No one should be surprised that this kind of thing is happening in Britain. It’s going to happen a great deal more, too, because the death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law. It’s based on the Qur’an: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)
A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”
Qaradawi also once famously said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today.”
“‘Persecuted’ family forced to flee Manningham home as threats escalate,” by David Jagger, Telegraph & Argus, November 4, 2016:
A FATHER who said he suffered “seven years of persecution” has been forced to flee his home under armed guard amid fears for his safety.
Nissar Hussain was with his family when police arrived and moved him to a safe place.
Mr Hussain said the culmination of the “extreme persecution” had devastated his family and the dramatic arrival of armed police was a complete surprise.
“My family are distraught and extremely traumatised to be leaving,” said Mr Hussain.
“But when your life is at stake there is no other choice.”
Mr Hussain converted to Christianity 20 years ago, but says in recent years he has been subjected to harassment and violence by sections of the Islamic community.
“This extreme persecution by certain people in the Muslim community because we are converts has broken us as a family,” he said.
“We are fragmented and I do not know how we will recover from this. We haven’t functioned properly for years.”
He said “serious questions” needed to be answered.
Last year, Mr Hussain was hospitalised after his kneecap was smashed and his hand broken during an attack outside his home in St Paul’s Road, Manningham.
Two hooded men, one armed with a pick-axe handle, assaulted him in a vicious attack caught on CCTV.
At the time, Mr Hussain said he and his family were being driven out of the city and he was making plans to leave. This week he had started packing up his belongings when the police arrived on Thursday.
He briefly returned home yesterday to collect more items, with police guarding, before leaving Bradford for good.
The 50-year-old, who was a nurse before leaving work due to post-traumatic stress disorder, said his six children, aged eight to 24, and wife would never see their friends again.
He had been expecting an attack for some months, but when the police arrived he was “none the wiser” that he was at such serious risk.
“The armed police arrived at about 3pm on Thursday,” he said….
Hani Noor Eldin was on a “divine mission” to negotiate the release of the Blind Sheikh, who wasn’t simply a member of the terror group Gamaa Islamiya — a designated terror group since the Clinton era — but its preeminent spiritual leader, as well as the ringleader of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot.
As outrageous as it was to host Noor Eldin at the State Department and also to the White House, the Obama team had no intention of stopping rubbing shoulders with influential jihadists. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said to expect more members of “designated foreign terrorist organizations to visit the United States” to have discussions with the State Department. She passed off her hollow support for terrorists as a way of doing business with a country considered an ally of the US, instead of what she should have done: bar Eldin from entering the country and showcase America as a having no tolerance for jihad terrorism.
Gamaa Islamiya, which translates to “the Islamic Group,” is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is Egypt’s largest jihadist organization and also has a presence outside Egypt. The group has targeted foreign tourists in Egypt, deeming them to represent “the seeping of Western characteristics, such as secularism, into Egyptian culture.”
The Washington Times has detailed Obama’s backing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama has attempted to justify the Brotherhood as “a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.” Hillary Clinton also paid an official visit to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi when he first took power, and she offered him the “strong support” of Washington.
Egypt’s current President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who is anti-Muslim Brotherhood, called for a “religious revolution” after visiting a Coptic Cathedral and he rightly declared about Obama:
You left the Egyptians. You turned your back on the Egyptians, and they won’t forget that.
Former CIA agent Claire Lopez stated that America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Lopez noted that the war on terror should have been about keeping the West “free of Shariah”; but now “the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.”
“Hillary Clinton Gave Visa to Egyptian TERRORIST to Visit State Department, White House to Lobby for Blind Sheikh Release”, by Patrick Poole, PJ Media, November 2, 2016:
In June 2012, Hillary Clinton’s State Department issued a visa to enter the United States to Hani Noor Eldin — an avowed member of the Egyptian terror group Gamaa Islamiya.
Gamaa Islamiya had been designated by the U.S. as a terror organization since October 1997 during the Clinton administration.
According to U.S. law, Eldin’s request for a visa must be denied.
But not only was Eldin allowed into the U.S., he was escorted into Hillary’s State Department where he met with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Under Secretary Robert Hormats. Eldin was then received at the White House by Denis McDonough, who was Obama’s deputy national security advisor at the time, and is currently the White House chief of staff.
According to published reports, Eldin used these meetings as an opportunity to press Obama administration officials to release from federal prison the leader of his terror group, the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman is serving a life sentence for his leadership role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow-up “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks.
(That case was prosecuted by my friend and PJ Media colleague, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.)
Those meetings resulted in serious Obama administration discussions about transferring the blind sheikh back to Egypt, then under control of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi. Morsi hadvowed to pressure the U.S. for the blind sheikh’s release while Eldin was in Washington, D.C.
The blind sheikh’s transfer was only stopped when members of Congress began asking about the deal. The possibility of his transfer was publicly denounced by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who presided over the blind sheikh’s trial as a federal district court judge.
When Congress asked about Eldin’s visit to the U.S., then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano vowed that more foreign terrorists would be allowed in for such situations.
Questions were initially raised about how Eldin was allowed in the country and the details of his visit to Washington, D.C. when the story broke from reporter Eli Lake, who interviewed the terror group member. Eldin had no problem admitting he was a member of the banned Gamaa Islamiya:
It was supposed to be a routine meeting for Egyptian legislators in Washington, an opportunity for senior Obama administration officials to meet with new members of Egypt’s parliament and exchange ideas on the future of relations between the two countries.
