 For six years the burning cause of the American left was the fate of the captured terrorists being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Civil rights lawyers, pundits and Democratic congressmen joined voices to denounce military tribunals, detention of captured terrorists without access to their ACLU lawyers and of course that unholy terror of MSNBC commentators, waterboarding. And they got their way. The Bush Administration, that for all its faults that had at least cared about protecting Americans against Islamic terrorism, under pressure from the courts gave in, and when the official candidate of Islamic terrorists, MSNBC commentators and ACLU lawyers took office, it was all over but the suicide bombings. Barry Hussein signed the order closing Guantánamo Bay, released many of its residents, and gave civilian trials to others. And thus far of the terrorists who have been released, one in seven has returned to terrorist activity. And that number likely underestimates the true picture by quite a lot. In 2006 Thomas Wilner, the lawyer for a number of the terrorists, penned an emotional article for the Los Angeles Times calling Gitmo, an American Gulag and a living nightmare. Naturally of course all his Kuwaiti clients were innocent little lambs who just happened to be hanging around Afghanistan before being snatched up into the cruel and unfeeling maw of the US military industrial complex, inhumanly tortured and deprived of their humanity. Two years later after his release, one of Wilner's innocent lambs, Abdallah al-Ajmi, hailed as the "Lion of Guantanamo" murdered 13 Iraqi policemen in a suicide bombing. Naturally instead of admitting that he had worked tirelessly to release a Jihadi terrorist from Gitmo, leaving him free to kill, Wilner instead blamed the US government for turning his formerly lamb-like client who had been picking flowers in the valley of Kandahar into a violent terrorist by imprisoning him in Guantánamo Bay. This of course is the usual sort of thing that defense attorneys claim when their completely innocent clients who had previously torched an orphanage and bombed a bus full of nuns, are released and unsurprisingly go back to doing exactly what they were doing before. "It's the prison life that did it, your honor," the lawyers argue. "If only my client hadn't been caught and sent to the hole, he'd still be a lamb." In 1980 many of the same liberals who fell in love with the Gitmo killers embraced a murderer and bank robber named Jack Abbott. They praised his literary skills and fought for his release. Norman Mailer helped publish his book. Susan Sarandon named her son after him. Less than two months after his release Abbott demanded to use a restaurant restroom. He was refused by the night manager. In turn Abbott stabbed the man to death. His defense was that his dehumanizing treatment in prison had made him incapable of acting in any other way. But what had become a laughable defense to most Americans, was brushed off not just for Abdallah al-Ajmi or the other innocent lamb/terrorists of Guantanamo Bay who went back to their old profession once they were shipped back to Yemen, Kuwait or Russia-- but for Islamic terrorism in general. It is the most common defense used on behalf of Palestinian Arab terrorism, when every charge is met with, "But what choice do they have. Israel built a wall and imprisoned them. They're only responding to the dehumanization inflicted on them." The presumption behind this defense is that the terrorists are always innocent victims and their terrorism is the consequence of oppression by their targets. An argument often accompanied by the W.H. Auden citation from his poem September 1, 1939; "I and the public know, What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done, Do evil in return." Often those quoting the stanza remain unaware of the poem they are quoting from, and its awful relevance. September 1, 1939 was the date of Hitler's invasion of Poland. The previous line that is generally left out by the bleeding hearts who cite Auden, "What huge imago made, A psychopathic god" is of course a reference to Hitler. Even with German troops marching into Poland, Auden still hid Nazi Germany behind the rhetoric of victimology, painting the Nazi forces as much victims as oppressors. But it might be just as well to draw from W.H. Auden's poem, Spain, written in support of the Soviet Union's work in the Spanish Civil War. "To-day the deliberate increase in the chances of death, The conscious acceptance of guilt in the necessary murder." The necessary murder of course is that murder which must be committed in the name of a cause, as differentiated from imperialist murders which are committed to stop the people who are committing murders in the name of a cause.
The suicide bombings of Muslim terrorists today, like the Red Terror, are one of those necessary murders being committed by the Jack Abbotts with beards and keffiyahs running around the world today. After 13 dead in Mosul whose families he has never visited, his lawyer of course has no regrets. "Guantanamo took a kid -- a kid who wasn't all that bad -- and it turned him into a hostile, hardened individual," Wilner said. The kid in question being Abdallah al-Ajmi, a Jihadist who had tried to fight in Chechnya and then Afghanistan, threatened his own lawyer and on release, went to fight in Iraq and murdered 13 Iraqi police officers. The real story of course as always is behind the scenes. Thomas Wilner and his prestigious law firm, Shearman & Sterling, are not some gang of bearded radicals huddling in an East Village basement office. They're a prestigious law firm whose bill was footed by the Kuwaiti government. Shearman & Sterling did not simply have managing partners like Wilner represent captured terrorists, they launched a massive lobbying campaign on their behalf.
