fredag 2 oktober 2009

Muslims Not 'Free of Being Mocked,' Danish Cartoonist Says

Thursday, October 01, 2009 By Joshua Rhett Miller FOX NEWS

Sept. 30: Kurt Westergaard, 74, speaks to a group in Manhattan on his controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad

Muslims need to develop a sense of humor and an appreciation of satire — and they need to understand that they are not "free of being mocked or being offended," says the Danish caricaturist whose cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad incited rage throughout the Muslim world four years ago.

Kurt Westergaard told roughly a dozen listeners Wednesday night that he will "always" be ready to defend an individual's right to religious freedom.

"As the Danish tradition is for satire, we say you can speak freely, you can vote, you can speak out anytime, but there's only one thing you can't do — you can't be free of being mocked or being offended," Westergaard said. "That's the conditions in Denmark and so many countries."

Westergaard spoke at a private residence in midtown Manhattan in conjunction with the Hudson New York Briefing Council. It was just his second appearance in the U.S. since the 2005 publication of his notorious cartoon, which depicted Muhammad wearing a turban resembling a lit bomb. In Islam, any depiction of Muhammad is forbidden and considered blasphemy.

Westergaard's controversial cartoon was one of 12 that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to widespread violent protests throughout the Middle East, Asia, Denmark and Africa.

Several months after the cartoons were published, a Pakistani cleric reportedly offered 1.5 million rupee — roughly $16,700 — and a car to anyone who killed Westergaard. Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, prayer leader at the Mohabat Khan mosque in the northwestern city of Peshawar, announced the bounty in February 2006 at the mosque and the Jamia Ashrafia religious school that he leads.

In June 2008, Westergaard and ten newspaper editors were reportedly summoned by Jordan's public prosecutor on charges of "blasphemy" for reprinting the cartoons. Three men were arrested last year in Denmark for allegedly plotting to assassinate him.

Security at Wednesday night's event was heightened, with two uniformed New York Police Department officers stationed outside the building as Westergaard spoke. Additional security measures were also taken earlier in the day when Westergaard spoke during a luncheon at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and at Princeton University. He is scheduled to speak at Yale University on Thursday — an appearance that is causing some controversy on the Ivy League campus.


Members of the Yale Muslim Students Association have said they are "deeply hurt and offended" that Westergaard will speak on the New Haven, Conn., campus, though they do not plan to protest. The group said Yale fails to recognize the "religious and racial" sensitivities surrounding the matter.

"As an institution purportedly committed to making our campus an educational environment where all students feel equally comfortable, we feel that by hosting Kurt Westergaard Yale is undermining its commitment to creating a nurturing learning environment by failing to recognize the religious and racial sensitivity of the issue," the group said in a statement.

"Certainly, it would be unlikely for a white supremacist or a Holocaust denier to be a distinguished guest speaker at Yale; hosting individuals who propagate hate is not only a disservice to the minorities that hate is directed towards but to the campus community as a whole."

Tom Conroy, a Yale spokesman, said Westergaard had been invited to a Master's Tea by Steven Smith, a professor of political science and master of Branford College, one of Yale University's 12 undergraduate colleges.

"Individuals at Yale have deep objections to Mr. Westergaard's cartoon and commentary, but in the Yale community, the avenue to voice disagreement with expression is through more speech, not its curtailment," Conroy said in a statement.

He said Professor Smith had met with campus police, who are working with "city, state and federal" authorities regarding security at the event.

Smith said in a statement released Wednesday that he wanted to examine issues of "free speech" and "globalization" by inviting Westergaard.

But Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said the event was meant to rile Muslims.

"We're strong believers in the First Amendment and he has the right to publish whatever he wants, however bigoted and offensive it is," Hooper told "The people who brought him here are obviously intending to offend Muslims, but we're not going to rise to the bait."

Hooper said Westergaard's appearances at Princeton and Yale represent more instances of the "Muslim-bashing" he says is growing in the United States.

"Their intent is to offend and get free publicity by getting Muslims to reply with a reaction," Hooper said. "So, we will not."

Westergaard, meanwhile, called on his detractors to "respect our democratic values," including freedom of speech, and reiterated that he would create the cartoon again "if it was required."

Wearing red pants and a matching red scarf, the 74-year-old walked gingerly with a cane and said he's no longer afraid of the constant threat of being assassinated for his drawings.

"I'm so old that I'm not really afraid anymore," he said. "The older you get, there's lesser and lesser at stake."

Click here for a video.

Asked whether his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad originated from his personal politics or as part of his job as a cartoonist, Westergaard replied: "I am fighting for a just cause. And so you have a moral alibi, which is good, and then I have only worked according to our traditions in Denmark.

"And, of course, there's been a lot of support from the man which I meet in the street, the ethnic Dane who pats my shoulder and says, 'Well done.' Then there's also been the Muslims who have threatened me and cursed me … but I think the most reactions I have received, they are very positive."

Diana West, vice president of The International Free Press Society, which organized and promoted Westergaard's visit to the U.S., said, "It was a sheet of cartoons in a very small newspaper in a very small country that kicked off this now extremely significant event."

"And as a result, Westergaard has lived the last four years under death threats and in heightened security. It was a cartoon that he drew — this is his job."

She went on to criticize the decision by the Yale University Press not to publish Westergaard's image in a book released earlier this month, saying it reeked of "cowardice" and "appeasement."

"The question becomes whether we in the West submit to Islamic law regarding free speech and free expression," she said. "This is supposed to be a free country.

200 bilar skadade i brand i Bergsjön-hur länge ska vi klappa medhårs?

GP 2 Oktober 2009

Uppemot 200 bilar skadades i branden i ett garage i Bergsjön. Ett vittne hörde kraftiga explosioner strax innan det började brinna.

Relaterat: Vittne hörde explosioner i garaget

Vid sextiden på torsdagsmorgonen rapporterade Räddningstjänsten att branden på Siriusgatan är släckt. Men flera av lägenheterna ovanför garaget är strömlösa, och betongen i taket på garaget har spruckit och riskerar att falla ner.

Även fasaden uppges vara skadad, och förutom de sex utbrända bilarna har ett stort antal rök- och sotskadat.

– Det handlar förmodligen om uppemot 200 bilar, och vi kommer att skriva anmälningar på allihop. Därför behöver inte ägarna själva göra någon anmälan, den kommer att komma hem till dem med posten, säger polisens presstalesman Jan Strannegård.

Hittills har polisen konstaterat att 113 bilar har skadats i branden men ytterligare sektioner kommer att gås igenom och antalet skadade fordon kommer troligen överstiga 200 när den tekniska undersökningen är klar. Först på fredag räknar polisen med att veta det exakta antalet skadade fordon.

Under förmiddagen pågick Räddningstjänstens arbete med att ventilera ut röken.

– Vi har fem brandmän kvar där för att hålla koll på läget. Det har brunnit ordentligt, säger Kent Drott på räddningstjänsten i Göteborg.

Någon evakuering genomfördes aldrig, i stället uppmanades de boende att stanna kvar i sina lägenheter eftersom röken spred sig upp i trapphuset.

Stadsdelsförvaltningen i Bergsjön är kontaktade och kommer att ge de boende hjälp och stöd, enligt ett pressmeddelande.

Larmet kom strax före klockan tre på natten. En man som höll på att reparera sin mammas bil hörde hur ett fordon kom inkörande. Strax efteråt kom det flera explosioner och en kraftig brand startade. Mannen tog sig snabbt ut ur garaget och larmade sedan räddningstjänsten. Vittnet klarade sig utan skador.

Garagebranden är bara ett i raden av liknande tillbud den senaste tiden.

Polisen upprättat anmälan om mordbrand, eftersom det fanns boende i fastigheten. Man misstänker att branden är anlagd, men vet inte vem som ligger bakom. Den tekniska undersökningen kommer att starta så fort som röken har vädrats ut och teknikerna kan gå in i garaget.

– Vi vet inte mer än att det brunnit, säger polisen presstalesman.

Även på Hisingen har det brunnit. En personbil vid Selma Lagerlöfs Torg stod i lågor kring midnatt, liksom en traktor i Lundby.