Instead, the visit this week looks like it’s turning into a political fiasco. Included in the delegation of Egyptian lawmakers was Hani Nour Eldin, who, in addition to being a newly elected member of parliament, is a member of the Gamaa Islamiya, or the Egyptian Islamic Group — a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The group was banned under former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and is now a recognized Islamist political party. Its spiritual leader, Omar Abdel Rahman — also known as the “blind sheik” — was convicted in 1995 of plotting attacks on New York City landmarks and transportation centers, and is serving a life sentence in a North Carolina federal prison.
Eldin, according to his Facebook page, was born in 1968 and resides in Suez, near the canal that unites the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. He was arrested in 1993 on terrorism charges after members of Gamaa Islamiya got into a shoot out with Egyptian security officials at a mosque. He has proclaimed his innocence in the shooting and says he was arrested because of his political activism against Mubarak.
In an interview, Eldin confirmed he is a member of Gamaa Islamiya.By U.S. law, that means he would be denied a visa to enter the country. Nonetheless, he says, he got a visa from the State Department. A State Department spokesman said, “We have no information suggesting that he or anyone else in the delegation is a member of the Egyptian Islamic Group.”
The State Department blamed the visit on the U.S. government-funded Wilson Center, which then turned around and blamed the State Department:
While in Washington, Eldin also visited the Wilson Center, a think tank that specializes in foreign policy issues. A State Department spokesman said the delegation was “invited to Washington by the Wilson Center. I refer you to the Wilson Center for any additional information on their visit.”
A spokesman for the Wilson Center, however, said the delegation was selected by the State Department. “We can’t speak to the background of Eldin,” said Drew Sample the media relations coordinator for the Wilson Center….
Jordanian forces, along with US special forces and helicopters, are engaged in a massive manhunt for the Islamist gunmen who murdered three US military trainers and seriously injured others Friday, Nov. 4 at the Prince Faisal Air Base near the southern Jordanian town of Al-Jafr.
Although Jordanian officials first reported the American servicemen were shot in their car while trying to enter the air base, the attack is being treated as a well-planned ISIS or Al Qaeda terrorist ambush that is thought to have been perpetrated by three to five gunmen.
Both the US and Jordanian authorities prefer to keep the identity of the perpetrators dark, DEBKAfile’s counterterrorism sources report. It is therefore hard to determine whether the killers were Jordanian servicemen on the base or outsiders.
The presentation of the shootout as caused by a misunderstanding that arose when the American trainers failed to halt at the gate of the base is certainly far from the truth. The gunfire on the US vehicle came from directions – one from inside the gate and two from the outside.
This was the most serious Islamist terrorist attack on the 2,000 US soldiers serving in Jordan, largely on training missions and in support of operations in neighboring Iraq and Syria. The base lies 288km south of Amman in a remote desert location near the Saudi border.
The precise timing of the attack indicated that the terrorists had precise intelligence about the movements of the US servicemen. A joint Jordanian-US inquiry is taking place to find how this sensitive information reached the gunmen.
DEBKAfile’s military sources add that Israel’s army and police also reinforced patrols on the Jordanian border Saturday in case the gunmen on the run from Jordanian and US search parties tried to slip across into the Israeli Negev and cut through to Egyptian Sinai. They could call on local Bedouin smugglers to help them reach the northern regions of the peninsula which are swarming with ISIS networks.
The attack on the US trainers in Jordan occurred just 24 hours after ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi made a rare audio tape appearance to urge suicide bombers” all over the world to destroy the cities of the unbelievers.”
Our Islamist terror experts interpreted this as a coded message to ISIS sleeper cells in Western cities and the Middle East to go into action.
It also coincided with the anniversary of the Nov. 9, 2015 terrorist attack at the Jordanian Police Academy outside Amman. Then, a Jordanian officer opened fire on a group of Western military trainers killing two Americans and a South African.
Islamophobia is a trumped-up term designed to further an agenda, as indicated by Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought, who was there at the inception of the term:
This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.
The Canadian Parliament has now passed an “anti-Islamophobia” motion, “amid increasing attacks on mosques and Muslim communities in the country and throughout the world.” This is beyond bizarre, considering the truth about attacks throughout the world. Such attacks are most commonly on Christians by Muslims; against Muslims by Muslims, against apostates and infidels by Muslims. Add to that the jihad attacks in Europe and the rampant sex assaults and crimes by Muslims upon innocents. As for attacks against Muslims on Western soil, they remain very low. A much greater problem tabulated in hate crime statistics is against blacks and Jews.
Canada is slipping down a dangerous slope. The government and Islamic supremacists have now partnered to attempt to silence anyone who criticizes Islam. The Canadian anti-Islamophobia motion resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favor of one preferred religion above all others in Canada; one may be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam even when warranted. Yet despite its ominous implications, the anti-Islamophobia motion received little media attention. Interestingly, that includes the leftist media; and the Huffington Post article expressed its disapproval:
Canadians can’t be blamed for missing the anti-Islamophobia motion that passed in parliament last week. If you Google it, you won’t get a single hit in mainstream media: not in CBC, not in Postmedia, not in the Globe and Mail, nowhere.
In fact, when this piece is published, it may be the first media piece talking about Canada’s successful anti-Islamophobia motion.
The Huffington Post report by Thomas Woodley, President of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), also made obscene and insulting comparisons about the silence of the media on the subject:
Imagine if Canadian media hadn’t bothered to cover parliament’s 2004 recognition of the Armenian genocide in 2004. How might Armenian-Canadians have felt?
