Posts Tagged ‘Islam’

The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) was established in 1981 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to help local Muslims “preserve their Islamic identity” and “observe their obligations as Muslims.” Promoting “a comprehensive and balanced view” of Islam’s “universal and timeless” teachings, ISB “strive[s] to embody the ‘middle path’ to which the Qur’an calls—a path of moderation that is free of extremism.”

ISB was founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges. One of ISB’s original trustees (for at least 19 years) was Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. At ISB’s Cambridge library in 2003, an official of the interfaith group Americans for Peace and Tolerance found a number of jihadi texts as well as writings by the late Muslim Brotherhood leader Sayyid Qutb, who pioneered the ideology that Islamic terror groups like al Qaeda embrace today.

ISB’s Cambridge mosque is operated by the Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors have identified as a U.S. front for the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2009, ISB members founded a sister mosque, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC), in Boston’s Roxbury section. Saudi funding sources supplied more than half of the $15.5 million that was used to create the new facility. Also key to ISBCC’s successful launch was Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s decision to make available, for a small fraction of market value, the land on which the Cultural Center was to be built.

ISB’s Cambridge and Boston mosques are both owned by the Islamic Society of Boston Trust. Sheik Basyouny Nehela, who serves as Imam of the Cambridge mosque, is a board-of-directors member of its Boston-based counterpart.

Over the years, a significant number of ISB figures (in addition to the aforementioned Abdurahman Alamoudi) have been implicated in terrorist and/or extremist activities and affiliations. For example:

FBI surveillance documents show that two days before the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, Suhaib Webb, Imam of ISB’s Boston mosque, joined al-Qaeda operative Anwar Awlaki in headlining a fundraiser on behalf of the Atlanta-based Muslim extremist Jamil al-Amin (formerly H. Rap Brown), who had recently murdered two police officers in Georgia.

Aafia Siddiqui, who occasionally prayed at ISB’s Cambridge mosque, was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 while in possession of cyanide canisters and plans to carry out a chemical attack in New York City. Siddiqui subsequently tried to gun down some U.S. military officers and FBI agents, and is now serving an 86-year prison sentence for that offense.

Tarek Mehanna, who worshipped at ISB’s Cambridge mosque, received terrorist training in Yemen and plotted to use automatic weapons to inflict mass casualties in a suburban shopping mall just outside of Boston. In 2012 he was sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to aid al Qaeda.

Anwar Kazmi, a member of the ISB Cambridge mosque’s board of trustees, publicly called for leniency toward Siddiqui and Mehanna at a Boston rally in February 2012.

Jamal Badawi, a former trustee of the Islamic Society of Boston Trust (which owns both ISB mosques), was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial that investigated illegal fundraising efforts which had been made in behalf of Hamas.

Yasir Qadhi, who lectured at ISB’s Boston mosque in 2009 and again in 2012, advocates replacing American democracy with Sharia Law; characterizes Christians as “filthy” polytheists whose “life and prosperity … holds no value in the state of Jihad”; asserts that most modern Jews are descended from the Khazars and thus have no legal or historical claim to Israel; and accuses Jews of plotting to destroy Muslim peoples and societies. Further, Qadhi is an acolyte of Ali al-Timimi, a Virginia-based Imam who is currently serving life in prison for inciting jihad against U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, who has occasionally served as a spokesman for ISB’s Boston mosque, alleges that the USA Patriot Act permits American authorities to round up and arrest Muslims at will, even without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Walid Fitaihi, a current ISB trustee, says that Jews are the “rapers of the worshippers of Allah” and should be scourged.