En traktor? Jag tänker spontant på om den tillhörde en bonde? En bonde som lever på soppa på en spik. Det gör mig heligt förbaskad. Jag lovar er att vi inte kommer att höra talas om några åtgärder, det här kommer att fortgå. Vi snälla medmänskliga svenskar klappar ju medhårs, det är så “synd” om dessa individer!

Allt medans de (som förstör) skrattar åt mediareportrar som köper deras snack, de anser att poliser inte har där att göra, att man kommer till himlen om man dödar en polis (Se video på denna blogg från Norsk TV). Klappa på bara, politiker. Stå och titta på bara, polisen. Belöna med resor till när och fjärran.

De som får sina bilar uppbrända ser inte på detta med blida ögon, de är säkert förbannade på sveriges handlingsförlamning och tycka synd om attityd. Politiker- jag vet inte vad erat mål är, det ser ut som om ni medvetet jobbar på att förstöra vad sverige en gång varit. Vi vill bara ha lite lugn och ro, vi vill ha en bil att köra till jobbet med. Vi vill kunna få sjukpenning och ersättning om vi blir sjuka.

SD vill göra något åt allt det här, men media kallar det rasism. Är det rasism att se sanningen i vitögat? Varför röstar så många integrerade immigranter på SD i så fall, förklara det för mig! Jag har en vän som är ex- muslim. Denne vän gick igår med i SD och sa att det var det bästa han någonsin gjort- förklara det, du! Skulle han gå med i ett rasistiskt parti? Ge er, den där gubben håller inte längre, ni vill bara undvika diskussion, ni vet att de har rätt i mångt och mycket. Fortsätt smutskasta medans svenskar, infödda och immigrerade- röstar på SD nästa val.

onsdag 30 september 2009

Israel and Its Enemies

Israel and Its Enemies

by Daniel Pipes
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2009, pp. 37-42

When Barack Obama announced in June 2009 about Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, "I'm confident that if we stick with it, having started early, that we can make some serious progress this year," he displayed a touching, if naïve optimism.

Indeed, his determination fits a well-established pattern of determination by politicians to "solve" the Arab-Israeli conflict; there were fourteen U.S. government initiatives just during the two George W. Bush administrations. Might this time be different? Will trying harder or being more clever end the conflict?

No, there is no chance whatever of this effort working.

Without looking at the specifics of the Obama approach — which are in themselves problematic — I shall argue three points: that past Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have failed; that their failure resulted from an Israeli illusion about avoiding war; and that Washington should urge Jerusalem to forego negotiations and return instead to its earlier and more successful policy of fighting for victory.

I. Reviewing the "Peace Process"

The two hands of September 1993, when Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat shook hands with President Clinton watching.

It is embarrassing to recall the elation and expectations that accompanied the signing of the Oslo accords in September 1993 when Israel's prime minister Yitzhak Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader. For some years afterward, "The Handshake" (as it was then capitalized) served as the symbol of brilliant diplomacy, whereby each side achieved what it most wanted: dignity and autonomy for the Palestinians, recognition and security for the Israelis.

President Bill Clinton hosted the ceremony and lauded the deal as a "great occasion of history." Secretary of StateWarren Christopher concluded that "the impossible is within our reach." Yasir Arafat called the signing an "historic event, inaugurating a new epoch." Israel's foreign minister Shimon Peres said one could see in it "the outline of peace in the Middle East."

The press displayed similar expectations. Anthony Lewis, aNew York Times columnist, deemed the agreement "stunning" and "ingeniously built." Time magazine made Arafat and Rabin two of its "men of the year" for 1993. To cap it off, Arafat, Rabin, and Peres jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize for 1994.

As the accords led to a deterioration of conditions for Palestinians and Israelis, rather than the expected improvement, these heady anticipations quickly dissipated.

When Palestinians still lived under Israeli control, pre-Oslo accords, they had benefited from the rule of law and a growing economy, independent of international welfare. They enjoyed functioning schools and hospitals; they traveled without checkpoints and had free access to Israeli territory. They even founded several universities. Terrorism declined as acceptance of Israel increased. Oslo then brought Palestinians not peace and prosperity, but tyranny, failed institutions, poverty, corruption, a death cult, suicide factories, and Islamist radicalization. Yasir Arafat had promised to build his new dominion into a Middle Eastern Singapore, but the reality he ruled became a nightmare of dependence, inhumanity, and loathing, more akin to Liberia or the Congo.

The two hands of October 2000, when a young Palestinian showed off his bloody hands after lynching two Israeli reservists.

As for Israelis, they watched as Palestinian rage spiraled upward, inflicting unprecedented violence on them; the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports that more Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists in the five years after the Oslo accords than in the fifteen years preceding it. If the two hands in the Rabin-Arafat handshake symbolized Oslo's early hopes, the two bloody hands of a young Palestinian male who had just lynched Israeli reservists in Ramallah in October 2000 represented its dismal end. In addition, Oslo did great damage to Israel's standing internationally, resurrecting questions about the very existence of a sovereign Jewish state, especially on the Left, and spawning moral perversions such as the U.N. World Conference against Racism in Durban. From Israel's perspective, the seven years of Oslo diplomacy, 1993-2000, largely undid forty-five years of success in warfare.

Palestinians and Israelis agree on little, but with a near universality they concur that the Oslo accords failed. What is called the "peace process" should rather be called the "war process."

II. The False Hope of Finessing War

Why did things go so badly wrong? Where lay the flaws in so promising an agreement?

Of a multiplicity of errors, the ultimate mistake lay in Yitzhak Rabin's misunderstanding of how war ends, as revealed by hiscatch-phrase, "One does not make peace with one's friends. One makes peace with one's enemy." The Israeli prime minister expected war to be concluded through goodwill, conciliation, mediation, flexibility, restraint, generosity, and compromise, topped off with signatures on official documents. In this spirit, his government and those of his three successors — Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak — initiated an array of concessions, hoping and expecting the Palestinians to reciprocate.

They did not. In fact, Israeli concessions inflamed Palestinian hostility. Palestinians interpreted Israeli efforts to "make peace" as signals of demoralization and weakness. "Painful concessions" reduced the Palestinian awe of Israel, made the Jewish state appear vulnerable, and incited irredentist dreams of annihilation. Each Oslo-negotiated gesture by Israel further exhilarated, radicalized, and mobilized the Palestinian body politic to war. The quiet hope of 1993 to eliminate Israel gained traction, becoming a deafening demand by 2000. Venomous speech and violent actions soared. Polls and votes in recent years suggest that a mere 20 percent of Palestinians accept the existence of a Jewish state.

Yitzhak Rabin's understanding that "One does not make peace with one's friends. One makes peace with one's enemy" led Arab-Israeli diplomacy fundamentally astray.

Rabin's mistake was simple and profound: One cannot "make peace with one's enemy," as he imagined. Rather, one makes peace with one's former enemy. Peace nearly always requires one side in a conflict to be defeated and thus give up its goals.

Wars end not through goodwill but through victory. "Let your great object [in war] be victory" observed Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist. "War is an act of violence to compel the enemy to fulfill our will," wrote his nineteenth-century Prussian successor, Karl von Clausewitz in 1832. Douglas MacArthur observed in 1951 that in "war, there is no substitute for victory."

Technological advancement has not altered this insight. Fighting either continues or potentially can resume so long as both sides hope to achieve their war goals. Victory consists of imposing one's will on the enemy, compelling him to give up his war ambitions. Wars typically end when one side gives up hope, when its will to fight has been crushed.

Defeat, one might think, usually follows on devastating battlefield losses, as was the case of the Axis in 1945. But that has rarely occurred during the past sixty years. Battlefield losses by the Arab states to Israel in 1948-82, by North Korea in 1953, by Saddam Hussein in 1991, and by Iraqi Sunnis in 2003 did not translate into despair and surrender.Morale and will matter more these days. Although they out-manned and out-gunned their foes, the French gave up in Algeria, the Americans in Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Cold War ended, notably, with barely a fatality. Crushing the enemy's will to fight, then, does not necessarily mean crushing the enemy.