Or imagine if Canadian media hadn’t bothered to report on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2008 apology to Canada’s indigenous peoples for the horrors of this country’s residential schools. Most would see it as yet another insult to Canada’s beleaguered indigenous communities.
Yet Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East is also known to be hostile toward Israel and light on its jihadist enemies. As reported by CiJ News:
An organization which, whether intentionally or unintentionally, omits key facts about Hamas, including information which is readily available on Hamas’ own English-language website cannot claim to have any credibility whatsoever and should certainly never be relied on by anyone except agenda-driven hardened anti-Israel activists.
Conservative government members of Parliament did not support the motion, and the Liberal MP from Mississauga Centre, Omar Alghabra, referred to the Conservative attitude as “troubling.” Back in 2002, Alghabra stated that he did not believe that Hamas (Muslim Brotherhood proxy group) or Islamic Jihad were terrorist groups. Alghabra has also “openly stated that he favors Sharia Law for Ontario and that he was disappointed when he did not happen in Ontario after the 2003/2006 debate in Ontario.”
This bogus victimology narrative, fanned and flamed by stealth jihadists and their enablers, is fully recognized by Abur-Rahman Muhammad, who also stated:
This sense of victimization has now reached a point – especially given the consistent rhetoric of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations – that many rank-and-file Muslims now genuinely believe that they are a persecuted and oppressed group.
“Canadian parliament passes anti-Islamophobia motion”, by Nurbanu Kizil, Daily Sabah, November 3, 2016:
The Canadian Parliament has passed an anti-Islamophobia motion on October 26, amid increasing attacks on mosques and Muslim communities in the country and throughout the world. The motion has received almost no attention from Canadian media outlets, to the dismay of the Muslim community living in the country.
According to reports, it took a while for the parliament to adopt the motion, which was brought up after 70,000 Canadian citizens signed an online petition condemning Islamophobia. The petition was launched on June 8, 2016 and was closed for signature on October 6, 2016.
“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia” the petition read.
However, when the motion was brought to the parliament, Conservative Members of the Parliament prevented unanimous consent….
Liberal MP from Mississauga Centre Omar Algabra called Conservative attitude ‘troubling,’ saying that the motion was a non-partisan, positive and symbolic one.
In the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election, it appears that the Egyptian regime under President ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi prefers Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton as the next president of the U.S. After Al-Sisi met with both presidential candidates in September 2016, his spokesman, ‘Alaa Youssef, said that Egypt regarded both of them equally and that “the [last] word in the U.S. presidential election will be said by the American voters, and we have nothing to do with it.”[1] However, despite this statement, there are clear indications that the Egyptian administration favors Trump over Clinton, especially in light of what is perceived in Egypt as the latter’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and her disapproval of Al-Sisi’s ouster of the Muhammad Mursi regime on June 30, 2013. This preference of the Egyptian regime is reflected in statements by Al-Sisi and his associates, as well as in reports and op-eds published in the Egyptian government press.
During his visit to the U.S. to attend the September 20, 2016 UN General Assembly, Al-Sisi met with both Hillary and Trump. However, the mood in his meeting with Clinton seemed formal and restrained; moreover, the Egyptians limited the media’s access to it (reporters were allowed to attend for only a few minutes and were forbidden to take pictures). Conversely, the mood of Al-Sisi’s meeting with Trump seemed open and friendly.
Reports on the meetings in the Egyptian and the global media stressed Trump’s positive stance towards the Egyptian regime versus Clinton’s more critical stance. For example, they emphasized that, during the brief part of the meeting attended by the media, Clinton had praised Egypt, but also implicitly criticized the state of human rights there, and said that she looked forward to talking about “the path we are taking in order to build up a new civil society, a new modern country that upholds the rule of law, that respects human rights and liberties.” Trump, on the other hand, did not bring up these issues in his meeting with the Egyptian president, but lavished praise on Egypt for its tough stance against terror and promised that, under a Trump administration, the U.S. would be “a loyal friend to Egypt,” not simply an ally.[2] Trump’s foreign policy advisor Walid Phares described the meeting between Al-Sisi and Trump as “historic” and noted that Trump was committed to “restoring the warmth to U.S.-Egypt relations, which are presently in a very difficult phase.” [3] Phares also claimed that in the meeting Trump had promised Al-Sisi to promote legislation in the U.S. to designate the MB a terrorist organization.[4]
Indications of Al-Sisi’s preference for Trump can be seen in his September 22, 2016 interview with CNN. In the interview, he said that Trump would no doubt make a strong leader, but when asked whether Clinton would make a good president, he replied evasively that “political parties in the United States would not allow candidates to reach that level unless they are qualified to lead a country the size of the United States of America.”[5]
As stated, the Egyptian regimes’ support for Trump and reservations about Clinton were also reflected in many op-eds published in the Egyptian press. The majority of articles in the government press expressed distaste for Clinton and warned that, in the case of a Clinton victory, Egypt and the entire region would face years of chaos and mounting terror. Some even predicted that a Clinton win would herald further deterioration in Egypt-U.S. relations, due to her insistence on interfering in Egypt’s affairs, such as human rights issues. These articles cited her support for the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and what they described as her positive stance towards the MB. It should be mentioned that, as early as 18 months ago, reports and op-eds in the government daily Al-Ahram have been claiming that Clinton’s personal aide, Huma Abedin, is a member of the MB and serves as Clinton’s liaison with the organization.[6] Conversely, only a minority of articles in the Egyptian press spoke negatively of Trump and/or expressed support for Clinton. Most of the ones that did were penned by senior MB official Gamal Heshmat and by journalists in the independent daily Al-Shurouq, which occasionally criticizes the regime.