 Following are excerpts from an interview with Kuwaiti journalist Fuad Al-Hashem, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on September 25, 2009. Interviewer: "First of all, I'd like to talk to you about a provocative article which you wrote during the war on Gaza, under the title: 'Use Chemical Weapons, Olmert.' In that December 2008 article, you called upon Olmert to intensify the torment of the people of Gaza, and you used the well-known slogan: 'Use chemical weapons, Olmert.'1 [...] "Do you believe in that slogan – 'Use chemical weapons, Olmert'?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "It's not my slogan. It's [a paraphrase] of a slogan used by the Palestinians themselves in the days of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, when missiles were falling on Riyadh, on Khobar, and on Kuwait itself. They are the ones who coined this slogan..." Interviewer: "Missiles did not fall on Kuwait, because it was occupied..." Fuad Al-Hashem: "That's right. Instead of standing alongside [the Saudi city of] Al-Dammam, which later suffered from the Iraqi invasion as well, they chanted ['Use chemical weapons, Saddam, from Kuwait to Al-Dammam']. I just wanted to see how they would feel, what their reaction would be, if somebody were to utter a similar slogan." Interviewer: "But you do not subscribe to this slogan." Fuad Al-Hashem: "I don't control the button for the Israeli nuclear weapons. I never said I did. Olmert controls the nuclear button." Interviewer: "True, but as a journalist, you express your opinions. Were you hoping that Olmert..." Fuad Al-Hashem: "No, I just wanted to give them a taste of their own medicine." [...] Interviewer: "During that same war, you wrote about the killing of Nizar Rayan, a Hamas leader. That article was provocative too, because you talked about a struggle 'from between eight thighs.' You were criticized in the wake of that article." Fuad Al-Hashem: "Yes. Strongly criticized." Interviewer: "You don't regret writing this?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "No. The people who criticized me should ask themselves one question. In a time of war, when Israel is killing fighters on the streets of Gaza – what is a leader doing at home? He was among his wives when he was killed. What does a fighter do, in wartime..." Interviewer: Maybe he was strategizing... Fuad Al-Hashem: "Strategizing from between eight thighs is not appropriate for revolutionaries. In all the revolutions throughout history – the Cuban revolution, the Bolivian revolution..." Interviewer: "Don't you think that if someone is killed by the weapons of the Israeli occupation, it is inappropriate for a journalist to talk about [his wives'] thighs?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "He's the one who married eight..." Interviewer: "Four wives." Fuad Al-Hashem: "Four wives – that makes eight thighs. I got it right. I just translated the number of wives into the number of thighs." Interviewer: "But don't you think that was offensive?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "If that was offensive, I wish they had offended us in such a trivial way during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and had accused us of something, or objected to something that way. But they supported the Iraqi invasion, and that is something we will never forget. [...] "The Al-Watan newspaper has many Palestinian workers, and I help many of them..." Interviewer: "You help them personally?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "Yes, I help pay for their children's schooling. They are wretched people. They are the victims of their leaders and their regime, who flung them into this wilderness. Look at the price that the Palestinian people paid for the position taken by the late Arafat regarding the invasion of Kuwait. Look what happened to the Palestinians in the Gulf." More at MEMRI
 Posted by The MaryHunter It's been 36 days since the terrorist attack that left 14 dead, 32 wounded, and the nation scratching its collective head, asking why the Muslim extremist U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was so effortlessly able to perpetrate this act of jihad on American soil. The reason, of course, is Political Correctness.
Texas Rep. John Carter's district includes Fort Hood and he is more than just a little concerned that our government has apparently learned nothing from this horrid event. We must not wrongfully prejudge people. However, we also can no longer refuse to take the steps necessary to defend ourselves, as clearly was the case with the Fort Hood attack. We can't allow political correctness to intimidate Americans from speaking out against clear and present dangers out of fear they will be ridiculed or penalized for offending any group. We should have learned that lesson in 2001. Let's review the historical record beginning in 2001:
- Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons - including Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, then of Northern Virginia - rammed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, killing 2,976 men, women and children.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attempted to bomb a U.S. airliner with a shoe bomb in December 2001.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked the Los Angeles airport in July 2002, killing two persons and wounding four.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons engaged in a sniping attack with a juvenile accomplice in the Washington area in October 2002, killing 10 and wounding three.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked his fellow U.S. Army soldiers in their tents in Kuwait in 2003, killing two and wounding 14 of his own comrades, a foreshadowing of the Fort Hood attack.
- Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals attempted to plan the bombing of the Sears Tower in Chicago in August 2006.
- Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons, including Mr. Al-Awlaki - now in Yemen - plotted in 2006 to attack the Canadian Parliament and other buildings in Toronto.
- Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals - including the same Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen - were arrested in May 2007 for planning an automatic weapons attack on U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J.
- A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked a U.S. Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., in June, killing two recruiters.
...which led to this:
- Another Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons, including Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen, stands accused of attacking our soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, killing 14 and wounding 32. Mr. Al-Awlaki is publicly praising Maj. Hasan as a "hero."
...which could probably have been prevented, because of this:
The FBI and the Defense Department were aware that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with the same Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen with ties to the Sept. 11 attackers and the plot to attack Fort Dix, and that Maj. Hasan made verbal and written statements justifying attacks. Maj. Hasan's profile, associations, communications and actions were a perfect match with multiple previous attacks in this country that had killed nearly 3,000 Americans since 2001. Yet no action was taken. So, what's been done since?