Oussama Ziade, a leading financial supporter of ISB’s Boston mosque, was indicted in July 2009 for taking cash from al Qaeda fundraiser Yassin Kadi.
ISB made headlines in the spring of 2013, when it was reported that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Chechen Muslim brothers who detonated a pair of deadly bombs at the Boston Marathon on April 15, had occasionally attended worship services at ISB’s Cambridge mosque. In the aftermath of the bombing, ISB advised its members: “If you get contacted by the FBI [in connection with its bombing investigation] … [y]ou have the right to legal representation. Please contact the ACLU—they have lawyers in the legal department who are present and ready to talk to you.”

by Jay Harper
Back when I was in college I did my honors thesis on homosexuality in the Middle East. After a fair amount of research I found there are homosexual traditions in the Middle East that are accepted despite the fact that homosexuality is punishable by death under Islamic law. Modern, Western gay relationships are out, but what you find are one of two things – 1) cross dressing, and 2) pedophilia. Think of Middle Eastern cross dressers as pre-op transexuals who live their lives as women. Despite the segregation of men and women, the cross-dressed men are allowed to spend private time with women outside their family (which is unheard of). The pedophilia was well structured and took the form of young “apprentices” to older “masters”. The older men didn’t consider themselves gay because they would have wives and families. The boy was just something on the side.

The other night Frontline had a program the other day on “The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan”. Afghanistan has a tradition that’s called “bacha bazi” (بچه بازی) which literally translates to “baby play”. Poor young boys are recruited by an older wealthy men, their families paid pretty well for the boys, and they’re “trained” to entertain men. Not stated in the documentary, but pretty clear from watching which boys are recruited, is the fact that they’re trying to find and recruit kids who are probably gay. It probably also explains why the families are willing to sell the boys – I doubt they’d sell their butch, rugged son, but it’s not such a big deal to sell the kids who they suspect to be gay.

The entertainment consists of dressing them as women and having them dance for a group of men. Curiously, the dancing part is quite modest – like women dancers, hardly any skin shows.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZtnUwjJiLgThe issue is that after the performance their “master” (owner) may lend the boy to another man for the evening and sex is expected. From a western perspective this is literally sexual slavery of minors. The other big problem is that while some of the boys manage to fit in (the femmy gay ones), ones who resist and cause problems are often killed.

What’s interesting is that it’s all practiced pretty openly. Frontline even showed one case where bacha bazi was the entertainment for men attending a wedding. And most of the men who involved are powerful, with standing in the community – military commanders, police chiefs, businessmen, etc.

When I was in college studying sociology and Middle Eastern studies one of the big challenges was to try to look at cultures from their own eyes – cultural relativism. The Afghans who are outraged about bacha bazi are typically western educated, English speakers, or strict Muslims (the Taliban banned bacha bazi). I think part of their outrage comes from that fact that rich, powerful “straight” men with families might actually be gay or bisexual. Yes, there are serious exploitation issues with bacha bazi, but I think homophobia is a big part of the opposition to it. If the boys were older and things were more consensual (like western drag queen) many of the opponents would probably still be opposed to it.

However, the traditional Afghan seems to pretty much accept bacha bazi, and in a culture that isn’t all that fond of educating women and makes women wear burqas, it’s really not that surprising. Human life just isn’t intrinsically valued in Afghanistan like it is in the west. All men are not created equal. In Afghanistan if you’re male and wealthy you get to do pretty much what you want. And if you’re poor or female your life will be dictated by others with more power. Women literally can’t show their faces in public and some poor boys are required to have sex with older wealthy men.

So ultimately this is less about a sex crime and more about principles of basic equality. You can pass all the laws you want outlawing bacha bazi (as the Taiban did), but it will have little effect if you don’t instill in people that everyone is inherently equal and that there are certain human right everyone just gets without earning them.