Arabs and Israelis since 1948 have pursued static and opposite goals: Arabs fought to eliminate Israel; Israelis fought to win their neighbors' acceptance. Details have varied over the decades with multiple ideologies, strategies, and leading actors, but the twin goals have remained in place and unbridgeable. If the conflict is to end, one side must lose and one side win. Either there will be no more Zionist state or it will be accepted by its neighbors. Those are the only two scenarios for ending the conflict. Anything else is unstable and a premise for further warfare.

The Arabs have pursued their war aims with patience, determination, and purpose; the exceptions to this pattern (e.g., the Egyptian and Jordanian peace treaties) have been operationally insignificant because they have not tamped hostility to Israel's existence. In response, Israelis sustained a formidable record of strategic vision and tactical brilliance in the period 1948-93. Over time, however, as Israel developed into a wealthy country, its populace grew impatient with thehumiliating, slow, boring, bitter, and expensive task of convincing Arabs to accept their political existence. By now, few in Israel still see victory as the goal; almost no major political figure on the scene today calls for victory in war. Uzi Landau, currently minister of national infrastructure, who argues that "when you're in a war you want to win the war," is the rare exception.

The Hard Work of Winning

In place of victory, Israelis developed an imaginative array of approaches to manage the conflict:

  • Territorial compromise: Yitzhak Rabin (and the Oslo process).
  • Develop the Palestinian economy: Shimon Peres (and the Oslo process).
  • Unilateralism (build a wall, withdraw from Gaza): Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima party.
  • Lease the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank for 99 years: Amir Peretz and the Labor Party.
  • Encourage the Palestinians to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and George W. Bush).
  • Territorial retreat: Israel's Left.
  • Exclude disloyal Palestinians from Israeli citizenship: Avigdor Lieberman.
  • Offer Jordan as Palestine: elements of Israel's Right.
  • Expel Palestinians from lands controlled by Israel: Meir Kahane.

Contradictory in spirit and mutually exclusive as they are, these approaches all aim to finesse war rather than win it. Not one of them addresses the need to break the Palestinian will to fight. Just as the Oslo negotiations failed, I predict that so too will every Israeli scheme that avoids the hard work of winning.

Ehud Olmert speaking for the Israel Policy Forum in June 2005, where he announced that Israelis "are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."

Since 1993, in brief, the Arabs have sought victory while Israelis sought compromise. In this spirit, Israelis openly announced their fatigue with warfare. Shortly before becoming prime minister, Ehud Olmert said on behalf of his countrymen: "We are tired of fighting; we are tired of being courageous; we are tired of winning; we are tired of defeating our enemies." After becoming prime minister, Olmert proclaimed: "Peace is achieved through concessions. We all know that." Such defeatist statements prompted Yoram Hazony of the Shalem Center to characterize Israelis as "an exhausted people, confused and without direction."

But who does not win, loses. To survive, Israelis eventually must return to their pre-1993 policy of establishing that Israel is strong, tough, and permanent. That is achieved through deterrence — the tedious task of convincing Palestinians and others that the Jewish state will endure and that dreams of elimination must fail.

This will not be easy or quick. Due to missteps during the Oslo years and after (especially the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza of 2005 and the Lebanon war of 2006), Palestinians perceive Israel as economically and militarily strong but morally and politically weak. In the pungent words of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Israel is "weaker than a spider's web." Such scorn will likely require decades of hard work to reverse. Nor will it be pretty: Defeat in war typically entails that the loser experience deprivation, failure, and despair.

Israel does enjoy one piece of good fortune: It need only deter the Palestinians, not the whole Arab and Muslim populations. Moroccans, Iranians, Malaysians, and others take their cues from the Palestinians and with time will follow their lead. Israel's ultimate enemy, the one whose will it needs to crush, is roughly the same demographic size as itself.

This process may be seen through a simple prism. Any development that encourages Palestinians to think they can eliminate Israel is negative, any that encourages them to give up that goal is positive.

The Palestinians' defeat will be recognizable when, over a protracted period and with complete consistency, they prove that they have accepted Israel. This does not mean loving Zion, but it does mean permanently accepting it — overhauling the educational system to take out the demonization of Jews and Israel, telling the truth about Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and accepting normal commercial, cultural, and human relations with Israelis.

Palestinian démarches and letters to the editor are acceptable but violence is not. The quiet that follows must be consistent and enduring. Symbolically, one can conclude that Palestinians have accepted Israel and the war is over when Jews living in Hebron (on the West Bank) have no more need for security than Arabs living in Nazareth (in Israel).

III. U.S. Policy

Like all outsiders to the conflict, Americans face a stark choice: Endorse the Palestinian goal of eliminating Israel or endorse Israel's goal of winning its neighbors' acceptance.

To state the choice makes clear that there is no choice — the first is barbaric, the second civilized. No decent person can endorse the Palestinians' genocidal goal of eliminating their neighbor. Following every president since Harry S Truman, and every congressional resolution and vote since then, the U.S. government must stand with Israel in its drive to win acceptance.

Not only is this an obvious moral choice, but Israel's win, ironically, would be the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinians. Compelling them finally to give up on their irredentist dream would liberate them to focus on their own polity, economy, society, and culture. Palestinians need to experience the crucible of defeat to become a normal people — one whose parents stop celebrating their children becoming suicide terrorists, whose obsession with Zionist rejectionism collapses. There is no shortcut.

This analysis implies a radically different approach for the U.S. government from the current one. On the negative side, it puts Palestinians on notice that benefits will flow to them only after they prove their acceptance of Israel. Until then — no diplomacy, no discussion of final status, no recognition as a state, and certainly no financial aid or weapons.

On the positive side, the U. S. administration should work with Israel, the Arab states, and others to induce the Palestinians to accept Israel's existence by convincing them that they have lost. This means impressing on the Israeli government the need not just to defend itself but to take steps to demonstrate to Palestinians the hopelessness of their cause. That requires not episodic shows of force (such as the 2008-09 war against Hamas in Gaza) but a sustained and systematic effort to deflate a bellicose mentality.

Israel's victory also directly helps its U.S. ally, for some of its enemies — Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran — are also America's. Tougher Israeli tactics would help Washington in smaller ways, too. Washington should encourage Jerusalem not to engage in prisoner exchanges with terrorist groups, not to allow Hezbollah to re-arm in southern Lebanon or Fatah or Hamas in Gaza, and not to withdraw unilaterally from the West Bank (which would effectively turn over the region to Hamas terrorists and threaten Hashemite rule in Jordan).

Diplomacy aiming to shut down the Arab-Israeli conflict is premature until Palestinians give up their anti-Zionism. When that happy moment arrives, negotiations can re-open and take up anew the Oslo issues — borders, resources, armaments, sanctities, residential rights. But that is years or decades away. In the meantime, an ally needs to win.

Daniel Pipes is publisher of the Middle East Quarterly and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Defending Germany's Constitution

Law Enforcement Views Radical Islam

by Klaus Grünewald
Middle East Quarterly
March 1995

Klaus Grünewald is head of the counterterrorist division of Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution). Before joining the agency in 1961, he worked as a freelance journalist concentrating on rightwing extremism in Germany.

At this very moment, no less than fourteen extremist Islamic organizations have structures active in Germany. All these groups have two goals in common: to propagate militant Islam in Europe and to fight the governments in their home countries; alternatively--in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran--they aspire intransigently to suppress all dissident sentiment at home and abroad.

In recent years, these extremist groups have shown a continuous increase in membership. At the end of 1993, they had over 21,200 members or supporters in Germany alone, representing about 1 percent of all the foreigners of Muslim faith resident in Germany. This number has grown substantially in recent years, and could continue to grow dramatically in the future should the Muslim population's standard of living decline or should it consider its future prospects in the Federal Republic of Germany to be hopeless. These findings apply similarly to other European countries with a significant Islamic population.

In Germany, extremist Islamic organizations find an overwhelming majority of their members and sympathizers among the foreign and immigrant population. These groups themselves are branches of organizations in countries with strong Islamic movements, such as Egypt, Algeria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iran. They also include many Palestinians. Within these organizations' German branches, Arabs stand out for their militancy, Iranians for their model of a theocratic system, and Turks for their sheer numbers.


Almost all extremist Arab organizations currently active in the Middle East and North Africa have branches or at least individual members in Europe.