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's chief concern apparently is not why the FBI and other authorities failed to prevent another attack, but whether the public might be led to blame Muslims in general, which would be politically incorrect. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that had no problem warning law enforcement agencies earlier this year of a supposed threat from "right-wing extremists," defined as Americans who believe in the Constitution and oppose Obama administration policies. Rep. Carter hastens to point out that the American public comprises, on the whole, "good people who have developed a very strong aversion to judging others because of their race, ethnic background, religion or factors other than individual character and conduct." That said (and help me out here if this seems out of line): ...our virtue is being used as a powerful weapon against us by political extremists within our country and enemies without. [...] when a Muslim male contacts the radical Islamic colleague of the Sept. 11 hijackers, the Fort Dix shooting plot and the Canadian Parliament bombing plot; tells responsible people that he sympathizes with our enemies; and claims that jihad against the United States is justified, somebody needs to stop him instead of failing to act from fear of violating the unwritten taboos of political correctness. And why does this need to even be pointed out? Because: We are letting political correctness destroy our nation. It cost the lives of 14 Americans at Fort Hood, and the current administration apparently has not learned a thing. There is a simple definition of political correctness. It is just another word for a lie. When we say we have no need to fear or take action against people with clear ties to radical Islamic terrorists, that's a lie. We must start acknowledging the truth if we want to survive as a free nation. God willing. With thanks to Moonbattery
 Introduction In May 2009, four women were elected to the Kuwaiti parliament, for the first time in this country's history. Two of these women – Dr. Asil Al-'Awadi and Dr. Rola Dashti – do not wear the veil, and since their election, Islamists in the country have been demanding that they be required to wear it. MP Muhammad Hayef appealed to the Minister of Endowments and Minister of Justice, Rashed Al-Hammad, with a demand to give a formal expression to the Kuwaiti law which states that "a condition for women to vote and be elected is to abide by the rules and terms of shari'a law."
In response, the Religious Endowments Ministry issued a fatwa stipulating that the MPs must wear a veil like all other Muslim women. The fatwa stated that "when appearing in front of men not related to her, a Muslim woman must abide by the shari'a requirement to wear a veil hiding her entire body, except for the face and hands. [Furthermore], the veil must not be sheer so as to reveal any part of the body, must not be narrow so as to reveal her figure, and must not attract men's looks in any way."[1] Islamist MPs treated the fatwa as binding, stating that "the veil is [both] a legal and a religious duty."[2] Liberals, on the other hand, including the women MPs themselves, argued that the fatwa contravenes Kuwait's democratic character, and that fatwas like these threaten to turn Kuwait into a Taliban state. They also pointed out that the fatwa is at odds with Kuwait's constitution, which upholds individual freedoms, and therefore cannot be binding, since the constitution is the supreme legal source of authority.[3] On October 11, 2009, woman MP Dr. Rola Dashti proposed abolishing the clause in the Election Law requiring parliamentary candidates to abide by shari'a.[4] On October 28, 2009, the Constitution Court rejected a lawsuit filed by attorney Hamad Al-Nashi against the two women MPs who do not don the veil, in which he demanded to revoke their membership in the parliament for violating the shari'a.
The court ruled that "the laws of the Islamic shari'a do not have a binding force like the basic laws [of the state], unless the legislator has intervened and so stipulated... The Kuwaiti constitution does not stipulate that the shari'a – that is, Islamic law – is the sole source of legislation, nor does it preclude the legislator from utilizing other sources [of legislation], out of consideration for the people's [needs]. Moreover, the constitution guarantees complete religious and personal freedom and forbids discrimination... based on [an individual's] religion or gender."[5] MP Asil Al-'Awadi welcomed the court's ruling, stating that it represents a triumph for Kuwait's constitution and will end the debate on the veil which has been taking up parliament's time.
MP Rola Dashti said: "We four women MPs will continue to represent the Kuwaiti people in the best possible manner... This is not a triumph [only] for two women MPs or [even] for the Kuwaiti woman – it's a triumph for democracy."
She explained that even though the parliament is not a holy place or a house of worship, the women MPs would be careful to dress modestly and elegantly. She added that the court's ruling put an end to the attempts of "those who wish to bring Kuwait back [to an earlier era]." [6] MP Muhammad Hayef, for his part, said that he planned to appeal again to the Constitutional Court in this matter, and called on MPs Dashti and 'Awadi to "abide by Allah's law... in order to turn over a new leaf and quell this storm that has pitched the country into a crisis [caused by] disobedience to Allah's laws."[7] The Endowment Ministry's fatwa and the court ruling reignited the debate between two prominent camps in Kuwait, that is, the Islamists and the liberals, over the character of the Kuwaiti state and over which is the ultimate source of authority – shari'a law or the statutory laws. More at MEMRI 
 by Vasko Kohlmayer “The Gulf single currency is not happening tomorrow or the day after,” says Kuwait’s Finance Minister Mustafa al-Shamali. “Sufficient time” is needed to prepare for such a move the minister told the Kuwaiti parliament last week. Al-Shamali’s statement is startling in how matter-of-factly it reveals the intent of the Gulf states to abandon the dollar. Last month, veteran British journalist Robert Fisk filed a story titled “The Demise of the Dollar” in which he claimed that the Gulf countries were secretly working to set up a new currency to be used for oil trade. The report shook the markets and provoked a furor across the globe with many accusing Fisk of posting sensational stories based on obscure sources. It turns out that Fisk was right. If anything his article understated how far along the Gulf countries had come in their quest to replace the dollar. So much so that they had set the beginning of the next year as the start of the new monetary regime. And even though they will not be able to meet the ambitious deadline, its very existence underscores the earnestness of those countries to decouple themselves from the dollar framework. Such a move would have devastating repercussions for the United States, because it would deal a major blow to the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. Once the dollar loses that special standing foreign central banks and investors will no longer be willing to continue purchasing Treasury bonds at low interest. Deprived of the ability to borrow cheaply from abroad, the American government would be forced to monetize portions of its debt in order to obtain cash for its expenditures. This would lead, among other things, to runaway inflation. Perhaps the most telling thing about the ongoing effort of the Gulf states to drop the greenback is that none of them is an outright enemy of America. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia maintain – for the most part – friendly relations with the United States.