This report will review the media discourse in Egypt for and against Trump and Clinton as president.
Pro-Regime Journalists: Clinton Is Bad For Egypt, Trump Is Better
In the days following Al-Sisi’s meetings with the two presidential candidates, the Egyptian government press published many articles and views by opinion-leaders and politicians expressing distaste for Clinton and hope for a Trump victory. For example, MP ‘Imad Gad, deputy-director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, said that Clinton had performed poorly as secretary of state and had caused problems for Egypt, and even called her a liar. Conversely, about Trump he said that “if elected president, he will uproot the MB spirit from the White House and purge the [U.S.] state department of it… Trump will never support the MB. A Trump victory will be best for the interest of the Middle East and of Egypt as a civil state.”[7] Pro-regime journalist Wael Al-Abrashi said on his show on Dream TV that Egyptians tend to support Trump as the next U.S. president despite his racism, because they hate his rival Clinton, who, he said, is known for her support for the MB.[8] On his show on Sada Al-Balad TV, Journalist Ahmed Moussa, likewise a regime supporter, complained that the U.S. media supports Clinton and ignores “that poor guy” Trump, and accused Clinton and U.S. President Obama of “rigging the election.”
After Al-Sisi returned from his U.S. visit, the editor of the government daily Al-Ahram, Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, published a detailed article about the president’s meetings with world leaders and the messages he had delivered at the UN General Assembly. Addressing Al-Sisi’s meetings with Trump, whom he described as “a strong candidate who has proved his eligibility to [be president] throughout the campaign,” he stressed the importance of the meeting and devoted two paragraphs to enumerating the terrorism-related issues on which the two men had agreed. He also claimed that Trump had told Al-Sisi that “the June 30 revolution [i.e., Al-Sisi’s ouster of Mursi] had saved not only Egypt but the entire world.” As for Al-Sisi’s meeting with Clinton, ‘Allam mentioned it but did not describe its content or say anything positive about the Democratic candidate.[9]
Editor for Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ Daily: A Clinton Victory Will Be A Catastrophe For The Region And The World
Op-eds in the Egyptian media leveled harsh criticism at Hillary Clinton. Karim ‘Abd Al-Salam, the acting editor of the daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’, wrote in a September 21, 2016 article that if Clinton won she would continue the policy of the Obama administration, whose relations with Egypt have been marked by tension and disagreements, whereas Al-Sisi’s meeting with Trump indicated that the latter would focus on cooperation with Egypt in combating terror and extremism. He wrote: “President Al-Sisi met with the two U.S. presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. At first glance, and judging from news agency and press reports, the meeting with Hillary was restrained… Hillary Clinton made no clear statement regarding what her policy [towards Egypt] would be were she to be elected U.S. president. During the meeting, she settled for underlining the importance of strengthening bilateral relations… and other such diplomatic statements made for the record, which conceal more than they reveal.
“The president’s meeting with Republican candidate Trump was totally different. During the meeting, Trump largely agreed with the president’s plan for combating terrorism and for economic growth, and at its conclusion he issued statements of explicit future support for Egypt and its president. The Republican candidate stated that he would be a powerful friend and ally of Egypt in all areas, while reiterating his full support for Egypt’s efforts to combat terrorism and for economic and military cooperation…
“Trump focused on the one topic that unites Cairo and Washington: the struggle against the shared enemy of extremism and terrorism. [Trump] explicitly committed to work together with the Egyptian leadership in order to overcome this danger, while Clinton did not address [this issue at all], even though terrorist attacks have reached New York.
“What does this mean? It means that Clinton’s election as president would entail a continuation of the confusion, disagreement, and chaos of the Obama years. Her administration will also focus on the issue of creative chaos, and on the forging of new societies in the Middle East, and will work pressure Egypt by raising the issues of human, minority, and gay rights. [A Clinton administration will also strive] to prevent Cairo from protecting its regional surroundings and security depth in Libya, Sudan, and Syria – not to mention the support that her administration will provide to violent and extremist organizations, chiefly the Muslim Brotherhood and Jabhat Al-Nusra [sic, now Jabhat Fath Al-Sham].
“Therefore, we must be well prepared for the possibility that Hillary Clinton will take the reins of power, despite my personal assessment that Trump will win the presidency, because a Clinton victory would bring four more catastrophic years for the Arab region, Europe, and the U.S. as well!”[10]
Al-Sisi’s meeting with Trump in New York (image: Al-Ahram, Egypt, September 21, 2016)
Al-Ahram Editor: Clinton’s Interference In Egypt’s Affairs Is A Red Line
In a September 25, 2016 article in Al-Ahram, Muhammad Sabreen, a columnist for the daily and a member of its editorial board, reviewed the two candidates’ positions on Egypt, claiming that Trump focuses on the common ground with Egypt – namely the war on terror – whereas Clinton interferes in Egypt’s internal affairs, which Egyptians regard as a “red line”. He wrote: “I believe that Hillary Clinton and her Democratic camp are trying to bring back warmer [relations with Egypt] than existed under Obama, while attempting to blackmail [the Egyptian regime] into bringing the political Islam organizations into Egypt’s political arena. On the other hand, Trump and his campaign are making grand promises about the importance and necessity of [U.S.] cooperation with Egypt. In an important and meticulously planned message, he says that under his presidency, the U.S. would be a friend on which Egypt could rely…
“Trump [seeks] to develop relations to the point of partnership, and later alliance, with Egypt, and the question is why. The answer was provided by Dr. Walid Phares, Trump’s foreign policy advisor, who explained that ‘the challenge of terrorism and ideological extremism is common to both countries’… Phares goes even further and says that Trump would work to place the Muslim Brotherhood on the list of designated terrorist organizations, and furthermore that Trump and his people see ‘Egypt as the first line of defense against terrorism.’ Conversely, Clinton has reverted to talking about her aspiration ‘to build up a new civil society, a new modern country that upholds the rule of law, that respects human rights and liberties.’