The leading radical Islamic group of Sunni Arabs is the Muslim Brethren, whose two largest European centers are in Munich (headquarters of the Egyptian branch) and Aachen (under the influence of the Syrian branch). Though little separates the two ideologically, they are distinguished by being subsidized and influenced by the two branches. Members of the Muslim Brethren have to date not been involved in violence outside their native countries. Their activities in Europe are confined to carrying out Friday prayers, monthly meetings, training courses, and an annual congress attended by guests from abroad. The Muslim Brethren distributes publications drawing attention to the political conditions in such countries as Bosnia and Algeria, as well as among the Palestinians.

In 1982, members of the Muslim Brethren founded the Islamic Federation of Palestine (Islamischer Bund Palästina--IBP), which is the representative of Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) in Europe. IBP carries out extensive public relations by circulating Hamas declarations and (sometimes with Islamists of other nationalities) staging large-scale demonstrations in support of their cause.

The Muslim Brethren's centers are contact points for all other regional branches of the group, such as Algeria's Islamic Salvation Front (Front Islamique du Salut--FIS) or Tunisia's En-Nahda. The FIS aims to establish an Islamic state in Algeria. France, with its approximately three million Algerians, is the main operational area of the group and its military wing, the Armée Islamique du Salut, as well as the especially militant Groupe Islamique Armée. FIS propaganda activities and acquisition of weapons also take place primarily in France.

Since November 1992, Germany has hosted the wife and sons--Oussama, Salim, and Abou Alkacem Ikbal Abbassi-- of the charismatic FIS leader Abbassi Madani, presently under arrest in Algeria. In addition, Rabah Kbir--head of the Executive Authority of the FIS abroad--has been living with his family in Germany. In November 1992, the Abbassis and Kbir applied for political asylum. In March 1994, a ban on political activity was issued against Kbir after he gave speeches propagating violence. As far as is known, the activities of FIS activists living in Germany are concentrated on political propaganda support for the FIS in Algeria. There are, however, additional indications and even proof that FIS members living in European countries are involved in the delivery of weapons and other technical equipment to Algeria. Several arrests in France revealed that weapons were purchased in that country to be shipped to Algeria; and that some people living in Germany may be involved. The FIS is an especially good example of the fact that many Islamic organizations are active across European borders. They most probably do not organize into divisions corresponding to national borders in Europe.

In Egypt, the terrorist Jama`at Islamiya (Islamic Groups) insist that all foreigners leave the country, and have even killed some Western tourists. So far, however, the Jama`at appear to have no organization in Europe.

Hizbullah, the extremist Shi`i Lebanese group, operates in Europe under the designation "Islamic Resistance." Since 1991, it has concerned itself with establishing structures to provide a political basis for enlarging membership. Visiting functionaries from Lebanon train the European branches and indoctrinate supporters on the current political line. To date, only one Hizbullah terrorist operation is known to have been carried out in Europe: the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 on June 15, 1985.


Germany is the center for Iranian activities in Europe. The religious and political propaganda activity of Iranian Islamists in the West helps the regime's primary aim of exporting its revolution to countries with Muslim majorities by recruiting Muslims of many nationalities to their cause. All official Iranian facilities abroad--embassies, consulates, trade offices, culture centers, airline offices, media organizations, and even state companies--must support the government's religious and political propaganda. Only those persons who unconditionally accept these tasks can serve as employees of such institutions.

After Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power, the Islamic Center Hamburg (Islamisches Zentrum Hamburg--IZH) played an exceptional role as Iran's ideological center for the dissemination of Iranian-type Islamism among Muslims living in Western Europe. At great human and monetary cost, the regime engages in systematic agitation and propaganda to promote the export of its revolution. Meetings of the IZH regularly include Iranians and other Shiite Muslims from Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey, as well as German converts. The spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamene`i, appoints the head of the IZH and allots funds for his use. The IZH allows sympathizers of all nationalities to use the facility free of charge.

Concurrently, the IZH distributes a series of publications and videocassettes in several languages, mainly Arabic. Many of them deal with the achievements of the Islamic Republic and urge an anti-Western outlook. This propaganda uses every possible incident--such as Serbian war crimes against Bosnian Muslims--to make the case that there exists a Western crusade against the Islamic world and Islam. It routinely presents The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie as part of this conspiracy.

Iranian students living abroad loyal to their regime belong to the Union of Islamic Student Associations in Europe. Financed by Iran, its main tasks include propagating Khomeini's concepts of revolution, recruiting new supporters, and combatting opponents. Members of the union are obliged to defend to the death the Islamic faith and the Islamic revolution, presumably through both verbal and physical means. They are also substantially involved in the annual large-scale demonstration in the Federal Republic to commemorate Jerusalem Day, which is attended by some five thousand Muslims; the last such demonstration took place in Hamburg in March 1994.


The Association for New World Outlook in Europe (Vereinigung der neuen Weltsicht in Europa e. V. -- AMGT), founded in 1985, seeks to bring an end to the secular state organization in Turkey and replace it with an Islamic system. The group supports the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) [no dots] of Professor Necmettin Erbakan and gives considerable financial support to his election campaigns; its 1994 budget was more than seven million Deutsche marks. It does not take recourse to violence. Throughout Europe, according to its own figures, the association has over four hundred branches and some thirty thousand members, making it the strongest of all Turkish extremist organizations. Its functions are attended by more than ten thousand persons. AMGT publications often include anti-Semitic expressions: its daily Milli Gazete, published in both Turkey and Germany, describes Israelis as "a nation damned in the Holy Qur'an and a godless hotbed of discord."1 The association considers itself the lead institution for Islamic Turks in Europe, and boasts increasing membership figures. To expand its already considerable financial power, it purchases real estate, thereby also increasing its geographic bases (the 1995 target includes five hundred mosques). It maintains varied and sometimes close contacts to Arab Islamic groups, such as the FIS and En-Nahda, to which it also gives financial and other support.

The association does not shy away from condoning violence. At a large function in Belgium on July 2, 1993, Erbakan publicly expressed his approval of an arson attack by Islamists on a hotel in Sivas, Turkey, where a meeting of Turkish artists and intellectuals was taking place and thirty-seven people were killed.

Since its inception in Cologne in 1984, the Association of Islamic Societies and Communities (Verband islamischer Vereine und Gemeinden e. V. Köln--ICCB) has been led by Cemaleddin Kaplan, sometimes called the "black voice" or "the Khomeini of Cologne." The ICCB is uncompromising in its demands for the universal rule of Islam, which in its view would begin with the downfall of the Turkish state structure and the establishment of an Islamic Turkish state. It sees this happening only through revolutionary means, for Islam must defeat its three greatest threats of democracy, capitalism, and laicism.

The ICCB vehemently slanders the State of Israel and the Jewish people; for example, its publication Ümmet-i Muhammad gives special prominence to such remarks as, "The Jew is not only the enemy of Islam but of humanity."2 As a consequence of these anti-Turkish-regime and anti-Semitic statements, the German government in 1987 restricted Kaplan's political involvement in Germany and in 1993 forbade it altogether. In September 1993, the Aliens' Office of the City of Cologne ordered Kaplan to leave the Federal Republic. But he has yet to do so, for the deportation restrictions in the Aliens' Law are exceedingly strict. Recent association publications indicate that Kaplan is rapidly losing support, to the point that the ICCB finds itself in a crisis, partly due to the restrictions, and also due to his poor health and to growing opposition within the organization.


Radical Islamic groups in Europe presumably will continue to expand, given that they are gaining strength in the Muslim world. This will be all the worse if the social and economic situations in their home countries do not considerably improve. This will have serious implications both for the Muslim world itself and for Europe.

What kind of threat do the Islamic movements pose to Europe? The main threat is to Western security. Muslim ghettos already exist in large European cities such as Paris, Marseilles, Cologne, and Berlin, and they continue to grow with new immigration. Radical Islamic indoctrination thrives when the residents of such places consider themselves to be socially and politically disadvantaged. This potential already exists; it could attain a critical mass and lead to destabilizing influences in Western countries, a development to be welcomed by Islamist strategists. The recruitment possibilities for terrorist operations among discontent Muslims in Europe must be considered high.