Their effort is thus not driven by some insidious desire to harm the US, but by the reckless monetary and fiscal policies of our own government. More at FrontPage Magazine
 An update on this story. The court decided to uphold the constitution, despite pressure to ignore it in favor of Sharia (which sure seems to be happening in a lot of places lately). Not that this will stop Islamist legislators from harping on the issue in the future. "Court rules hijab optional for MPs," by James Calderwood for The National, October 29: KUWAIT CITY: Kuwait's female MPs will not be forced to wear a hijab or have their parliamentary membership invalidated after the Constitutional Court, the country's highest legal authority, rejected a case by a Kuwaiti man who said they broke rules relating to Islamic dress. The man, identified as Hamad al Nashi, urged the court to cancel the membership of the two female MPs - Aseel al Awadhi and Rola Dashti - who did not wear the hijab, thereby violating an article of the election law that states:
"A condition for women to vote and be elected is to abide by the rules and terms of Sharia law". Islamists say the Sharia clearly states that women must wear the hijab. In its ruling, the court said the article of the election law was not specific and therefore could be interpreted in different ways. It said Sharia could apply to many things, including beliefs, morals and actions, and comes from many sources such as the Quran, the Sunna, and other traditions and customs. That was the point: To use the lack of limitations on Sharia's scope to keep women legislators in line, or force them out of office. If the court had ruled that the women were in violation of the election law when they were elected, their membership in parliament could have been cancelled, legal experts said.
"I'm very happy it's been rejected," Ms al Awadhi, one of Kuwait's four female MPs, said after receiving the news of the court's decision. "So we're not going to wear the hijab in the Majlis," Ms al Awadhi said, using the first word of Majlis al Umma, the Arabic name for Kuwait's national assembly....
 Kuwait's highest court granted women the right to obtain a passport without their husband's approval, the case's lawyer said Wednesday, in the latest stride for women's rights in this small oil-rich emirate. Unlike with highly conservative neighbors like Saudi Arabia, women in Kuwait can vote, serve in parliament and drive — and now can obtain their own passports. In many countries in the region, women cannot travel or obtain a passport without the consent of their male guardian. Attorney Adel Qurban, whose case the court was ruling on, said the landmark decision "freed" Kuwaiti women from the 1962 law requiring their husband's signature to obtain a passport. His client, Fatima al-Baghli, is one of thousands of women who have been petitioning courts for this right. The court found the article in the decades-old law "unconstitutional" because it goes against the principal of equal rights for men and women. "It undermines her free will and compromises her humanity," the court explained according to a copy of the decision provided by the lawyer. Activist Aisha al-Rsheid hailed Tuesday's ruling, but said females in this traditional male-dominated society were still a long way from the equality promised by the 1962 constitution. "We want to see women judges and prosecutors, we want women to give their citizenship to their children, and we want women to have the right to state-provided houses," just like men, she said. With its history as a trading community, Kuwait has long been more liberal than the Bedouin societies in the interior of the Arabian peninsula and its 1962 constitution provides for a parliament and equality of the sexes. Conservative elements in the country, however, have long promoted a stricter interpretation of Islam, especially regarding relations between men and women. Source: FoxNews
 The 'statesman for hire' earns a fortune as he flips roles between public official and private consultant, writes Jon Ungoed-Thomas TONY Blair has cashed in on his contacts from the Iraq war and his role as Middle East peace envoy for a private business venture expected to earn him more than pound stg. 5 million ($8.9m) a year.
The former British prime minister has sold his political and economic expertise to Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, via his fledgling private consultancy. He also represents the investment bank JPMorgan in the region. Mr Blair has been working pro bono in the Middle East as a peace envoy while amassing a fortune from the US lecture circuit. By offering himself to the Arab states as a statesman for hire, he could double his annual earnings. His consultancy, the London-based Tony Blair Associates, emulates the New York partnership Kissinger Associates, founded by Henry Kissinger, the former national security adviser to US president Richard Nixon. A friend of Mr Blair said: "TBA has been set up to make money from foreign governments and major companies. There's a focus on the Middle East, because that's where the money is." His expanding business interests as he roves across the Middle East mean he flips his roles on a daily basis in official meetings. One hour he is the official peace envoy meeting a Middle East minister or ruler, the next he is a representative of TBA or JPMorgan. In some meetings with Arab states, where Mr Blair is introduced as the peace envoy, he has been flanked by Jonathan Powell, his former chief of staff, who accepted a job with Morgan Stanley, another US investment bank, after leaving Downing Street. Mr Powell has no role in the peace process, but is a senior adviser to TBA and helps to win business in the Middle East. Peter Brierley, 59, from Batley, West Yorkshire, whose son Shaun, 28, was killed near the Kuwait-Iraq border in March 2003 and who refused to shake Mr Blair's hand at a memorial service this month, said: "This beggars belief. "It's absolutely scandalous that he's now trying to make money from his contacts in the region. It's money from the blood and lives of the soldiers who died in Iraq." Hours after he stepped down from No10 in June 2007, Mr Blair became the Middle East envoy, on behalf of the European Union, the UN, US and Russia. Four months after leaving office, Blair signed a pound stg. 5m book deal with Random House. He is working on his memoirs, which are pencilled in for publication this time next year. His fees for talks, along with contracts with JPMorgan and Zurich Financial Services, are estimated to put his earnings -- excluding the book deal -- well in excess of pound stg. 5m a year. TBA's annual earnings in the Middle East alone could be expected easily to double his current income, according to business sources in the region. Mr Blair disclosed last December that he had formed TBA to advise on "political and economic trends and governmental reform". One of his first recruits was Mr Powell. On January 17, Blair was in Saudi Arabia in his peace envoy role to hold talks with King Abdullah on the Gaza strip and the need to end Israeli aggression. Mr Powell was also on the trip. Two days later, Mr Blair and Mr Powell met the nephew of the king, Prince Alwaleed, the wealthiest businessman in the Middle East, with a fortune of more than $26 billion. Read more here,,,, Source: The Australian
 Syria has transferred nearly a quarter of its long- and medium-range missile arsenal to Hizbullah, the Kuwaiti al Jarida reported on Thursday. According to the report, security sources in Jerusalem told the paper that the missiles, now held by Hizbullah, could hit every part of Israel. Iranian and Syrian officers were reportedly training the Hizbullah operatives in using the new missiles and in operating early warning systems intended to alert the group of Israeli jets. The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report. The Kuwaiti article comes days after Israel's Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev called on Tuesday for an investigation by UN peacekeepers on an explosion in Tayr Filsay in southern Lebanon, after a weapons cache exploded in the home of a Hizbullah operative on Monday night. In a letter of complaint sent to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the president of the Security Council, Le Luong Minh of Vietnam. Shalev said Israel has "considerable" reason to believe the house where the explosion took place served as an arms storage facility for Hizbullah. Shalev also said that in the aftermath of the explosion, Hizbullah operatives sealed off the area and attempted to remove evidence.
