose father is one of the founding leaders of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. “Build something that will help the families of the 9/11 victims. Do something productive for humanity in general, instead of challenging liberty and confusing people about the realities of Islam.”

Yousef, who has become a follower of Jesus Christ, is an outspoken critic of Islam after witnessing first-hand how it inspired Muslims in the Middle East to use violence against their enemies. In his book Son of Hamas, Yousef details his life in the West Bank living under the ideology of terrorism and how he was shocked to learn about the teachings of Jesus to forgive and love one’s enemy.

The “Son of Hamas” author describes Westerners as going to almost any length to “avoid offending Islam,” while the Muslim community “appears to think nothing of pouring acid in America’s open wounds.”

Over the past few months, a heated, emotionally-charged debate has been occurring over whether to allow the construction of a 13-story Muslim community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The Cordoba Initiative, which is behind the proposal for the $100 million Cordoba House, says the center will include a 500-seat auditorium, a swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, as well as bookstores and restaurants.

Opponents of the project say it is insensitive and offensive to the 2,976 victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and their family members.

“We feel that it is a cemetery and sacred ground and the dead should be honored,” said Pamela Geller, a conservative blogger and leader of a group called Stop the Islamicization of America, on CNN’S “America Morning” last week. “To build a 13-story mega mosque on the cemetery, on the largest site in American history, I think, is incredibly insensitive.”

New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission is in the process of deciding whether to grant the current building on the site landmark status. If it is given landmark status, the Cordoba Initiative cannot raze the current building and replace it with its mosque. They could, however, build on top of the current building if they receive permission to add floors.

The Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement own the property at 45-47 Park Place after paying $4.85 million cash to Soho Properties, a Muslim-run real estate company, last year. They have been using the building for prayer meetings.

“One of the primary means of Da’wah, or Islamic mission, has to do with the planting of Islamic cultural centers and ultimately the placement of a mosque in strategic locations,” said a theologian, who has spent 40 years studying the Islamic world, to The Christian Post on Friday. He requested to remain anonymous.

The Islam expert, who has lived in Morocco and North Africa, said the world’s attention is and will probably always be on the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“That is a historical marker in American history that is equivalent to the death of John F. Kennedy,” he said. “There are historical markers like that that never escape the memories of people.”

“So this particular location, or the closest they can get to it, is the attempt to establish a historical marker for the visible progress of Islam worldwide, because it was with that event that they established themselves in the eyes of the world as legitimate victims of the West.”

Muslims, the expert said, are using the victim strategy, showing that they have been mistreated by the West, to advance their agenda.

The New York commission is expected to vote in August on the landmark status of the 45-47 Park Place building.