What responses do European societies have at hand? First, they can take measures to improve the circumstances of Muslim residents by providing them with adequate economic, social, and political conditions and helping them integrate into the society of the host country.

Secondly, the intelligence services, whose task it is to obtain information on the covert attempts of Islamic groups, must work closely and intensively with each other. So far, such cooperative efforts have had fairly good results, uncovering secret organizations and, in many cases, resulting in the prosecution and sentencing of offenders. These initial successes, in turn, have a deterrent effect. Since the extremist Islamic organizations are active across borders, the cooperation of Western intelligence services is of crucial importance.

1 Milli Gazete, Apr. 12, 1994.
2 Ümmet-i-Muhammed, July 15, 1993.

Det felanvända begreppet ”islamofobi”

Politiskt Inkorrekt 20 Augusti 2009

Bloggen Politiskt Inkorrekt (länk ovan) har skrivit ett oerhört bra alster om uttrycket Islamafobi som jag funnit mycket träffande. Under den korta tid jag ägnat åt att förstå Islam och olika grupper inom Islam så har ordet poppat upp titt som tätt som ett sätt att attackera de som faktiskt verkar veta en hel del om denna religion. Ordet används friskt av muslimerna själva så väl som av icke muslimer som igentligen inte vet så mycket om Islam utan antar att “Islamofober” bara är rasister. Personligen är det Islam jag har problem med, inte individer. Om det vore individer från en viss folkgrupp jag hade problem med så skulle några av mina närmaste vänner som råkar vara ex- muslimer inte vara just det- mina vänner.

Från Politiskt Inkorrekt-

För det första, begreppet “islamofobi” myntades av en militant imam i ökända Finsbury Park Mosque, London, för några år sedan. Moskén var för övrigt den som brittiska Channel 4 använde till sina undercover-dokus; Dispatches, som avslöjar jihadisterna och hatet mot väst.

Islamofobi – varför kallas det så?
Islamofobi är en vanlig och retoriskt praktisk term i ett samhällsklimat där uppfattningen att islam är en fredlig religion är en icke uttalad dogm. Den är praktisk eftersom alla som invänder mot denna dogm kan avfärdas som lidande av någon form av psykologisk störning. Man somatiserar motståndaren och ifrågasätter dennes trovärdighet utan att behöva presentera några särskilda argument.

Europeisk konsensus – islam är fredlig
Det råder i Europa konsensus om att Islam är en fredlig religion egentligen. Terroristerna är galna, liksom alla som inte befinner sig i den förmodade mittfåran. Koranens våldsamma budskap, understött av hadither, den muslimska världens blodiga historiska expansion och den despoti som nu råder i de flesta muslimska länder antyder att så inte är fallet. Men det verkar inte spela någon roll. Den som påstår motsatsen är islamofob.

Islam är fredlig – Argumentum ad Consequentiam
Den dogmatiska uppfattningen att islam är fredlig är resultatet av ett logiskt felaktigt argument. En hänvisning till konsekvenserna av sanningshalten i ett påstående.

Risk för provokation
Om vi uppfattade islam som krigiskt skulle det provocera muslimer, vilket skulle leda till krig. Därför är det enligt detta felaktiga sätt att resonera bäst att vi kommer överens om att islam är fredlig. Och visst, om vi provocerar muslimer blir de säkert arga och mer aggressiva. Men det påverkar inte sanningshalten i påståenden rörande islams inneboende aggressivitet.

Spelar provokationen någon roll?
Dessutom, om det nu är sant att islam faktiskt är en farlig religion spelar det ytterst liten roll om vi provocerar muslimer eller inte. Islams grundtexter och credo leder då ändå till övergrepp, att undvika provokationer skjuter möjligtvis upp en oundviklig konfrontation. Om islam är fredlig spelar det då ingen roll heller, i så fall räcker det om till exempel väl insatta muslimer kan förklara det för oss som inte riktigt förstått, och för muslimska terrorister.

“Islamofobi” – ämnesbyte genom personangrepp
De som skräms av sanningens konsekvenser undviker att diskutera sakfrågan. De övergår till personangrepp och etiketterar motståndaren. Att ta till personangrepp och byta ämne är ett klassiskt grepp från den som inte har några riktiga argument till stöd för sin sak. Den som använder termen “islamofob” om en opponent förfaller till personangrepp, Argumentum ad Hominem, ett argumentationsmässigt fel.

Fakta finns i Koranen – enkelt och tydligt
För att avgöra om islam är fredlig eller inte bör det räcka med att läsa Koranen och värdera innehållet. Det är ju vad de muslimska fundamentalister gör, mer än andra. Borde de inte veta vad de talar om? Vilka slutsatser bör vi dra av Koranen, när vi tar hänsyn till den kronologiska ordningen? Vilka slutsatser bör vi dra av Muhammeds eget liv?

Ändelsen “-fobi” beskriver en frekvent återkommande irrationell rädsla, oro eller ångest inför något. Att vara rädd för något, eller påvisa egenskaperna hos något, som är eller kan vara farligt innebär inte att man lider av en fobi.

Den växande skaran som kritiserar och är emot islams utbredning, även kallad islamiseringen, bygger inte på okunskap om det okända. Tvärtom, det bygger på intierad kunskap om den muslimska livstilen, politisk islam, sociala strukturer och regler, religionen islam, dess utövande, regler, koranens olika texter, kraven på eftergifter och i strikt tolkning, sharialagarna i en teokratisk diktatur och vad det innebär – det vill säga, vad allt sammantaget får för effekter i vårt för närvarande öppna väst.

Här först träder rädslan och oron in, när vi studerar alla dessa parametrar, vad det innebär för det fria väst om ovan förankras så till den grad att vårt sekulära samhälle med demokrati, yttrandefrihet de facto hotas. Exempel på islamiserande eftergifter är könsavskilda gymnastiktimmar eller speciella dagar på badhus där t.o.m kommunen säljer burkinis aka moralpanik. Och det är bara början..

Vi är åtskilda från kyrkan. Att då ge efter för religiös fanatism, i smått som stort, är att ta steget tillbaka till medeltiden.

Det vägrar vi acceptera!

Bloggen Politiskt Inkorrekt (PI)

tisdag 29 september 2009

Egypt anger over virginity faking

By Magdi Abdelhadi BBC Arab Affairs analyst

A leading Egyptian scholar has demanded that people caught importing a female virginity-faking device into the country should face the death penalty.

Abdul Mouti Bayoumi said supplying the item was akin to spreading vice in society, a crime punishable by death in Islamic Sharia law.

The device is said to release liquid imitating blood, allowing a female to feign virginity on her wedding night.

There is a stigma about pre-marital sex in conservative Arab societies.

The contraption is seen as a cheap and simple alternative to hymen repair surgery, which is carried out in secret by some clinics in the Middle East.

It is produced in China and has already become available in other parts of the Arab world.

The device is reported to be on sale in Syria for $15.

Professor Bayoumi, a scholar at the prestigious al-Azhar University, said it undermined the moral deterrent of fornication, which he described as a crime and one of the cardinal sins in Islam.

Members of parliament in Egypt have also called for banning import of the item.


Mycket moderat, må jag säga!

Har ni också märkt att blogglänkar saknas i GP och GT?

Kanske det bara är jag, men det verkar som om blogglänkar efter vissa artiklar, främst om ungdomsvåldet i förorterna inte har blogglänkar längre? Är detta ett medvetet drag från tidningarna? Tycker vi för mycket kanske? Om jag har rätt så är jag inte förvånad, men defenitivt besviken (milt uttryckt).

Nåväl, jag bloggar vidare!

måndag 28 september 2009

Anti Al-Qaida's Official Ideology

Här kommer en lång text men det finns mycket bra insider information här.
Artikel är hämtad från
SPA is a registered office in the European Union . Our director is Mr. D.A.S, holds a master’s degree from EU and has twenty years of experience in religion and he is specialist in anti-terrorism’s  ideology.

What are our goals ?