Following the blast in Tyre, President Shimon Peres said that Hizbullah was turning Lebanon into a "powder keg."
"Hizbullah is endangering Lebanon just like Hamas is endangering the Palestinian people," said Peres. "From our point of view, we can make peace with Lebanon, there is no reason why not," he added, saying the country could be the Switzerland of the Middle East. Source: JPost
 Two female Kuwaiti MPs, Rola Dashti and Aseel Al-Awadhi, are defying the country's powerful Islamist movement by refusing to wear the hijab, or headscarf, in parliament. The MPs, who were among the first four women to be elected to the country's National Assembly in May, have angered their Islamist colleagues, who say they say they are flouting sharia, or Islamic law. One of the two is going further by demanding the scrapping of an amendment to electoral regulations that says they have to observe sharia in parliament. "You can't force a woman going to the mall to wear a hijab and you can't force a woman going to work to wear the hijab," the MP, Rola Dashti, told The Daily Telegraph. "This is not Iran or Saudi Arabia." The MPs' stand is part of a backlash against the fashion for stricter dress codes for women across the Arab world. Last week, the rector of al-Azhar University in Cairo, traditionally the principal seat of Sunni Islamic learning, banned women students from wearing the face veil in women-only classes and student dormitories, and was followed by other academic institutions there. Students at Khalifa University in Sharjah, the most conservative of the seven city-states that make up the United Arab Emirates, have also reportedly been told to stop wearing the veil, known in Arabic as the niqab. In Kuwait, the issue has arisen as part of a campaign by Dr Dashti, one of the country's leading economists as well as a women's rights activist and politician, against what she regards as unconstitutional implementation of sharia. As with all four women MPs, she has a doctorate from the United States. When electoral law was changed in 2005 to allow women in Kuwait to vote and stand for parliament, Islamists inserted a law-minute rider that "women as voters and MPs" would have to follow sharia.
It did not specify precisely where or how. Read more here,,,, Source: Telegraph
 By Tal Pavel In recent years, the Internet has become a swift and accessible means of communication, thanks in part to the proliferation of personal blogs and, even more recently, micro-blogs (through “Twitter”). Users are now able to transmit short announcements and updates via mobile phones connected to the Internet. Groups and individuals formerly marginalized or ignored by mainstream media, and in what are generally conservative and tradition-heavy societies, now possess unprecedented means by which to disseminate their views. This is especially true with regard to women. All over the Middle East, women are active on the Internet, writing in Arabic, Persian, Turkish and English, telling their personal stories and discussing societal matters, taking advantage of the relative anonymity that the Internet offers. Some women have no problem with enabling all interested parties to read their Twitter blogs and feeds. Others, especially concerned with protecting their anonymity, e.g. in Saudi Arabia, insure that only people with their prior permission may do so. Read more ...Source: Middle East Internet Monitor
 Saddam Hussein killed more Arabs and Muslims than any other Middle Eastern leader in recent history.
He committed genocide against the Kurds, launched wars of aggression against Iran and Kuwait, launched missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, tortured innocents without compunction and imposed totalitarianism in Iraq.
His regime brought unprecedented war, terror and misery to the region. Why, then, does the Butcher of Baghdad remain such a heroic figure to so many Arabs?
Two decades ago, famed historian Bernard Lewis wrote a prescient piece in The Wall Street Journal titled "Not everybody hates Saddam" in which he examined the pro-Saddam narrative of some Arabs. Since then, not much has changed. On a recent trip to Amman, I asked dozens of Jordanians how they felt about the dictator. Tragically, though not surprisingly, Saddam still has a great many fans in the Arab world. Nearly every single Jordanian I spoke with had high praise for the deceased tyrant. "He gave us free oil," said one. "He stood up to the West," opined another. One cab driver, who had pins with Saddam's picture covering his dashboard, informed me that Saddam was the greatest leader in the Middle East - "Only he was capable of keeping order in Iraq." TWO PREDOMINANT themes emerged in all my conversations. First, Saddam was seen as the leader of resistance to America and Israel. He fought two wars against America in slightly over a decade and launched dozens of Scud missiles at Israel while other nations stood by.