If you’re sitting there thinking the Afghans are so horrible for accepting bacha bazi, think again. Many in the “Tea Party” movement seem to have big problems with the fact that the country is being led by a black man and say pretty horrible things about him based solely on his skin color. Others spend millions of dollars fighting civil rights for gay people. Others don’t like to ride in airplanes with Muslims. Then there are the thousands of hate crimes that are reported every year with some people getting killed simply because of the color of their skin, or their religion or their sexual orientation. We’re really not in a position to throw stones at the Afghans.

by Bosch Fawstin

I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology to identify this enemy, which is very important in taking on the enemy. I recall watching panel discussions after 9/11, with each panelist using a different term to describe the enemy we face. That annoyed the hell out of me as I think it’s incredibly important to identify the proper terms when speaking about our enemy, and to NEVER create terms, for whatever reason. To me, the only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters. Below I try my best to make the case why we should always call Islam “Islam.”

Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as:
“Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Totalitarian Islam,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism,” etc….

The enemy calls it “Islam.”

Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing. A term such as “Militant Islam” is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us “Islam is peace” — after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name. He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt:

“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

If only he felt that way about America. Washington’s defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.

Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic (“Sharia”) Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:

“Slay the idolators wherever you find them…” Chapter 9, verse 5

“When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them….” Ch. 47:4

Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life? This evil man is Islam’s ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It’s no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent.

For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity and with the help of a large gang of followers that he managed to gain power. But he wanted his moral pretense too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah’s conveniently timed “revelation” that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad. From then on, violence became Islam’s way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad’s words, “War is deceit” — in the sense that Muslims use earlier “peaceful” verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims. Those “peaceful” passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.

Note also that the only reason we’re talking about Islam is because we’ve been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam’s “conscientious objectors”? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn’t stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of “Moderate Islam.”

Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.

Islam is the enemy’s ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it’s up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can’t even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we’d be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy’s ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, “Jihadists,” and our response, “The War on Jihad.” But behind it all, it’s Islam that makes the enemy tick.

Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam “Islam,” I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it’s important that we acknowledge Islam’s place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying “Islam” helps Islam and hurts us. So let’s begin calling the enemy’s ideology by its name. Let’s start calling Islam “Islam.”

by Daniel Greenfield

We don’t know whether Dzhokar Tsarneav and Tamerlan Tsarneav were aligned with any Muslim terrorist organization, but there is no reason that they had to be.Most recent Muslim terrorist plots were carried out by “lone wolves”, individuals or small groups, who received their Islamist indoctrination and explosives training through the Islamic internet of Jihadist social media.

It may turn out that the Tsarneavs attended a terrorist training camp at some point in the past. But it may be just as likely that they never did. Terrorist training camps still exist, but they are becoming relics when it comes to the new type of pop up terrorism favored by Jihadists abroad.

The ideal Muslim terrorist has never attended a training camp or met with a terrorist chieftain. He has never even traveled to a suspect country. His indoctrination comes from Jihadist videos of Islamic sermons and battle scenes from the front lines of Islamic terror. His bomb making knowledge comes from Jihadist training materials scattered around social media which tell him to make bombs and how to use them to the most devastating effect.

Sleeper? Every believer in Islam is potentially a sleeper, ready to undergo what the experts call “radicalization”. But radicalization is largely a misnomer. The proper term is religiosity.

As a Muslim becomes more religious, his thoughts turn to Jihad, whether supporting it directly or indirectly. The religiosity need not be overt. The terrorist can be outwardly secular, but inwardly religious. He doesn’t have to grow a beard or leave Korans everywhere. Many don’t. The essence of Jihad is that it allows a Muslim to live a secular life so long as he dedicates himself to the fight against non-Muslims.

The populist strains of Islam today are still militant. There is a sizable gap between the government clerics who only promote some forms of terrorism and the populist clerics who preach doctrines of total war.The Tsarneavs need not have been sleepers. It is enough that they were Muslims. Like so many others, they were ticking time bombs who could at any moment decide that the Jersey Shore lifestyle so many Muslim youth adopt in the West isn’t enough for them and turn to Islam. And that is almost certainly what finally happened.

Islam carries its own transnational patriotism with it. It merges with a hundred ethnic nationalisms, like Chechen terrorism, but it links together Sunni Muslims everywhere. Its message is of a better world under Islamic rule.