“I believe that most Egyptians agree in principle with [the values of] ‘a modern and democratic civil state,’ but strongly oppose Washington’s interference in Egypt’s internal affairs, or [Washington’s] linking [U.S. military] aid or partnership [between the two countries] to any ‘engineering’ of Egypt’s domestic political arena [by the U.S.]. This is and has always been a red line for the Egyptians…”[11]
Al-Ahram Columnist: A Clinton Victory Will Strengthen MB, ISIS
Rania Hefny devoted her October 7 column in Al-Ahram to a diatribe against Clinton, whom she believes is likely to win the election, saying that her victory would strengthen the MB and ISIS. She wrote under the title “The Implications of a Clinton Presidential Victory”: “The foreign policy of the candidate with the highest chance of winning the presidential election, Hillary Clinton, will be far more inflexible than Obama’s. She believes that the world’s problems will be solved more quickly if the U.S. is involved in the solution. [If she is elected,] Libya and Iraq are expected to return to square one. Clinton’s leadership of the American political arena will arouse the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization and the statelet Qatar, as well as ISIS – in whose creation she participated – and the focus will be on exporting the conflict to many kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Morocco. Beware, beware, beware…
“You would do well to remember that Hillary Clinton supported the escalation of the war in Afghanistan and pushed for the ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq. She helped plan the attack on Libya, and encouraged Obama to bomb Syria without obtaining the support of the [UN] Security Council… It is known that every American president sees to Israel’s interest, and she has already stated that Israel’s security is non-negotiable. Do not be overly optimistic. Beware.”[12]
Al-Watan Columnist: Clinton Is Concerned About Human Rights Situation In Egypt While Ignoring Assad’s Crimes
In a September 28 column, Al-Watan columnist ‘Imad Al-Din Adib accused Clinton of employing a double standard because she demanded the ouster of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak but took a feeble stance vis-à-vis Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, whose actions against his people are far worse than Mubarak’s were. He wrote: “The position of Ms. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for U.S. president, on Egypt’s domestic affairs is suspect and odd. Without getting into the dissemination of the well-known conspiracy theory regarding the ‘perpetual American wish to topple any national regime’ in Egypt, let us discuss our actual experience between January 25 and February 11, 2011.
“During the January 2011 revolution [against the Mubarak regime], Ms. Clinton was U.S. secretary of state, and it was she who advised the White House to pressure president Hosni Mubarak to immediately relinquish power, [saying] that it was unavoidable… Thus pressure was applied to president Mubarak… This sent a reassuring message to the rebels, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the military that Washington is withdrawing support for its old friend Hosni Mubarak and his regime… The astonishing thing is that the Americans did all this with Mubarak, yet since March 2011, that is, since the start of the popular rebellion in Syrian Deraa, they have not stated unequivocally that ‘Assad must leave now, and now means today!!!’
“They have not demanded [this] of Assad, who has murdered nearly 400,000 of his own people, wounded two million civilians, and expelled 11 million openly, in broad daylight! Washington has not demanded that Bashar Al-Assad of the barrel bombs, who uses missiles against civilians and chemical weapons against women, children, and the elderly, leave at once. The most it demanded in this matter was expressed in Obama’s recent UN statement, that it is unthinkable that Assad will play any role during the transitional period. Mubarak was warned to leave – but Bashar Al-Assad never was!
“What sort of standards is Washington adopting, and what [sort of standards] were implemented by Ms. Hillary when she was secretary of state? Washington bemoans the human rights situation in Egypt, but not the crushing human destruction in Syria! What standards does Ms. Hillary have?!”[13]
Al-Sisi’s meeting with Clinton in New York (image: Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’, Egypt, September 20, 2016)
MB Official, Independent Journalists: Clinton Is Better Than The Racist Trump
Conversely, an MB official, as well as journalists for the independent daily Al-Shurouq, which tends to be critical of the regime, expressed distaste for Trump and support for Clinton.