Our knowledge , experience and the facts confirms the following:

  • Military war can not eliminate the official terrorism

  • Security measures .( may prevent some actions, but can not eliminate terrorism)

  • Leaders and kings of the Arab and Islamic countries can not eliminate the official terrorism

  • Books and articles and films that attack the Islamic parties , groups and Muslim , can not eliminate the official terrorism

  • Web sites which write about terrorism can not eliminate the official terrorism . Even its solutions and proposals did not and will not lead to the prevention of terrorism

  • International strategic plans can not eliminate the official terrorism

  • Ex-Muslims. Their methods of fighting terrorism lead to negative results for several reasons

  • Promotion of democracy and multiparty politics in the Arab and Islamic countries , can not eliminate the official terrorism

  • Cooperation with ” moderate ” Muslims and imams , can not eliminate the official terrorism and lead to negative results

  • Fighting al-Qaeda, killing or imprisonment of Osama bin Laden or even eliminating all Islamic terrorists organaization , can not eliminate the official terrorism

  • Attempt to integrate Muslims into European societies will not succeed without using a very tactical and special plan

  • Arab-Israeli peace and a Palestinian state can not eliminate the official terrorism

  • Israel and USA are not causing terrorisms

Our strength is our specialty and ability to analyze the words and acts of any imam, Islamic centers, ordinary Muslims, Sects, Party , Presidents…etc… , to provide our non-Islamic countries with exceptional informations , reports and strategic plans with real solutions to eliminate the Terrorism’s Ideology and to integrate Muslims in non-Islamic socities.

Some of our strategic and uniques plans:

  • To counter the official terrorism’s ideology  in a manner conducive to positive results

  • To integrate most of the Muslim in non-Muslim communities ( Our solution is the only hope )

  • To secure Israel’s National Security

We hope to serve the global security through our web site.

For more information you can write to us:



Anti Alqaida

It is known that the non-Islamic countries ,such as Denmark , Sweden Germany , United States of America …etc… has done everything in its power to integrate Muslims into non Islamic societies and the reuslt is

that all efforts to integrate them have failed and we still having problems with Muslims ,such as :

  • Honor crimes

  • The problem of mixing of women with men,

  • The Veil, which is one of the persistent and dangerous problems

  • Halal meat

  • Non-recognition of our non-Islamic law

  • The refusal of some school materials such as dance, the culture of sex, mixed swimming, studying the history of the Holocaust …

  • The beating of women and children .(according to their imams official ideology)

  • Accusations that we stand in solidarity to convert their children to Christianity

  • Their continued support for jihad

  • Their love and support to terrorist organizations like Hamas and other

  • Hatred for all our nations, because we recognized Israel as a state

  • Working on the Islamization of our countries

  • The use of violence by burning and throwing stones, especially when it comes to criticism of Islam or Muhammad ( most of those doing so were born in our countries !)

  • Rejection of freedom and democracy

Why all efforts have failed ?

Of course the main reason for the inability to integrate of Muslims into our societies is the doctrine of the official imams which its main base is the rejection and prohibition . However, let me recall briefly some of what their official ideology reject from our societies to assure you that their faith is the main reason which prevents them from integration:

  • Our law

  • Our freedom and democracy

  • Our Ethics ( according to their religion , we have bad ethics)

  • Non-Halal meat

  • Some of our schools materials and the science , which according to all imams , affect their belief or the principles of Sharee`ah

  • Our feasts and Churches

  • Our Politics

  • Our recognition and support to Israel

  • Our rejection to the sharia

  • Fighting against terrorism and terrorists such as ,Taliban , Al- Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist organizations in Iraq
  • Our protection and care for Muslims who leave Islam

The result is obvious and can not be contradicted . Which also means that we should transform our societies to Islamic societies, and integrate ourselves in it !

Mistakes in the process of integration

Of course, there are continuing attempts to integrate Muslims, but our non Islamic countries have done some strategic mistakes in their integrations plans which in fact prevent the integration , such as:

1- Cooperation with the mosques and Islamic centers !

This mistake was and still the most dangerous because such cooperation is a cooperation to prevent the integration of Muslims . Some of the proves are:

  • The main objective of mosques and Islamic centers is to prevent the integration

For example, the Islamic centers and mosques in Sweden , which strategically focus to control muslims and support centers and mosques in the other Nordic states , asserted :

The principle aim of the foundation of a mosque is to save the Muslims from melting ( integrating ) in the Swedish society

(( objective ….To protect Muslims from slipping out of the Islamic way of life ))

(( Unite Muslim youth preserve the Islamic identity and protect it from melting and the deviation in the Swedish society ))

(( ….. protection of children from the melting in the Swedish society ))

( Plz note that all Islamic centers and Mosques in all non Islamic countries have identical ideology. ))

- The Islamic centers and Mosques second objective is to fight the non islamic values: They said:

(( To assimilate Muslims and in a society which has no values , unacceptable and must be fought ))

They mean , that any society follows other than the teachings of the imams , is considered a failure and that Muslims must fight its values . Therefore, 90% of muslims believe that our societies are communities of adulteress and corruption because we don’t prohibit women from being dressed up in modern dresses , mixing up with men and having boyfriends, drinking alcohol, dancing and swimming with the men, wearing bikini on the beaches, to be a leader, to learn and to teach sex education …etc… So, how can be possible to believe that Islamic centers do accept to integrate Muslims into our societies ! However , as a former Muslim spent nearly seven years with imams and in mosques, assert that such rule is one of the most dangerous rules which the official imams created in God’s name , in order to isolate the woman and to prevent the integration of Muslims with non-Muslims. While the original Islam’s values are identical with non muslims values. This was one of the reasons which lead me to convert from the muslims imams ideology.

  • The Islamic centers and Mosques third objective is to fight the Christianity

One of the reasons one of the reasons which made them to open Islamic centers, mosques and schools in non-Muslim countries, is to fight Christian , to prevent preaching of Christianity to Muslims and to observe the Muslim who have weak faith and brought them back to Islamic country’s for  the fear that the West can integrate them easily such muslims in non-Muslim societies . Therefore, the imams have created special provisions for Muslims in non-Islamic countries such as :

Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America

Residing outside Muslim countries.

The conference scholars affirmed that the basis for Muslims is to live and reside inside the Muslim countries to avoid temptations in religion, and to realize the unity, solidarity, and mutual support among the believers. And that it is not permissible for them to leave their Muslim countries except for a good intention, such as seeking knowledge or work or fleeing with religion, etc., with the accompanying intent of return whenever they got the means for that. And that the Muslims of non-Muslim countries should affirm their existence there, and demonstrate their practices of worship, and tolerate whatever harm that may be inflicted upon them, since they are the efficient core and the basic nucleus of implanting Islam in these societies. The conference has also emphasized the diversity of the Shari`ah rulings concerning residing outside Muslim countries for the Muslim communities as dictated by conditions and circumstances: it is ruled out as permissible by Shari`ah for those who are able to demonstrate their religion, and feel secure not to be tempted in their religion; and it is a must for those who teach Islam and take care of the Muslim community there, and refute the enemies` falsehoods; and it is prohibited for those who may be tempted in their religion, and could not freely practice their religious duties there.

Another famous and popular imam , who who has the support of most of the Muslims in the West and USA , says:

(( The ugliest intrigue the enemies of Islam have plotted against Islam has been to try to lure its followers away from it, they have even used force for this purpose. In this regard, Almighty Allah says, [And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can.] (Al-Baqarah 2:217)…. missionary invasion that aims at uprooting the Muslim community altogether…. and among the Muslim communities and minorities (in non-Muslim countries). One of its goals is to entice Muslims to convert to Christianity … The duty of the Muslim community — in order to preserve its identity — is to combat apostasy in all its forms and wherefrom it comes, giving it no chance to pervade in the Muslim world.

Even the most important Islamic center in Scandinavian countries with collaboration with one famous islamist , accused the Nordic states that they are destroying the Muslim families in order to confiscate their children and turn them to Christianity in order to integrate them into non- Islamic societies . They have said.

((…. the social institutions ( in Nordic countries ) deepening Muslim family’s problems in order to destroy these families and deprive them of their children……….)) (( and the intent of this new strategy is to integrate the Muslims by force and dismantling of these Muslim families.))