What Dzhokar Tsarneav and Tamerlan Tsarneav did may be horrific to us, but in their culture, cruelty and brutality are the privileges of the warrior. In Islam, the blood of non-Muslims is worth less than that of Muslims. Countless Fatwas have provided justification and even encouraged the murder of non-Muslim civilians.

To us the actions of the Tsarneav brothers may be baffling, but from their point of view all they did was the equivalent of joining the US Army. Except they joined the Army of Islam.
The experts will talk about radicalism, about disaffection and foreign policy and all the rest. And all those empty words will miss the point.

Dzhokar Tsarneav and Tamerlan Tsarneav were Islamic patriots. They believed in a world ruled under Islam. That is a belief that was born with Islam and predates any local conflicts with Russia. It’s a religious war and it’s a national war. It’s Muslim patriotism for a fatherland that encompasses a world of slaves under the dead boot of their prophet.

The Tsarneav brothers probably weren’t sleepers. We’re the ones who are sleeping.

OBAMA PRAYS TO ALLAH

New and startling information has been released concerning President Barack Obama’s spiritual life and his close relationship with ardent Islamists.

Mr. Obama, who rarely attends public church services, turns often to Muslims and Islamic sympathizers for prayer and spiritual and moral discussion.

The President, according to Daniel Burke, writing for the Washington D.C. based Religion News Service, prays on the phone with individuals from around the country “to frame his policies in moral terms.”

One of Mr. Obama’s prayer partners is Rashad Hussain, an Islamic lawyer and critic of America’s alleged “terror prosecutions” of his fellow Muslims.

Mr. Obama has appointed Mr. Hussain to serve as his deputy associate counsel and special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations.

The mission of the OIC is to safeguard and protect “the interests of the Muslim world,” should be of serious concern to Congress and the American public.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Hussein has a history of participating in events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Chicago daily describes the Muslim Brotherhood as “the world’s most influential Islamic fundamentalist group” whose goal is to create Muslim states throughout the world.

In 1991, Mohamed Akram, a prominent leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said thae members of his radical organization “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Mr. Hussein’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, date to his days at Yale Univerity’s Law School.

In announcing Mr. Hussein’s appointment as his deputy associate counsel, Mr. Obama proudly announced that Hussain is a Hafiz, someone who has completely memorized the Qur’an.

The news that Mr. Obama regularly prays with Mr. Hussein verifies reports that the President prays to Allah.

Denis McDonough, a Roman Catholic who serves as deputy national security adviser and chief of staff of the National Security Council, also has been identified as one of the President’s prayer partners.

This would give credence to Mr. Obama’s claim that he is a Christian save for the fact that Mr. McDonough says that he is “a crucial player” in solidifying the President’s ties to Islam in order to restore “moral authority” to America.

Mr. McDonough, whose brother is a priest, also says that he wants the country “to get back on a shared partnership” with the Muslim world that focuses on America’s “shared values” with Islam.

When Sabatina James climbs the podium at the Danish Free Press Society, she immediately takes control of the room. It makes no difference that she has told her story many times before – the flight from the Muslim family of Pakistani origin, the conversion to Christianity and her tireless work for girls and women in the West who escape the “honor culture”. When she stands in front of the audience, her commitment makes us all feel chosen. We are torn between tragedy and humor while she tells her personal story, in between details of Islamic doctrine and culture.

This is pertinent and painful to listen to. She speaks of what many of us have begun to understand: The problem of ‘honor’, the power structures, the violence and the hypocrisy within the Islamic world. And Sabatina James is as hard as a rock in her criticism of the West. She condemns politicians and the so-called “anti-racists” as hard as she condemns the leaders of the Muslim world. But she is even harder on the Muslims who do not dare to stand up and say “No!”, the quiet ”moderate Muslims”. It is easy to understand why Salafists and moderate Muslims detest Sabatina James. She exposes and reveals their lies and their tactics.

And, appropriately, a car is waiting for her outside the hall when the meeting is over. A handsome, silvery BMW is parked right outside the venue, with a young Muslim couple sitting inside. The police said later: ”They were not out to hurt her, just send a message, that they know what she is doing.”

Sabatina James is perfectly aware just how dangerous her work is. Still, she says what needs to be said: Europe has to stand up for the values that built the Western world. What we are experiencing now is a clash between two widely different civilizations.

“Islam is not compatible with democracy and freedom of expression. That was understood in Europe, and thus you separated the church from the state. This caused Europe to continue its development while the Arabic / Muslim world is still stuck in the 7th century,” says Sabatina James.

Because the Muslim world is ruled by holy books, it will never get anywhere, she believes. It is impossible to create a healthy society with rational individuals, when the moral idol is a 7th-century warlord. An idol who even took a 9-year-old girl as his wife, and considered it his absolute, holy duty to kill ”infidels”.

“It might have been acceptable in the 7th century, but as it remains a demand to view Mohammed as the perfect human being – which lots of Muslims do – then it doesn’t work,” says Sabatina James.

Many in the West see the Muslim attitude as a question of education and class. They believe that insufficient education and economic vulnerability are the reasons why Muslims act as they do. This is rejected by Sabatina James as pure nonsense. The members of her own family are highly educated and moved from Pakistan to Austria long ago, yet they intended to marry her to a cousin from their home country and called her a “whore” when she wanted to live like a Western woman.

“The problem is the culture. Muslims think that they must believe in the god of the Quran, and simply refuse to leave behind the concept of a god,” she says.

After many years in Europe, Sabatina James still does not understand why nobody takes the Islamists seriously. Although they state their goals completely openly, as anyone can hear and see on the Internet.

“But just as people dismissed Hitler during the 1930′s, today the Islamists are being dismissed. This attitude will be devastating for Europe. The threat is not imaginary, it is shouted out every day by fanatical imams, converts and terrorist organizations,” she says.

“Take their words seriously! What happens when Islam enters a society is clearly visible around the world.”

Sabatina James is well aware that non-Muslims who take up the problem of Islamization will be accused of “racism” and “Islamophobia”. Even when fundamental human rights are being discussed, the “Islamophobia card” is played.

Following the meeting,
Dispatch International
asked Sabatina James some questions:

It was determined recently that a Swedish project about girls in honor cultures was a complete failure. In perfect Swedish style, the authorities tried by way of dialogue to make the young and their families reach a solution. That resulted in two girls being murdered, and in not a single case did a family realize that their girls have the right to decide over their own lives. Why do you think such a project failed?

“Because they consider you unclean! These people have no respect for you or for your system. In public, many Muslims say things that you want to hear, but that is just because they do not want to engage in open ‘confrontation’. I can compare that to my own situation. My father and my family members said one thing to the police and the social authorities. As soon as the latter had left, all their promises and fine words evaporated. Instead, honor had to be restored.”

In the Western world, the left used to fight for a secular society and was entirely opposed to religion. Nowadays they work with Islamists to introduce more Islam into society. What do you think causes this?

“My only explanation for this would be that it’s due to a minority complex.. When the left has determined that a group constitutes a minority, it is constantly ‘exposed’. Minorities are considered flawless, everything they do wrong is considered to result from oppression by the majority.”

Do you think we can ever defeat Islamism?

“Yes! But only if the Western world recovers its fundamental values of freedom. If you stay firm in your principle that religion is to be separated from the state. But Europe has a great problem: There are only very few brave people left. It is easier to simply keep a low profile. We need to return to faith, though not necessarily to faith in a god. The Muslims are actually right, Westerners do not believe in anything. The lack of faith is making us weak, as individuals and as a society.

“We still have freedom of expression, but if it dies, all other human rights will disappear. Do not ever forget that.”