In response to the claim by Trump’s advisor that, if elected, he would promote legislation in the U.S. to designate the MB a terrorist organization, MB official Gamal Heshmat said that there was a great deal of similarity between Trump and Al-Sisi, because both of them “rely… on spreading fear among their people in order to justify the actions of violence, exclusion and takeover in which they believe and which they employ with [great] confidence under the pretext of fighting terror and promoting stability!”[14]
Dr. Osama Rushdi, an official in the Construction and Development party, the political branch of Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya, said that “it will be a great disaster if Trump becomes the U.S. president,” adding that he is “a racist and fascist” and threatens all Muslims, whereas Clinton is more rational. [15]
Al-Shurouq Editor: Trump Is An Enemy Of Mankind; Clinton Is A True Head of State
The independent daily Al-Shurouq published two articles against supporting Trump. The daily’s editor, ‘Imad Al-Din Hussein, wrote in a September 26 article that Trump was an “extremist and racist” and even “an enemy of most of mankind,” and that Clinton was the better candidate due to her experience. He wrote: “Which of the two would be better for Egypt as U.S. president, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?… Among many in Egypt, there is a widespread belief that a Trump victory would be better for us, since he promised to include the Muslim Brotherhood on the list of designated terrorist [organizations], while the Democratic Clinton opposes the June 30 revolution [i.e., Mursi’s ouster]. This impression might be partially true, but people forget that Trump is also an enemy of most of mankind, as he is an extremist and a racist, and repeatedly says that if elected, he would expel the Arabs and Muslims from the U.S. [These] extremist statements have not stopped since the beginning of his election campaign. Likewise, his victory would be the greatest of gifts for ISIS and for all the extremists in the region and in the world, because it would give them the best excuse of all for their extremism.
“It is true that Clinton was not enthusiastic about the June 30 revolution, but she is a true head of state. She is not a demagogue or a racist, and carefully weighs every word she says, as she spent eight years in the White House alongside her husband, president Bill Clinton, and for years was secretary of state during Obama’s first term. Conversely, Trump is rash, a radical extremist, and lacks any political experience.
“So which of the two is better for Egypt, Trump or Clinton? If Trump wins, we will temporarily gain a few nice slogans, but in the long run we will lose much, as Arabs and Muslims, if he implements his slogans. If Clinton wins, she may be somewhat reserved towards us, but not as much as Obama, and our relationship might stabilize in the long term…
“Therefore, those who think a Trump victory means a total reversal [of the U.S. position on Egypt] are deluding themselves. We must remember, for example, that every presidential candidate courts the Jewish lobby and promises to transfer their country’s embassy to Jerusalem, but that [when the time comes] they don’t, because of their interests vis-à-vis the Arab world.”[16]
Former Egyptian MP: Trump “Will Contribute To The World Becoming A Hell”; Hillary Is The Lesser Evil
The second Al-Shurouq article, also published on September 29, was by former Egyptian MP Mustafa Al-Naggar. He contended that Trump was no less dangerous for the world than Nazism and fascism, and condemned those who express support for him in Egypt, calling them extremist right-wing elements that pose a danger to Egypt itself. He wrote: “Under the influence of Ikhwanophobia [fear of the Muslim Brotherhood], the U.S. elections have become a new arena of schism in Egypt, for accusations of treason, and for classification by position on the candidates.
“It is no exaggeration to say that in recent days, and especially after the first televised debate, there is a sense [among Egyptians] that this election is not about the U.S., but about Egypt. There has been a resurgence of the tumultuous debate that is characterized by illogic, to the point where Hillary Clinton is described as a member and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. One of the lies [going around] is that Clinton is grooming an American woman who is of Pakistani descent and a Pakistani Muslim Brotherhood member [referring to Huma Abedin] to become secretary of state!…
“In general, it is odd that some in Egypt support Trump, the man who undoubtedly represents the worst of modern American extremism. He repeatedly spews racism in its ugliest form, and most of his positions clash with humanism and the values of tolerance and coexistence with which the world has come very far and from which there is no retreat…
“It is therefore foolish to argue that this despicable racist will combat extremism and terrorism. On the contrary, he will greatly contribute to the world becoming a hell. Therefore, his existence will justify the rise of terrorism, deepen the concept of the clash of civilizations, and inflame religious animosity among the peoples…
“Trump threatens not only the U.S., but the entire world. The rise of Trumpism on the global level effectively recreates messages of hate and the rise of the extreme right, evoking the era of Nazism and Fascism in Germany and Italy that led the world to bloody wars that claimed millions of lives. Who wants that again?
“In effect, the U.S. is not run by a single person, but by enormous institutions of decision-makers. However, the election of an extremist and racist president, who will appoint an administration that shares his mentality, will cause many problems for America and for the world.
“This does not mean that Hillary Clinton is an angel who will do good for the world and Arab countries. But a choice between two bad things does not mean choosing the better one, but choosing the lesser evil. We have no voice in the U.S. presidential race. But we hope that the Americans will throw out the preachers of hatred and the racists, and send a message to the world that they oppose the insane campaign on which Trump and his ilk are leading them…
“[In order to cure] the delusions of the Trump supporters in Egypt, there is first a need for psychological treatment, and [only] then rational and ideological refutation. This group of extremists in Egypt that reflects the rise of a secular right wing is no less dangerous than the religious right. We must deal with it by disproving and dismantling the terminology of this message, and by making the public aware of its risks and consequences for Egypt…”[17]
Other Articles: Trump And Clinton Are Equally Bad
Also published in the Egyptian press were some articles claiming that Trump and Clinton would be equally bad for Egypt. Tarek Fahmy, a professor of political science at the American University in Cairo, told the Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ daily that America is choosing between bad and worse and that there was essentially no difference between the two candidates in terms of foreign policy.[18]
Mursi ‘Atallah, the former board chairman of the Al-Ahram Foundation, wrote on September 21 that the debate about which is better, Clinton or Trump, was boring since both of them hate Arabs more or less to the same degree. He wrote: “As happens every four years, the Arab analysts and intellectuals are preoccupied with finding an answer to the traditional question: Which is better, an American president from the Democratic party or from the Republican party? The public has wearied of the recurring scenes of this boring play that repeats every four years. Even if the protagonists of this play are different, nothing in the discourse is, not even one single line.