Such teachings and accusations lead to the creation of generations living in non-Islamic countries as transits passengers , made and making them  fight Christianity and the Christian societies and to spread the imams ideology.

2- Cooperation with som Muslims imams or Islamists

The West believes or trying to believe that some imams and other Muslims may help in the process of integration of Muslims into European societies. But in terms of security , such cooperation was a mistake because these imams are exploiting such trust for several goals,such as to prevent the integration of Muslims through special methods of distortion of the texts , using Diplomatic style, smiles , fashion clothes and denial of religious violence . As an evidence ,let us read some of the statements made by some imams who according to the west,are moderate and helping to integrate muslims:

  • Sheikh Hassan Moussa, President of the Swedish Board of Imams, the Imam of the mosque imam, Sheikh Sultan Al Nahyan, Stockholm , emphasizes, that the Muslims who are fighting against the Sharia, Muslims who had converted from Islam and the Swedish people are enemy to Islam. He said:


(( There is a group of Muslims in Sweden who are hostile to Islam more than the Swedes )) preacher Amro Khaled . Who intervened to s

((…. even for new generations of Muslims, they are required to integrate negative and not positive, that is to hand over everything, including to accept accept European attitudes and values.))

(( We have paid a price for the absence of the Islamic Action institutional years and lost generations of Muslims, some of them melted in European societies, some of them convert to Christianity and some of them deviated….))

  • The preacher Amro Khaled.Who intervened to solve the problem of Muhammads drawings and went to Denmark and who is one of the most dangerous imams who focuses particularly on women to their importance in the process of giving birth to Muslim jihadists , in addition to his focus on children and youth to prepare them for greatest battle of Islam as he claimed and preventing them from integration by calculated and dangerous methods such as the Hijap which is one of the most important way to insert the imams ideology into muslims minds.However, he asserted to young muslims the following:

Preacher Khaled

(( You should understand that the battle with the enemies of Islam is not a battle a day or two, or a position or two positions, it is a battle to prepare a generation of youth of a nation adheres to his religion, and successful in his career, a genuine morality is strong, and ready to sacrifice all he has for Islam. This generation is now configured in both the Arab and Islamic . Help me in the composition of this generation, you and your friends, do not rush picking fruit prematurely, the victory is coming.

(( Over the life of Islam was violated twice, the first of the Tatars who have continued 100 years and then converted to Islam. And the second in the last 100 years of Britain and France, who studied the cause of erosion Tatars and found that the solution based on two points:

1. Young people to make frivolous and shallow; is only interested in appearances and worldly.

2.Cancellation of affiliation to Islam and Muslim civilization

Another Islamist , Tariq Ramadan, who was born in Geneva in 1962 and the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the “Muslim Brotherhood , teaches Muslims in Europe to fight the secular societies, and begin the deployment of the call to recruit their children and relatives as the Prophet Muhammad did :


( Bearing witness is what we have to do and especially in the West, where many of the people living in a secular society have forgotten the meaning of faith and religious practice, and hardly think of or speak about God. But first, following the example of the Prophet, we should start with our families, our relatives, and ourselves…..The first dimension of our methodology is then to spread knowledge and especially in these secular societies…..Dr. Ramadan at an Islamic centre on 20/6/97 ))

He did not say to convince the Muslims to be Muslims . They are already Muslims . But his intention was to remind them to reject and to fight all that is opposed to the sharia teachings especially secularism, laws and European Morals .In other words, he is fighting the integration, indirectly, by by replacing the original words of the sharia to words accepted by the West. The imam, or Muslim preacher can not be a Muslim unless he fight the European morals , traditions and the secular which is considered the biggest enemy of Islam. And as an affirmation of that, let’s read one of their professors statement:


(( The third and most dangerous and cunning kind is the secular invasion… It seeks to undermine true Islam))

Therefore, and for other reasons, any sheik or a Muslim cleric , can not be a Muslim if he accept the non-Muslims morals and laws .Which also means that it is impossible to believe that they accept the integration of Muslims into European societies.

3- Reliance on some ordinary Muslims

We can divide those into two categories:

  • Common Muslim and those belonging to some European political Parties. They use to deny some of the the imams teachings such as headscarves and they support the integration of Muslims in Western societies by emphasizing that Islam is a call for cooperation and love ..etc…

  • Former Muslims . Those are who have left Islam, or converted to other religions for some reasons .

In fact , both are hurting the process of integration for the following:

  • They know little about the doctrine of imams because 80% of Muslims did not know about their faith more than what their imams wanted them to know

  • Some Of them do not know the difference between some of the Quranic verses and sayings of the imams

  • They can not argue the imams

  • Are not aware of their new religion or belief

For this, they raise the wrath of Muslims and their imams and increase the hostility of Muslims to European countries. This is in addition to that they can not prove their claims . An example of this is that during the twenty years of my experience in this area, I did not see any one of them who was able to prove , for example , that the veil is not from Islam or that drinking alcohol is not forbidden . So all what they have is only allegations without evidence. Such matter can not be tolerated by Muslims.

4- Reliance on non-Muslims

Those are, for example, who studied Islam or lived in some Islamic or Arabic countries …etc… And with all respect for them and for their efforts , but they have not and will not be able to do anything for the following:

  • Their studied based on the teachings of muslims imams which consists of stories , historical interpretations , opinions and statements which mostly incorrect, but written by imams and their assistants for certain reasons

  • Studied the Quran according to the teachings of the Imams , which contradicts the same Quran . For instance, they were taught that the book which in the hands of Muslims is ” Qur’an ”, while the Qur’an is part of that book , that the word ” Alnisa2″ means ”women” while its not , that the Paradise do exist while the same Quran asserts that it does not yet exist, but it will be created at the Day of Resurrection , that the pilgrimage means to go to Mecca in Saudi Arabia , while the Quran asserts that it’s an international meeting could be held even in Israel or Denmark.

Therefore, they are not able to assist in the process of integration of Muslims , because what they have is identical to the imams teaching and they do not have solutions with Islamic evidence, knowing that such solutions would complicate the problem with the Muslims.

5- Allowing Islamic courts

That step was and still an obstacle to integration because such countries prevented and prevent the Muslims to adapt and follow the national laws and increase their association with the doctrine of the imams and Islamic centers which emphasizes the rejection of our laws and morals and the integration process.

6- Allowing Islamic schools

The Islamic school founded by the imams in the knowledge that children can not attend the mosque every day to learn the basics of the doctrine of imams. Therefore, in schools they learn the first important basic which asserts that anything non-Islamic is not acceptable to God. That basic is the imam’s and adults muslims key to enter any time to the child’s mind , who must learn to ask for what the meaning of the rule. Then any Muslim can answer him that secularism, laws other than the Shari’ah, dancing, singing, mixing of women with men …etc… all this and more are forbidden and unacceptable to God . In addition to that , believing and practicing it means to go to the fir. Therefore , the prevent the child to integrate into the non-Muslim societies and with non-Muslims. And even if there are some of them may integrate in those communities, it is not guaranteed to be always or fully integration. As happened when it came to Muhammad drawings, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Encouraging Hamas and Hezbollah …etc…

The Solution

You know that there are those who want to close the Islamic schools and centers , deporting all imams and even deporting most Muslims who refuse to integrate in our socities . While others see the contrary for some reasons. So, the situation is complicated for the followings :

  1. Closure of mosques and deporting Muslims imams

You can close all mosques and Islamic centers and deport all imams , but its unhelpful for many reasons such as :

  • Muslims homes ,their official television and network site are identical to mosque and Islamic center

  • Books, articles and tapes of imams are available wherever you go

  • Moslim’s hatred towards non-Muslims and the rejection of women’s freedom and our values is the doctrine of most Muslims , passed from one generation to another, even without the presence of imams

  • You can not expel all Muslims or even most of them. Because the numbers are enormous and there are other reasons

  • Deporting of some Muslim imams and some ordinary Muslims is not going to change the doctrine of the most remaining Muslims

  • Most of their generations who were born in Europe believe in the basics of the doctrine of Muslims. For example, we have seen what they did when it came to Mohammed drawings, and we saw them in the demonstrations to support Hamas ! Based on my experience in the security strategy and Islamic ideology , it is sufficient that they account 40% to be considered an army against integration.