Second, he imposed order in Iraq. True, it was an order of rape, pillage and plunder, but at least it was order. Prizing stability over liberty is the root of so many of the region's ills. In Arab societies, one quickly realizes that anything can be excused in the name of opposing the West. Some in the Jordanian public had high praise for al-Qaida, for example, when it was hijacking planes and bombing American civilians, but support for the group dropped dramatically once it struck in Amman in 2005. Most Jordanians also never felt the sheer terror of Saddam's regime. They were never suffocated by sarin and VX nerve gas raining down from the skies, never had to flee from helicopter gunships mowing down innocents by the tens of thousands and never had to worry that Uday Hussein, the notorious rapist, would take a liking to their daughter while prowling the streets. Infuriated by the adulation I heard for Saddam, I asked a friend who had served as chief of staff to one of Iraq's highest politicians to help make sense of this madness. "That is the prevailing mentality in the Arab world," he said. "People in this region are historically insecure. For at least 1,000 years there was nothing but darkness. Read more here,,,, Source: JPost
 by Robert Spencer
"I want you to arrange a meeting with the heads of the Five Families. This war stops now."
Oh, the Sunnis hate the Shi'ites,
And the Iranians hate the Saudis,
And the Syrians hate the Iraqis,
And everybody hates the Jews. But during National Umma Week, National Umma Week,
It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-while-our-hearts-curse-them-umma Week.
Be nice to Nasbis and Rafidite dogs who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year! (Apologies to Tom Lehrer) "Iran calls for regional meeting on Iraq security," from Reuters, August 29 BAGHDAD, Aug 29 (Reuters) - The Iranian foreign minister on Saturday called for Iraq's neighbours to hold a meeting to discuss Iraqi security after Baghdad accused Syria of harbouring the planners of two massive bomb attacks. Separately, Turkey's foreign minister is to visit Iraq and Syria on Monday to try to soothe relations between the two. Since 2003, tensions -- prone to flare-ups since around the time Saddam came to power in 1979 -- have centred on charges from Iraq's U.S.-backed government that Syria, estranged from Washington, has allowed insurgents to stream into Iraq. Iraqi politicians have also lashed out at Saudi Arabia for inciting Sunni Islamist insurgents, a charge the kingdom denies. And while Baghdad's relations with Tehran are cordial, the U.S. military complains that Iran arms and trains Shi'ite militia. Meanwhile, Iraq's relations with Kuwait to the south are strained as Baghdad chafes at Kuwait's insistence it continue to pay billions of dollars in reparations for former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion. Relations with western neighbour Jordan have been on the mend, and ties with Turkey have taken a noticeable turn for the better in the past year. "We hope to get the cooperation and approval of all neighbouring countries for this meeting," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters through a translator during a visit to Iraq. There have been several regional meetings on the conflict in Iraq since the U.S.-led ouster of Saddam in 2003, but Iraq's ties with its neighbours are fragile. Iraqi officials frequently blame neighbouring countries for the violence that continues to rock the country more than six years after the U.S.-led invasion. "Maintaining security and stability in Iraq, or losing it, has a direct impact on all of Iraq's neighbouring countries," Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said in a statement. While sectarian slaughter between majority Shi'ites and once dominant Sunnis in Iraq has subsided, bombings attributed to Sunni Islamist groups such as al Qaeda continue as U.S. forces begin to gradually withdraw ahead of an end-2011 deadline. Many in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam which follows a strict brand of the Sunni faith called Wahhabism, see Persian Iran, a Shi'ite Muslim country, as their arch enemy. Clerics of Saudi Arabia's official hardline school of Islam view Shi'ites as heretics and the government fears Iraq is becoming a satellite of Shi'ite power Iran.... Source: JihadWatch
 Earlier today, we posted a link to an article which mentioned that Kuwait Islamic Bank had entered into a joint venture with Colorado-based real estate company UDR: http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2009/08/17/shariah-compliant-sovereign-wealth-funds-resume-investing-in-west/ We were curious as to what, if any, restrictions were to be imposed on the real estate properties in which Kuwait Islamic Bank invested here in the United States, so we made an inquiry via UDR’s “contact us” form on the company’s web site. The company was quick to reply as, within minutes, we received a phone call from Dave Messenger, CFO of UDR. I asked Mr. Messenger two questions: 1. What, if any, special restrictions or qualifications relating to Shariah were required in the deal with Kuwait Islamic Bank? 2. Are zakat payments to be made as part of this venture? Mr. Messenger did not attempt to address question number 2, but referred me to Kuwait Finance House to get an answer to that question. Mr. Messenger was also quite insistent that UDR’s agreement was in fact with Kuwait Finance House and not with Kuwait Islamic Bank. We regard this as a distinction without a difference, since Kuwait Finance House is an arm of Kuwait Islamic Bank. In all the media being devoted to this new deal, the entity identified is in fact Kuwait Islamic Bank. Mr. Messenger was able to provide much more information in response to question number 1. His answer was troubling, right from the outset. First of all, he mispronounced “shariah.” Shariah is pronounced shu-ree-uh. Messenger pronounced it shu-rye-uh. It does not inspire a great deal of confidence in terms of due diligence when the CFO of the American entity which entered into the agreement with an Islamic bank cannot even correctly pronounce the name of the underlying doctrine which governs their joint venture partner. Messenger was not bashful at all about the issue of shariah-compliance. He declared that the entire agreement was written to be shariah-compliant to make sure that the joint venture properties fit in with their partners’ religion. When asked about specific provisions which he knew about to establish and maintain shariah compliance, Messenger named two: “cinematography and food served on the property.” I asked what he meant by cinematography and he explained that some of their properties include movie theaters. Evidently, Kuwait Finance House/Kuwait Islamic Bank wants to make sure that no offensive movies are shown on properties in which they invest. In terms of “food served on property” Messenger explained that no pork would be served on the property at functions put on by UDR. I asked him if any of the properties leased to sandwich shops or delis or such. He said that 8 of their 160 properties did have such tenants. Again, evidently, those businesses would be prohibited from serving pork to prevent any conflict with shariah or the religion of UDR’s venture partners. Messenger explained that potential conflicts with shariah were addressed up front with the JV partners and would continue to be addressed up front to prevent conflicts. What has clearly happened here is that Kuwait Islamic Bank has been able to impose shariah here in the United States by using its financial leverage over UDR. This is the essence of Shariah-Compliant Finance. Source: Sharia Finance Watch