“There is no difference between Reagan and Carter or Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin.
“If the Republican candidate Donald Trump presents himself as an openly hostile enemy of the Arabs and Muslims, there are those who forget that Hillary Clinton harbors no less hostility and hatred [towards them] than Trump, but only softens it outwardly…”[19]
* Y. Graff is a research fellow at MEMRI; H. Varulkar is Director of Research at MEMRI.
No intelligent government should impair the right of free speech to placate people who falsely claim they are victims when often they are, in fact, aggressors.
To the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, however, all human rights must first be based on Islamic religious law, Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right, whatever is outside Sharia is not a human right.
Therefore, slavery or having sex with children or beating one’s wife, or calling rapes that do not have four witnesses adultery the punishment for which is death, or a woman officially having half the worth of a man, are all “human rights.”
Soft jihad includes rewriting history as with the UNESCO vote claiming that ancient Biblical monuments such as Rachel’s Tomb or the Cave of the Patriarchs are Islamic, when historically Islam did not even exist until the seventh century; migration to widen Islam (hijrah), as we are seeing now in Europe and Turkish threats to flood Germany with migrants; cultural penetration such as promoting Islam in school textbooks or tailoring curricula for “political correctness”; political and educational infiltration, as well as intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad just underneath it).
More regrettable is that these are so often done, as at UNESCO, with the help and complicity of the West.
Both hard and soft jihad are how Islam historically has been able to overrun Persia, Turkey, Greece, Southern Spain, Portugal, all of North Africa, and all of Eastern Europe. It is up to us not to let this be done to us again.
After witnessing the Islamic Republic of Iran violate human rights, adopt sharia law, persecute other religions, murder dissenters, and compel the judiciary to serve the Ministry of Intelligence, it seems clear that the worst thing that can happen to a free Western country is to allow Islamic fundamentalists to take over a government.
Most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims pray in Arabic, even if it is not their mother tongue. The problem, however, is not in the translation; it is in the ideology.
Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian; two more were from the United Arab Emirates; one was from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. All were from Arabic-speaking countries.
Muslim scholars did not unite to protest the act of terrorism on 9/11. Instead, many celebrated a victory; the Quran includes passages that permit violence to expand Islam.
Most so-called Muslims are peace-loving, but if there are 164 verses of the Koran prescribing jihad, and many Muslims might feel it would be heretical or disloyal to condemn it.
Arabic-speaking Muslim countries are not alone in supporting terrorism. According to the U.S. Department of State, the Islamic Republic of Iran is still the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran also recently announced that it will continue to support terrorism, including the terrorist groups Hizballah [“The Party of Allah”] and Hamas.
Iran still supports the death fatwa issued against a European, the British novelist Salman Rushdie, for The Satanic Verses — a novel — issued by the long-dead Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. Last year the bounty on his head was raised another $600,000 to almost $4 million.
Until his death earlier this year, Ayatollah Vaez-Tabasi, a leading Shia cleric in Iran, who presided over the Imam Reza shrine that draws as many annual visitors as Mecca, called for “perpetual holy war.”
Muhammad’s Practices Clash with the Humanistic Values of Western Civilization
Fundamentalists view Muhammad as the perfect man. Yet Muhammad led violent followers who raped, enslaved war captives, and murdered unbelievers as part of Islam’s program to expand. Today that behavior is emulated by Islamic terrorists in Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mauritania, Nigeria, to name just a few.
Muhammad had several wives, including a slave given to him as a gift. When he was in his fifties, he asked for a friend’s six-year-old daughter and consummated the so-called marriage when the child was nine. Although Muhammad criticized corrupt customs of his Arab contemporaries, he had sex with a girl who was too young to be capable of consent; in the West we call this statutory rape. (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234)
Referring to Muhammad’s life, fundamentalists allow forced marriages of female children in countries including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, some Gulf States, and Iran.
If fundamentalist Muslim leaders do not understand how flawed this ideology appears to the West, their incomprehension may spring from a fundamentally different view of human rights: To the West, these values are embodied in the Enlightenment — such as individual freedoms, freedom of thought, disinterested enquiry — and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – that all people, regardless of race religion or gender, have the right to life, liberty personal security, and freedom from slavery torture, and degrading treatment.
To the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), however, all human rights must first be based on Islamic religious law, Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right, whatever is outside Sharia is not a human right.
To the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, all human rights must first be based on Islamic religious law, Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is a human right, whatever is outside Sharia is not a human right. Pictured above: The 2016 OIC Summit in Istanbul, Turkey. (Image source: Al Jazeera video screenshot)
Therefore, slavery or having sex with children or beating one’s wife, or calling rapes that do not have four witnesses adultery the punishment for which is death, or a woman officially having half the worth of a man, are all “human rights.”
In 2005, after the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard drew a cartoon mildly satirizing Muhammad as an assignment for a newspaper, many Muslim clerics cried blasphemy and called for his death. These included a Pakistani cleric who offered a one million dollar reward to anyone who would murder the Dane. Thousands of Muslims protested. In 2010, an axe-wielding Muslim assailant attacked Westergaard in his home; fortunately, Westergaard was able to escape to a secure room.
Western governments should stand resolute against those who would blackmail us into giving up our freedoms. No intelligent government should impair the right of free speech to placate people who falsely claim they are victims when often they are, in fact, aggressors.