  • Any Muslim can be an imam in the basics of their ideology , such as the necessity of hatred non-Muslims, the fight against the Jews to the Day of Resurrection, the beating of women, beating children to pray, etc.

2- Keep the mosques and imams

Of course, keeping the mosques and Islamic centers, schools and imams and their books will not solve the problem. And based on what I said earlier , the attempts to integrate Muslims through the same plans and policy will not lead to the required and necessary integration and the problem will continue to leads to :

  • Security instability

  • Exploitation of Muslims to the subject of racism

  • Harming the national economy

  • Constant fear and anticipation

  • Costs are very high

  • Harming our democracy and freedom

  • Violence against women and children

  • Persecution of women

  • Continued compliance by most Muslims to the teachings of imams and mosques and Islamic centers to reject and to fight the integration

So what we do ?

Therfore, we have have studied this problem in several countries over the past seven years. Our research provd that the barriers that prevent Muslims from integrating into non-Muslim societies must be removed by using special tacticwhich is acceptable to Muslims . And when we got the materials , which were and are acceptable to Muslims , we prepared a strategic plan which include the following:

  • Not to offend Islam , Quran or the Prophet Mohammed

  • That all actions are legal

  • Non-cooperation with any imam in the process of integration

  • There’s no need to any cooperation with mosques and Islamic centers

  • Demolition of the first three important barriers by useing evidence , which eliminate the evidence of the imams and Islamic centers via:

  • Conversations with Muslims, especially young men and women

  • Printing booklets in several languages and distribute it in many countries

  • Recording som lecture on CD and distribute it in many countries

  • Calling the imams to public debate because we have prepared for them dozens of questions which they can not answer

  • Building a special website

  • lectures to the security services, immigration services and social institutions

  • Lectures for school students

  • lectures to the integration departments and the staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Then we have applied the plan through conversations and evidence with about one hundred Muslims most of them in Arab and Islamic countries and they did not live in any Europ and the results were :

  • They said ” We have lost many years of our lives ,because we believed that we are guided ”

  • They began living new and happy life according to our values

  • Calling for integration with non muslims

  • They had suspended all relations with the teaching which prevented them to itegrate in this world.

Which also means that it is possible to integrate Muslims in our societies if we can prove to them that:

  • Our values and our laws are according to Allah’s teaching

  • Words and deeds of our non Muslims women are based on the teachings of Allah

  • Thier imams teaching and claiming about our societies is not true and contradicting God’s teaching

And so,we can succeed in the integration of hundreds of thousands of Muslims who will also integrate their childrens in our socities, thus turning gradually from the teachings and authority of the imams and Islamic centers .

For more information about our integration’s plan , you are welcome to contact us

De greps för nya bränder

GT 28 September 2009 Länk:

Hade inte varit mer än rätt att visa deras ansikten.

Räddningstjänsten hade en stor styrka på plats som bekämpade de anlagda bränderna i parkeringsgaraget i Backa. Fem bilar totalförstördes i bränderna. Här för polisen bort två av de gripna yngre männen. De satt i natt i förhör misstänkta för grov mordbrand. Foto: Patrik Arlbrand

GÖTEBORG. Fem utbrända bilar och flera bilar som utsatts för skadegörelse.
I går kväll brann det igen efter en kortare period av lugn i Göteborg.
Men den här gången lyckades polisen gripa tre personer misstänkta för grov mordbrand. Samtliga är nu anhållna.

Räddningstjänsten fick larmet klockan 21.29. Då brann det i flera bilar i ett parkeringsgarage på Jacobs gata i Hisings Backa.

Svart av rök

- Det var helt svart av rök och jag fick springa till min bil på p-däcket ovanför garaget för att rädda bilen från röken, säger en boende i området till GT.
En större styrka från räddningstjänsten bekämpade bränderna som snart var under kontroll.
Däremot hade stora värden gått upp i rök.
Fem bilar var totalförstörda av elden. Andra bilar hade vandaliserats, bland annat var rutorna utslagna.
Dessutom fick många fordon i garaget rökskador.
Skadeståndskraven mot eventuella mordbrännare som fälls i en rättegång kommer att vara höga.
Och kanske slog de också till vid fel tidpunkt när Göteborg kryllar av poliser som bevakar EU-mötet.
En osedvanligt stor polisstyrka fanns nämligen snabbt på plats i Backa.
Flera vittnen hördes av polisen och senare greps tre yngre män.

Misstänkt mordbrand

- De misstänks för mordbrand, säger polisens presstalesman Jan Strannegård till GT.
De gripna männen satt i natt i förhör hos polisen på Hisingen.
Jouråklagare fattade senare under natten beslutet att de tre skulle anhållas som misstänkta för mordbrand.
Polisen har spärrat av brandområdet i Backa och kommer att göra en teknisk undersökning av platsen.

söndag 27 september 2009

Sweden promised to control their Muslim terrorist - and failed

Counter Jihad 19 September 2009

Mehdi Ghezali the Swedish-Finnish-Algerian terrorists

Expressen Micke Ölander

Ambassadören: "Vi fick löften från Sverige"

Svenska regeringen tvingades lova USA att övervaka Mehdi Ghezali. Sverige gick också med på att stoppa honom från att fortsätta med "terroristhandlingar". USA betraktade svensken som ett "hot". Det berättar Pierre-Richard Prosper, tidigare ambassadör vid amerikanska UD, för Expressen. - Det fanns en grupp fångar som inte släpptes om vi inte fick dessa löften. Den person vi talar om tillhör den gruppen.

Mehdi Ghezalis passport

The Swedish government was forced to promise the U.S. to monitor Mehdi Ghezali. Sweden also agreed to stop him from continuing  "terrorist activities".

The United States considered Ghezali as a threat, Pierre-Richard Prosper, a former official with the US Department of  State, told the Expressen.

"There is a group of prisoners who will not  be released unless we got those promises. The person we are talking about belongs to this group."

The former Guantanamo Bay terrorist, Mehdi Ghezali, was arrested  on August 28 along with two other Swedish Muslims, Munir Awad, and Safia Benaouda, in Pakistan and  have been since imprisoned by the Pakistani intelligence service ISI.

Terrorist activity

Swedish-Finnish-Algerian Muslim  terrorist, Ghezali, is suspected of terrorist activity and illegal entry to Pakistan.

Pierre-Richard Prosper negotiated personally with the Swedish Foreign Ministry on the conditions for releasing the Swede  from Guantanamo Bay five years ago. Now that Ghezali has been arrested again for terrorist activity, the former US Department of State official divulges the US' demands for his release to Sweden:

"We requested the Swedish government to take the action it deemed appropriate to try to ensure that Ghezali  will  not resume the activities he have previously engaged in, " said Pierre-Richard Prosper to Expressen

"A dangerous person"

He is very clear on one point. Ghezali was caught by the  U.S. authorities because he is a dangerous person.

"There was a group of prisoners who were not released unless we got those promises. And the person we are talking about belonged to the group. I personally handled the negotiations. They would not be released unless we were promised that they would, among other things, be monitored," Pierre Richard Prosper told the Expressen newspaper.

Serious demands

The requirement was considered extra heavy when it came to this group of Guantanamo detainees.

"It was our policy to rely on the host country's government to take the necessary steps to prevent these people from continuing terrorist activities, " he told Expressen.

Were these agreements in writing and formal?

"There were formal agreements. We exchanged, for example, diplomatic notes in which we asked the governments to take appropriate measures, and the governments gave us the promise that these measured would be taken."

"Only after we were satisfied, were the Muslim terrorists transferred to home countries." Prosper did not reveal what governments he were talking about, and was Sweden one of those countries.

"In general, governments would give us an idea of what steps they would take, " Prosper explained.

Does not want to comment

Laila Freivalds, who was then Minister of Justice in the KU - the Constitutional Committee - denied that the U.S. was given the promises Mr. Prosper claims for the release of Ghezali from the Guantanamo Bay prison.

The Foreign Ministry's press officer, Cecilia Juhlin, said last night that the Foreign Ministry will not comment on the contents of the correspondence about Ghezali case between the U.S. and Sweden that is stored in the Foreign Ministry's archives.