 James Hider, Middle East Correspondent A fire in a wedding party tent that killed 43 women and children in Kuwait was started deliberately by the ex-wife of the bridegroom, a Kuwaiti newspaper said today. Al-Qabbas said that the 23-year-old former wife had admitted pouring petrol on the cotton tent and setting it on fire, furious at what she called her “bad treatment” by her former partner before their divorce. There was no official confirmation of the alleged confession. Firefighters said that the blaze took less than three minutes to rip through the marquee, in which as many as 180 women and children were celebrating the wedding party. Many of those who died were killed in the stampede for the sole exit. The men at the party celebrated in a separate tent, in line with the tradition of the conservative state. The blaze in Jahra, 50 miles west of Kuwait City, was the worst civil disaster in the emirate’s history. The inferno was so intense that many of the charred bodies would have to be DNA tested for identification, officials said. At least 90 people were injured in the blaze, and the number of deaths rose overnight to 43. Local media said that some of the victims were related to people who had died in a similar tent blaze last year. “It was a horrific scene with bodies and many shoes stuck to the ground at the only exit — they must have trampled over one another,” said Brigadier General Jassem al-Mansouri, the head of the fire department, after Saturday night’s tragedy. "Most of the bodies were charred, many could not be immediately recognised. Forensic officials are working to identify the bodies." Source: Times Online
At least 41 people, all women and children, have died after a fire broke out in a tent being used at a wedding in Kuwait City. More than 70 other people were injured in the blaze late on Saturday night in Jahra, west of the Kuwaiti capital. Brigadier-General Jassem al-Mansouri, the fire department chief, said 58 of the injured were still in hospital on Sunday, and seven were in a serious condition with severe burns. "It was a horrific scene with bodies and many shoes stuck to the ground at the only exit. They must have trampled over one another," al-Mansouri said. The authorities were running DNA tests to identify the 35 women and six children killed in the fire, which left many victims unrecognisable. Relatives and onlookers had crowded the area around the blazing tent, which had been engulfed in less than two minutes. No emergeny exit Saad al-Anezi, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Kuwait, said the fire was the country's biggest disaster in 40 years.
"The tent, in an enclosed surrounding, did not have any emergency exit and it was made from a very flammable material - cotton," he said.
Fire officials told Al Jazeera that the tent, which could have housed up to 180 people, had probably not been constructed to correct safety standards. The authorities were investigating the cause of the blaze and al-Mansouri said it could have been faulty electrical wiring, a problem with the equipment used to keep the wedding food buffet warm or the coals used for burning incense. Kuwait banned the use of wedding tents on Sunday. Wedding celebrations in Kuwait are held separately for men and women, with children attending the women's party. Source: Al Jazeera (English)
 By Amir Taheri Former President George W. Bush's policy of en couraging Middle East democratization has just produced spectacular results in the Kuwaiti general election. In a major victory for the secular reformists over the Islamists, women -- four of them -- were elected to the 50-seat national parliament for the first time. The Islamists' share of Sunday's vote dropped almost 30 percent from the last general election, held just more than a year ago. The radical Muslim Brotherhood lost three of its four seats, while the hard-line Salafis dropped to two from four. The election of women represents a political earthquake in the Gulf Cooperation Council, a grouping of six oil-rich traditional Arab monarchies. Kuwait has had a parliament on and off since gaining independence in 1960, but the other GCC members entered the era of electoral politics largely due to pressure from the Bush administration. US pressure also played a crucial part in persuading Kuwait's leaders to enfranchise women for the first time in 2005. Read more ...Source: FSM
KUWAITI women achieved another historical milestone by winning their first ever seats in the oil-rich Gulf state's parliament, according to official results released today. US-educated liberal Aseel al-Awadhi and Rula Dashti were declared among the first 10 winners in the third district. Ms Awadi came in second position while Ms Dashti was in seventh place. Two other women were almost certain of bagging seats in other districts, the results of which were due to be announced shortly. Ms Awadhi, 40, is a professor of political philosophy at Kuwait University. She got her doctorate from the University of Texas at Austin. "It's a victory for Kuwaiti women and a victory for Kuwaiti democracy," a jubilant Ms Awadhi told AFP after the announcement of results. "This is a major leap forward," she said. She was expected to win but no one predicted she would come in second place. Ms Dashti, who has a doctorate in economics from Jon Hopkins University in the United States, is the chairwoman of the Kuwait Economic Society. She had been a leading figure in the struggle of Kuwaiti women to win their political rights. Liberal activist Massuma al-Mubarak, who made history by becoming the first Kuwaiti woman minister in 2005, was leading all candidates with a big margin in her district. Independent candidate Salwa al-Jassar was in seventh position in her district. Kuwaiti women, who make up 54.3 percent of the 385,000 eligible voters, were running in the elections for only the third time after they were enfranchised in 2005. Sixteen female candidates were among the 210 hopefuls standing for the 50-seat parliament. In the previous two elections no women won seats. Kuwaitis voted on Saturday to elect their second parliament in a year after Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah dissolved the outgoing parliament in March following a standoff between MPs and the government. Results from other electoral districts were expected later today. Source: The Australian
May 5, 2009
Amir Taheri Convinced that the Obama administration is preparing to retreat from the Middle East, Iran's Khomeinist regime is intensifying its goal of regional domination. It has targeted six close allies of the U.S.: Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, Morocco, Kuwait and Jordan, all of which are experiencing economic and/or political crises. Iranian strategists believe that Egypt is heading for a major crisis once President Hosni Mubarak, 81, departs from the political scene. He has failed to impose his eldest son Gamal as successor, while the military-security establishment, which traditionally chooses the president, is divided. Iran's official Islamic News Agency has been conducting a campaign on that theme for months. This has triggered a counter-campaign against Iran by the Egyptian media. Last month, Egypt announced it had crushed a major Iranian plot and arrested 68 people. According to Egyptian media, four are members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Tehran's principal vehicle for exporting its revolution.
Seven were Palestinians linked to the radical Islamist movement Hamas; one was a Lebanese identified as "a political agent from Hezbollah" by the Egyptian Interior Ministry. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, claimed these men were shipping arms to Hamas in Gaza. The arrests reportedly took place last December, during a crackdown against groups trying to convert Egyptians to Shiism. The Egyptian Interior Ministry claims this proselytizing has been going on for years. Thirty years ago, Egyptian Shiites numbered a few hundred. Various estimates put the number now at close to a million, but they are said to practice taqiyah (dissimulation), to hide their new faith. But in its campaign for regional hegemony, Tehran expects Lebanon as its first prize. Iran is spending massive amounts of cash on June's general election. It supports a coalition led by Hezbollah, and including the Christian ex-general Michel Aoun. Lebanon, now in the column of pro-U.S. countries, would shift to the pro-Iran column.
Khaled Abu Toameh April 22 Jamal Zahalka is an Arab member of the Knesset who complained at the UN's World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Tolerance in Geneva that he's a victim of "Israeli racist apartheid." Hamed Bitawi is a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council who was shot and wounded by a Palestinian security officer as he walked out of a mosque in the West Bank city of Nablus. This incident occurred almost at the same time that Zahalka was depicting himself as a victim of racism and apartheid. Also while Zahalka was spewing his hate statements, the authorities in Kuwait arrested Khalifa al-Kharafi, an election candidate, for criticizing members of the ruling al-Sabah family. Another Kuwaiti parliamentarian candidate was arrested days earlier over a similar issue. Former Islamist MP Daifallah Buramia had been quoted as saying that the country's defense minister, a senior member of the royal family, was incapable of becoming prime minister. In Lebanon, four parliament members have been assassinated since the killing of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. The spree of assassinations, believed to be ordered by Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, prompted 40 members of the Lebanese parliament to hide in a heavily-guarded hotel in Beirut for several weeks. In Jordan, former lawmaker Toujan al-Faial was convicted and sentenced a few years ago to 18 months in jail for “harming the state’s dignity” when she accused a former prime minister and his cabinet of financial corruption. The Jordanian government now claims that she is ineligible to run for Parliament. Al-Faisal declared in response: "Here, the head of a corrupt government decides who can and cannot run for office. They want a Parliament that won’t hold the government accountable for corruption.” These are only a few examples of the dangers facing members of parliament in the Arab world. But as far as Zahalka, the Arab member of the Knesset, is concerned, the plight of his Arab fellow parliamentarians is not an important case worth mentioning at the Durban II conference. Zahalka forgot to mention in his speech that thanks to Israeli "apartheid" and "racism," he is a democratically elected member of the Knesset. He also forgot that when he was sworn in, he voluntarily made an oath of loyalty to the state of Israel. Zahalka was elected on a platform that promised to bring better services and equal rights to the 1.4 million Arab citizens of Israel. It is hard to see how participating in an anti-Israel conference in Geneva along with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad and other Israel-haters will help solve the serious problems facing the Arab sector in Israel, such as unemployment, lack of infrastructure and poverty. The opposite is true. Zahalka's participation and fiery statements only play into the hands of those in Israel who are trying to depict the Arab citizens as a "fifth column" and an "enemy from within." If Israel were an "apartheid" state, Zahalka would not be sitting in the Knesset, enjoying all the social and economic privileges of an elected lawmaker. While there is no denying that the Arabs have long been suffering from a policy of discrimination in many fields, especially in the allocation of public funds and building zones, Zahalka and his friends are doing the blacks of South Africa injustice by drawing a parallel between their suffering under the former (and real) apartheid system and the problems facing the Arab minority. And if Zahalka really cared about racism and apartheid, why doesn't he endorse the case of the detained Kuwaiti parliament candidtaes or that of the terrified Lebanese lawmakers who are often afraid to walk out of their homes or that of the Palestinian legislator who was shot in the leg? Source: Hudson New York
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
For six years the burning cause of the American left was the fate of the captured terrorists being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. 
Posts