Reformist Muslims and the Credibility Crisis
Most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims may not countenance violence and human rights violations, but the fact remains that fundamentalists are not a fringe group; they occupy senior positions in the Muslim clerical hierarchy. There are tens of millions (or more) of them, and each seems to believe that his interpretation of Islam is the only correct one. Of this group, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands are jihadis willing to engage in active violence.
Many Reformist Muslims claim they are being unfairly lumped into this extremist crew, but if they are claiming a schism, many they often have not been clear about it.
When Martin Luther, a Catholic priest and a theology professor, repudiated two core teachings of the Catholic Church, he acknowledged that, by definition, he was no longer Catholic. He was part of the Protestant Reformation, and his followers are called Lutherans.
Reformist Muslims still call themselves Muslims, but there can never be a Quran 2.0. Every word in the Quran is believed to be the word of Allah, similar to the Ten Commandments as the direct word of God; no one is able to say that Allah did not mean what Allah reportedly said. Interpretations, however do differ and since 1948 have apparently caused the deaths of 11,000,000 Muslims at the hands of other Muslims.
So one can imagine what might be in store for non-Muslims.
Islam, moreover, seems to have been has been set up to spread it both by violence, “hard jihad,” and “soft jihad. ” Hard jihad includes terrorism, murder and attempted murder. Soft jihad includes rewriting history as with the UNESCO vote claiming that ancient Biblical monuments such as Rachel’s Tomb or the Cave of the Patriarchs are Islamic, when historically Islam did not even exist until the seventh century; migration to widen Islam (hijrah), as we are seeing now in Europe and Turkish threats to flood Germany with migrants; cultural penetration such as promoting Islamin school textbooks or tailoring curricula for “political correctness“; political and educational infiltration, as well as intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad just underneath it).
More regrettable is that these are so often done, as at UNESCO, with the help and complicity of the West.
Both hard and soft jihad are how Islam historically has been able to overrun Persia, Turkey, Greece, Southern Spain, Portugal, all of North Africa, and all of Eastern Europe. It is up to us not to let this be done to us again.
Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Hillary Clinton pauses while speaking at a campaign rally at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S., November 4, 2016. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments.
Qatari officials pledged the money in 2011 to mark the 65th birthday of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s husband, and sought to meet the former U.S. president in person the following year to present him the check, according to an email from a foundation official to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta. The email, among thousands hacked from Podesta’s account, was published last month by WikiLeaks.
Clinton signed an ethics agreement governing her family’s globe-straddling foundation in order to become secretary of state in 2009. The agreement was designed to increase transparency to avoid appearances that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by wealthy donors.
If a new foreign government wished to donate or if an existing foreign-government donor, such as Qatar, wanted to “increase materially” its support of ongoing programs, Clinton promised that the State Department’s ethics official would be notified and given a chance to raise any concerns.
Clinton Foundation officials last month declined to confirm the Qatar donation. In response to additional questions, a foundation spokesman, Brian Cookstra, this week said that it accepted the $1 million gift from Qatar, but this did not amount to a “material increase” in the Gulf country’s support for the charity. Cookstra declined to say whether Qatari officials received their requested meeting with Bill Clinton.
Officials at Qatar’s embassy in Washington and in its Council of Ministers in the capital, Doha, declined to discuss the donation.
The State Department has said it has no record of the foundation submitting the Qatar gift for review, and that it was incumbent on the foundation to notify the department about donations that needed attention. A department spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions about the donation.
According to the foundation’s website, which lists donors in broad categories by cumulative amounts donated, Qatar’s government has directly given a total of between $1 million and $5 million over the years.
The Clinton Foundation has said it would no longer accept money from foreign governments if Clinton is elected president and would spin off those programs that are dependent on foreign governments.
“MATERIAL” INCREASE
Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama’s administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation’s health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to “allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs” to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization’s “overall humanitarian work.”
“Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels” compared with the country’s pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton’s four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton’s 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton’s State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations.
(Reporting by Jonathan Allen; Additional reporting by Tom Finn in Doha; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Andrew Hay)
No wonder Hillary Clinton deleted this email. Her sharing classified information with her daughter shows criminal disregard for national security.
****************************
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the State Department’s release of 74 additional emails recovered by the FBI in its investigation of former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a non-state.gov email system. Included in the new documents was an email in which Clinton forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea, at the unsecure email address dreynolds@clintonemail.com. Before releasing the heavily redacted email to Judicial Watch, the State Department marked it “B1.4(b)” and “B1.4(d),” indicating that it contained “Foreign Government Information’ and “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US including confidential sources.” The State Department also misleadingly labeled the email with the term “near duplicate.”
No wonder Hillary Clinton deleted this email. Her sharing classified information with her daughter shows criminal disregard for national security.
The State Department has been producing documents in accordance with a September 23, 2016, court order issued by Judge Boasberg, who ordered the Department of State to begin processing at least 1,050 pages of Hillary Clinton emails recovered by the FBI and provide Judicial Watch all non-exempt documents before November 4. State Department confirmed in September that the FBI had discovered nearly 15,000 new Clinton emails as a result of Judicial Watch’s litigation seeking all of Clinton’s work-related emails (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)).
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.
A hearing will be held Monday, November 7, 2016, regarding Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking emails sent or received by Clinton in her official capacity during her tenure as Secretary of State. The timeframe for this request is February 2, 2009, to January 31, 2013.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments