Seeing real life sharia in action

Calling it something else

Review of: Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Laws are Choking Freedom Worldwide

By: Paul Marshall and Nina Shea
Publisher: Oxford University Press, 480 pp.
ISBN: 0199812284

By Alyssa A. Lappen
Family Security Matters | Nov. 4, 2011

“Apostasy is, in principle, subject to sharia hudud rules, which means that the punishment—death—is believed to be fixed by divine order and not subject to judicial discretion…,” write Paul Marshall and Nina Shea in chapter two of Silenced (p. 23), without further explanation.

Silenced falls far short of the landmark study it might have been, had the authors honestly addressed foundational Islamic principles, history and texts that support offending modern codes, and stated the stupefyingly consistent and pervasive use of sharia laws throughout Muslim history. Specifically, hudud refer to Islamic behavioral limits thought divine since Mohammed established the creed.

Sharia’s heavenly status and its stubborn exercise rest squarely on Koran (considered sacred and immutable) and sunnah, or “traditions.” The latter includes hadith and sira, Mohammed’s recorded speech and deeds; and his life (usually, the Ibn Ishaq biography).

Apostasy—rejecting Islam—is but one offense to divinity. Adultery similarly requires capital punishment, and theft demands amputation.

To assert that hudud are rarely enforced, or fearing them is “lunacy,” as do Sadiq Reza and other Islamic law professors, is sheer absurdity. But readers of Silenced will not learn here that the horrors the book describes represent unadulterated use of classical hudud and sharia laws, as always practiced.

Three Muslim essayists

In order “to show that such temporal punishments are not required by Islam,” the authors deliberately avoid discussing the history of apostasy and blasphemy laws and “systematic treatment in Islamic jurisprudence and theology” (p. 287). They leave that topic to “three noted Muslim scholars” whose essays they include.

The Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) party provided the forward by the late Indonesian president, reputed Muslim reformer Abdurahman Wahid, aka Gus Dur (1940-2009).
Wahid misleadingly casts the “original” meaning of apostasy (as named in the index), and its required punishment—death—as only

“the legacy of historical circumstances and political calculations stretching back to…early …Islam, when apostasy generally coincided with desertion from the caliph’s army and/or rejection of his authority and thus constituted treason…. [E]mbedding (i.e. codification) of [its] harsh punishments…into Islamic law [is] a…byproduct of these circumstances, framed [by] human calculations and expediency, [not] the eternal dictate of Islam sharia on the issue….

“The…development and use of the term sharia to refer to Islamic law often lead those unfamiliar with [it] to conflate man-made law with its revelatory inspiration, and…to elevate to Divine [status] products of human understanding, … necessarily conditioned by space and time.

Wahid further attempts to distinguish sharia and its purported embodiment of “perennial values” from Islamic law. He says the latter resulted from “itjihad (interpretation),” depends on circumstance (al hukm yadur ma’a al’illah wujudan wa ‘adaman) and must be “continuously reviewed” to adapt and prevent Islamic law from obsolescence, rigidity and failing to connect with contemporary Muslim lives and sharia’s own “perennial values.” He thus claims that Islam’s greatest fiqh (jurisprudence) scholars, were “deeply grounded in tassawuf,” Islamic mysticism, and balanced “the letter of the law with the spirit” of accommodation to differing culture and practice across the Maghreb, Sahara, sub-Saharan Sahel region, southern Africa, Persia, Asia, the East Indies and the former Roman empire.

Reformer or not, Wahid headed an Islamic party, co-founded in 1926 Java by his grandfathers, both members of its sharia council, which purveyed strict Islamic law, according to Dr. Andrew Bostom. It required that members follow one of four Sunni schools of (Islamic) law—of “Muhammad bin Idris As-Shafi, Imam Malik bin Anas, Imam Abu Hanifa or Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal—and to do everything beneficial to Islam.” Al-Shafi’i (d. 820) himself interpreted Koran 2:217 “to mean that the death penalty should be prescribed for apostates,” the scholar Ibn Warraq explains in Leaving Islam. [1]

Moreover, all Sunni sharia schools had closed the “gates of itjihad,” freedom to interpret, 500 years ago. Lately, a few conservative Sunnis favor its reinstatement. Yet the Shi’a kept “benefits of ijtihad” alive, and witnessed no modern reforms, notes analyst and retired U.S. Army officer W. Patrick Lang. Iran maintains draconian sharia-based laws. Its current-day effects are detailed in chapter three.

Unsuccessful reformists

Ultimately, Wahid failed to improve Indonesia’s political landscape. Educated at Islamic schools, he joined NU at his grandfathers’ behest and took over in 1984, planning a secular “religious movement” to give social progress to all. He opposed Islamic supremacism. Muslims reacted violently. In 1998, as Suharto stoked anti-Chinese riots, Wahid sought calm to no avail. Hardline Muslims burned Chinese homes and shops, raped hundreds and killed at least 1,000—just as they had 100,000 ethnic Chinese in the mid-1960s. Wahid opposed East Timor’s secession, although before its 2002 independence, he apologized for Indonesia’s 1978 occupation and atrocities. Yet jihadis continued to attack Javanese and Maluku Christians (often with military aid), raided dozens of villages, forced thousands to convert and killed at least 5,000. Genocide has raised Indonesia’s Muslim population to nearly 90% of its total.

The late Muslim reformer Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd (1943-2010) wrote “Renewing Quranic Studies in the Contemporary World.” Although director of the International Institute of Quranic Studies (IIQS), he was declared an apostate by Egypt’s Court of Cassation (its highest). He fled. His marriage was forcibly dissolved. He viewed Koran from an “objective historical perspective,” asked how it “was transmitted, propagated, codified, and ultimately canonized,” and sought “interpretive diversity.” He condemned blasphemy and apostasy laws projecting Koran as “eternal and uncreated,” and opposing modern concepts and life principles of freedom, justice, “human rights and dignity of man….”

Indeed, apostasy and blasphemy laws embedded in 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence prohibit such thoughts. In Sept. 1978, the fatwa council at Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the closest Muslim equivalent to the Vatican, issued an official ruling on the case of an Egyptian emigre and convert to Christianity:

“…This man has committed apostasy; he must be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he must be killed according to Shariah.

“As far as his children are concerned, as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must be killed and Allah knows best.”[2]

Finally, a chapter on reform of classical Muslim apostasy and blasphemy laws came from Maldives-native Abdullah Saeed, the Sultan of Oman Arab and Islamic studies professor at Australia’s University of Melbourne. He includes an internet fatwa by Muhammad Salah al-Munajjid on punishment of a murtadd, referencing the classical Bukhari hadith, “if someone changes his religion, kill him.” Like Wahid, Saeed insists on the socio-political genesis of apostasy’s prescribed punishment that specified those “in a state of war against Muslims.” It was more “akin to treason” than a simple matter of changing one’s belief. He also argues that “clear textual proofs that guarantee certainty of knowledge (‘ilm qat’i) were lacking in this debate.” If any, his second thought would most likely gain limited acceptance by Muslim jurists in 2011. Ordinary Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic regions increasingly oppose classical apostasy laws and other religious restrictions, he writes, increasingly pressuring them to comply with human rights standards like the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Yet Saeed’s own homeland banned the 2004 book on apostasy, co-authored with his brother and former Maldives attorney general Hasaan Saeed, on which he based this chapter.

How ready are Muslim jurists to change? The evidence suggests, not very.

Harsh reality

The hopes of Muslim reformers put them sharply at odds both with present-day reality and age-old Islamic conventions. Usefully, the book does catalog myriad effects of current legal codes for eight Muslim nations and regions, mostly penalties for allegedly criticizing or rejecting Islam. In Part II, chapters note dozens of cases that ended in execution, murder, or exile. Readers little aware of legal doctrines ruling Muslim nations, regions and groups likely will find their dire results quite shocking.

Saudi Arabia, “perhaps the most repressively controlled Muslim country in the Sunni world,” often victimizes citizens and foreigners, alike. Not for over 300 years have North American courts routinely tried people for witchcraft. But sorcery charges often precede Saudi death sentences, as for Lebanese Shi’a TV psychic Ali Hussain Sibat after his May 2008 Medina pilgrimage. In prison for 30 months, he won (with foreign help), a new trial and alternative, deportation.

But few escape. In Sept. 2011, Sudanese Abdul Hamid al-Fakki was beheaded for alleged “witchcraft and sorcery.” A sharia court in 2008 condemned an illiterate and ill Fawza Falih for allegedly causing a man’s impotence. In 2011 officials admitted she had choked on food and died in prison last year.

Under the Saudi takfir principle (p. 30-31), Muslims may likewise accuse others of leaving Islam—and often do. Those letting men and women to mix at school or work are infidels. “Either he retracts or he must be killed,” said sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak in Feb. 2010. “He who casts doubt about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his own infidelity,” wrote Grand Mufti Bin Baz in a 2005 Saudi government brochure at its U.S. embassy, of an unnamed European cleric who had said “declaring Jews and Christians infidels is not allowed,” instantly making the cleric a murder target. Similar Saudi tracts denounce “innovative imams” as “heretics [whose] prayers are invalid.”

Egypt also commonly alleges apostasy, despite contrary claims by sharia law professor Reza. “Islamic jurisprudence is the principle source of legislation,” Anwar el-Sadat added to constitution Article 2 in 1971 (p. 62). Thus Muslims often use the hisba doctrine to legally prosecute those considered “harmful to Islam,” chiefly against traditionally repressed religious minorities like Coptic Christians. In fact, penal code article 98 (f) criminalizes “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions,” facilitating frequent charges of blasphemy and apostasy from Islam—the only faith to which Egypt applies the statute.

In Jun. 1992, days after al-Azhar University clerics listed free thinker Farag Foda first among “helpers of evil,” two al-Jama’at al-Islamiyya members shot him dead. Foda sought to separate mosque and state. He exposed Islamic atrocities from first caliph Abu Bakr to the end of Abbasid Arab caliphate. And at Cairo’s Jan. 1992 book fair, he debated orthodox clerics whose fatwas he had mocked (including that against Salman Rushdie). At their trial, Muslim Brotherhood cleric Mohammed al-Ghazali defended Foda’s killers, noting that any Muslim could kill an apostate (p. 74).

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, instituted in 1980 under Zia al Haq, have also abetted minority persecution. State sharia courts value male non-Muslim testimonies at half that of Muslims, and of non-Muslim women, one fourth (p. 86). Hundreds of Christians have been prosecuted, far more proportionately than their two percent of the population. Believing Christians natural blasphemers, Muslims easily act on cues to attack, murder, and burn homes and churches. They target Hindus, Sufis and even Muslims, stoning men for alleged blasphemy, or for simply stating what a Westerner considers common sense.

Conditions vary only slightly elsewhere in the Muslims world, and the authors supply a long list of atrocities committed against victims of blasphemy or apostasy accusations. Such charges and attacks occur almost as regularly as clockwork—precisely because they track classic sharia, a key point the authors omit.

Apostasy goes global

Part III reviews parallel efforts at the United Nations to globally bar “defamation of religion,” a thinly veiled attempt to shield Islam alone from criticism. The chief culprit is the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a Saudi-based and funded organization founded in 1969 (as the Organization of the Islamic Conference). Here again, the book focuses on modern, Western hate-speech statutes and the real-world effects of limits that resulted from worldwide OIC pressure—not the foundational sharia law upon which the OIC built its frighteningly successful campaign.

The names and events that fill this 113-page section have also filled the pages of savvy online news magazines and channels for well over a decade now, and will be familiar to most who have paid more than glancing attention to the innumerable attacks on genuinely open-minded, free-thinking individuals of all persuasions. If nothing else, it is useful to have brief but well-documented studies of dozens of cases all in one place. Readers are reintroduced to Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie, whose Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was in 1993 shot three times but survived. Also reported: the unusual genesis of 12 cartoons of Mohammed published in late 2005 by Denmark’s Jyllands Posten and the global repercussions. After illustrators refused to sign their own work for Kare Bluitgen’s biography of Mohammed for children, editor Flemming Rose commissioned the cartoons in protest of self-censorship in a Western democracy. Within weeks, the newspaper required security protection.

As I reported in Feb. 2006, Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb Ut Tahrir cleric Issam Amayra had the previous spring had incited Muslims in Denmark—from Jerusalem’s al Aqsa Mosque—to launch jihad there. [3] A jihad plot began months before Flemming Rose dreamed of commissioning Mohammed cartoons. Jyllands Posten merely supplied the excuse to trigger global riots. In Jan. 2006, trigger it, the OIC did. Violent “reaction” to the cartoons went viral after the paper refused to back down and Denmark’s prime minister refused to meet with Muslim ambassadors. A call by Muslim Brotherhood “spiritual leader” Yusuf Qaradawi for a U.N. Resolution against “affronts to prophets” set off thousands of Mideast “demonstrations,” Pakistani attacks on Christians and on and on. As recently as Jan. 2010, a Somali man attacked the home of cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, then 74.

Victims in the West

In addition to additional Muslim reformers, the book covers several other cases of apostates, Christian converts and former Muslim critics, including the especially heroic Ibn Warraq and former Syrian physician Wafa Sultan (280-286), most of them fairly. It cannot go without comment, however, that the authors seriously insult Dr. Sultan: “She maintains that many verses in the Koran say that you must kill those who do not believe in Allah,” they write (p. 283). Or, Koran may not say it, she just thinks so.

To set the record straight, Koran 2:217 states:

“They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.”

If commentary by the founder of Sunni Islam’s Shafi school (cited above) insufficiently explains its classical meaning, consider the exegesis on 2:217 by 13th century Maliki jurist Qurtubi (d. 1273):

“Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say they are asked to repent and, if they do, they are not killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik [founder of the Maliki school of Islamic Law]..It is also said they are killed without being asked to repent.”[4]

Additionally, Islamic jurists routinely cite Koran 4:89, which states:

“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;”

Baydawi (d. 1316) writes on 4:89: “Whosoever turns his back from his belief [irtada], openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel.” [5]

The OIC role

One hopes Silenced will spur readers to question the founding purpose of the OIC, which the authors do not detail. The Saudis established the it in 1969 to follow classical sharia and Muslim Brotherhood principles, and in 1973 created the Islamic Development Bank to advance the “Islamic way of life.” Its biggest project: the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which 57 members signed.

Significantly, the preamble opens with the ummah‘s keen awareness of “the place of mankind in Islam as viceregent of Allah on Earth,” a clear reference to Koran 3:110 and expected Islamic supremacy:

“Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.” [6]

Not coincidentally, the OIC convened for the so-called Cairo declaration shortly after the Feb. 1989 fatwa of Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, calling upon Muslims worldwide to track down U.K. citizen Salman Rushdie and execute him. Members agreed, the declaration would serve as their guide on “human rights.” These rights, its preamble specified, reaffirm the “civilizing and historical role of the Islamic ummah [nation]” divinely made “as the best community” to give “humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization” and to establish “harmony between” temporal and the afterlife and fulfill Muslim “expectations…to guide all humanity,” confused by conflicting beliefs and ideologies.

The OIC Cairo declaration proposed to contribute to global assertion of “human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life,” but only in accordance with sharia. Briefly, it supports the opposite of “human rights” in the West: unequal rights.

The OIC, then, functions chiefly as a rising barricade—dangerously invisible to Western leaders, journalists and educators—to cow and herd free-thinking Western democracies on every continent into ever-tightening iron-clad boundaries to guard Islam against free speech, which the authors understand, despite their seemingly wishful thinking.

The book paints a global landscape, exposing a decades-long campaign to silence Islam’s internal and external critics via modern legal principles that clearly offend basic human rights. Example after example shows Muslims, through acts, expressing the belief that their creed, alone, is beyond criticism. Their actions suggest that many Muslims feel specially licensed to demand “cultural respect,” plus suppress infidels in their homelands, and everywhere else. Particularly those wanting equal human rights for all, even freedoms of faith and speech—free enough to criticize Muslim theology and Islam.

Further examples continue to accumulate daily. In Iran, Christian pastor Yousef Nadarkhami, now 32, has lived precariously under a sword of Damocles since his 2009 arrest for apostasy—and converting from Islam at age 19. In 2010, he was convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death, though Iran now claims he was sentenced for rape. The mainstream press has remained largely silent over this outrage, albeit among many in Iran. Meanwhile in Paris, Islamic thugs bombed the office of satire magazine Charlie Hebdo(a Gallic version of Britain’s Private Eye) after its latest cover changed its name to Charia Hebdo and listed Mohammed as a “guest editor” to mock Tunisian and Libyan Islamic law. Yet Daily Beast (in the U.S.) headlined the satirical cover—not the bombing—as “shocking.” I’m choking.

Sadly, however, Silenced does not address the most important fact: Egregious violations of basic human rights, heretofore, have stemmed directly from Islamic texts—the Koran, hadith and sira—not only “human interpretation” thereof. In the Koran itself (3:110) originated the claim that Muslims are the best of peoples, notes Australian writer Geoff Dickson. [6] Muslim jurist Ibn Kathir (1301–1373) in his tafsir (exegesis) explains the verse to mean:

“You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma`ruf (all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. And had the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Fasiqun (rebellious).”

Theoretically anything is possible. So, theoretically, is Islamic reform. But the rest of humanity meanwhile deserves and needs the truth about Islamic expansionism and irredentism, including where and how those beliefs and practices originated.

_____________________________________________
NOTES:

[1] “…But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire forever.” As cited from Samuel Zwemmer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, pp. 33-35, (see also http://radicaltruth.net/uploads/pubs/Zwemer—Law%20of%20Apostasy.pdf) in Ibn Warraq, ed., Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, (Amherst: Prometheus, 2003), pp. 17, 35. Verse 2:217:

“They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.”

[2] Pamela Geller, “Exhibit A, the document: fatwa (death penalty) for apostasy,” Atlas Shrugs, Sept. 21, 2009, http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/rifqa-bary-death-threat-exhibit-a-the-document-fatwa-death-penalty-for-apostasy.html(first viewed 9/21/2009).

[3] Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, director of Orient research Group in Toronto, Canada, translated Issam Amayra’a April 2005 sermon from the Arabic.

[4] From Tafsir Al Qurtubi: Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur’an (Volume 1), translated by Aisha Bewley, p. 549, as cited by Dr. Andrew G. Bostom in his Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism, (Amherst: Prometheus, forthcoming).

[5] From Samuel Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, London, 1924/1925, p. 33, as cited by Bostom, in the forthcoming Sharia versus Freedom, id.

[6] Koran 3:110, as translated by Yusuf Ali, Yet Another Quran Browser, http://qb.gomen.org/QuranBrowser/cgi/bin/retrieve.cgi?version=pickthall+yusufali+khan+shakir+sherali+khalifa+arberry+palmer+rodwell+sale+transliterated&layout=auto&searchstring=003:108-112 (last viewed 11/3/2011).


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Paul R. Pillar’s Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform

The latest book from a former CIA agent promises to be a good read, but does it deliver on this promise?

by Alyssa A. Lappen
Family Security Matters | Oct. 21, 2011

Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform
by Paul R. Pillar

Released September 6, 2011
Publisher: Columbia University Press (432 pp)
ISBN-10: 0231157924
ISBN-13: 978-0231157926

The preface to Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform promises a good read as former CIA officer Paul R. Pillar details perches from which he “observed the end of one misguided war and the beginning of another” — a pair of bookends to his public service career and “two tragically ill-conceived military expeditions.” In 1973, as the Vietnam war wound down, Pillar served as a junior army field officer at Camp Alpha outside Saigon. From 2000 to 2005, he headed CIA national intelligence for the Near East and South Asia in Washington D.C. — albeit with hardly “any more influence on events in one job than in the other.”

Unfortunately, the book quickly disappoints.

On joining any U.S. military or intelligence service, officers must swear a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;… bear true faith and allegiance to the same;…[and] obey the orders of the President of the United States….”

But like a stutterer intent on avoiding words he can’t pronounce, Pillar has mentally blocked names for the enemies against whom the U.S. must now defend. He omits mention of jihad or Islam, whose chief Al Azhar University and Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals have for decades declared war on the U.S. — and lists neither term in his too-brief, five-page index. Yet he’s proud to have headed the team that held secret talks with the Libyan regime of Muammar Qaddafi to “become an ally,” an ally that subsequently the U.S. helped replace with al Qaeda peons.

All this unwittingly represents what U.S. Air Force major John M. Klein, Jr. might call “intellectual emasculation” and signals Pillar’s active role in catastrophic failures that have plagued U.S. intelligence since the Iranian hostage crisis, to borrow a phrase from former Joint Chiefs of Staff officer Stephen C. Coughlin.

Early on, Pillar reveals his personal biases against “neoconservative” Jewish advisers and policies of the “Israeli political Right,” which he insists manufactured the raisons d’être for the 2003 Iraq invasion. (pp. 15-30) He also claims U.S. intelligence unearthed no al Qaeda connections in Iraq, or evidence that Saddam Hussein ran chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in various stages of advance. He seems to have persuaded himself, but both assertions are demonstrably false. Indeed, redacted captured Iraqi documents, published by the U.S. military in Arabic and English translation, have been publicly available since 2007, as Jim Lacey brilliantly reported last month in the National Review. Clearly, Iraq did indeed have both biological and chemical weapons.

Assuredly, moreover, Pillar knows that Saddam Hussein at one time had a nuclear weapons program and periodically bought West African yellowcake to supply it — even if the purchases were not coincident with former CIA agent Joe Wilson’s 2002 investigation in Niger. In July 2008, the U.S. shipped to Canada 550 metric tons of evidence — concentrated natural uranium, later widely identified as “the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program.”

By 2010, even DigitalGlobe images on Google Earth confirmed existence of at least five Syrian facilities, three of them respectively reported in 2004 and earlier, by a defecting Syrian journalist and Iraqi general, to store transported Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But Pillar neglects Syria and the Al-Kibar graphite nuclear reactor under construction in September 2007 — just over Iraq’s border, and across a bridge on the Euphrates. Israeli bombers dipped under Syria’s radar and took out the plant, meant to process plutonium for an Iranian heavy-water reactor then rising, in nearby Arak. Soil samples gathered by the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) included key chemically processed “anthropogenic natural uranium particles,” undeclared in Syria’s nuclear inventory.

As for Syria, al Qaeda and their close ties to Iran — Pillar barely scrapes the surface. From October 2000 to February 2001, a senior Hezbollah commander ferried eight to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle” operatives on trips to and from Iran, the 9/11 Commission reported. Imad Mughniyah also reportedly co-founded Muqtada al-Sadr’s Iraqi Mehdi Army, co-sponsored Basra’s Thaarullah (God’s Revenge), drafted Kuwaitis and Saudis and trained recruits in Lebanon’s Bekka Valley. Imad Mughniyah was assassinated in Damascus’ diplomatic district in February 2008 — near Iran’s embassy and Syria’s national Atomic Energy Commission (AECS) — after meeting Hamas chief Khalid Mashaal and a general of Bashar al-Assad assassinated in Tartous five months later. With help from Germany, and later Russia, Iran’s first nuclear plant at Bushehr went live in September 2011.

By 2002, Iraq had bought nearly 1 million tons of mostly Russian munitions. Before the war, Russia moved them, noted former Romanian intelligence chief Ion Mihai Pacepa in August 2003. After visiting Iraq no fewer than 20 times over the prior six years, Russian Gen. Yevgeny Primakov, returned to Iraq in late 2002 — with a Russian former deputy defense minister, an ex-air defense chief and others, according to Pacepa, the Soviet bloc’s highest official to defect. Anticipating Iraq’s defeat, Russia oversaw an emergency “Sarindar” exit plan to liquidate its arms, but keep material and skills to remake them. Pacepa learned of Sarindar from Romanian secretary general Nicolae Ceausescu, KGB chair Yury Andropov, and Gen. Primakov, who cheered Arab radicals, manged Iraqi weapons supplies, and hates Israel. Arabic documents captured by Operation Iraqi Freedom troops discussed the plans, too. One featured an unknown man telling Hussein, the “factories will be in our brains and souls, and [we] can make missiles…and can certainly achieve a great deal in one, two, or five years.” As the February 2006 Intelligence Summit disclosed, an Army unit published many tapes online and requested help translating from the public. Tape ISGC-2003-M0003997 mentioned removal of warheads from Iraq. The Army quickly deleted published tapes, which the government never again referenced, although captured, translated and redacted English and Arabic documents, published by the U.S. military in 2007, have remained available since then, as noted above; invalidating all claims that Saddam Hussein did not have biological or chemical weapons. He certainly did.

Meanwhile, former U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw fully briefed CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officials with independent data. He documented identities, strengths and dates of Russian Spetsnaz transports, through files gathered by his U.K. contacts in London and at Syria’s border, Ukraine intelligence chief Igor Smesko and a friend of the late David Nicholas, then Europe’s Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) Ambassador to Kiev. DIA rejected it as “Israeli disinformation;” the CIA likewise tried to discredit Shaw’s sources.

Oddly, none of this appears in Pillar’s book.

U.S. intelligence systems are overly politicized, an “affliction” Pillar compares to “alcoholism,” whose victims, ironically, often exhibit denial. But he ignores its chief result — that volumes of known intelligence, for many political reasons, go unreported, or are altogether hidden. Masses of classified documents located by 9/11 Commission members on the eve of their report’s publication attest to Iran’s long history of operating with al Qaeda — data that Pillar and U.S. intelligence agencies never officially mentioned or, apparently, investigated. Nor, to date, have intelligence agencies acknowledged or addressed their penetration by National Iranian American Council (NIAC) operatives and others — the “Iran Lobby” of which 2008 reports in Tehran-controlled Aftab News and Baztab News openly bragged.

To yank political thorns from the sides of U.S. intelligence forces, Pillar proposes an outrageous solution — “substantial paring down of the unusually large political layer of the executive branch.” (p. 12) The U.S. should institutionalize intelligence agencies’ independence, he says, and create a “collective body, somewhat akin to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors,” and give it the “last say” on intelligence community “output.” (pp. 314-315) A new bureaucracy, requiring Senate hearings — “with probably not all nominations in the hands of the president.”

The U.S. desperately needs some practical means to eliminate political cat fighting inside and between intelligence agencies — and with the executive branch. Yet another costly layer of officialdom would only complicate things, which are bad largely for reasons unrelated to Pillar’s complaints. Besides, trying to institute an enormous new supervisory board over matters of national security might not work too well, considering an all-time record of Americans — 80% — currently disapprove of Congress.

On Sept. 22, 1776, the British hanged Nathan Hale for spying. After Gen. Washington’s forces expelled them, Americans saw no further need for intelligence, quips Pillar at one point. Until July 1941, “America’s splendid geographic isolation” and infrequent interaction with outside powers made U.S. intelligence service superfluous and essentially intolerable except during time of war.

Since Pearl Harbor, though, blaming U.S. intelligence professionals and agencies for trauma suffered at foreign hands has grown into a sort of iconic national sport. Too bad this book squandered a chance to meaningfully advance our understanding of the game.

______________________________________________________
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen is a U.S.-based investigative journalist, with a focus on the Middle East and Islam. A former Senior Fellow of the American Center for Democracy (2005-2008), she previously covered the economy, business and finance, as a Senior Editor at Institutional Investor (1993-1999), Working Woman (1991-1993) and Corporate Finance (1991); and an Associate Editor at Forbes (1978-1990).

She contributes regularly to the Terror Finance Blog and International Analyst Network and her work appears frequently in Pajamas Media, Front Page Magazine, American Thinker, Right Side News, the Washington Times and many other Internet and print journals.

Ms. Lappen is also an accomplished poet, whose work has won several awards and honorable mentions, and appeared in dozens of books and (print and online) literary journals, including the 2007, second edition of Blood to Remember: American Poets on the Holocaust and issues of Wales’ notable Seventh Quarry: Swansea Poetry Magazine.


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Sharia Lobby Shifts into 5th Gear

Slow down, moving too fast, got to make the U.S. last…


by Alyssa A. Lappen
Family Security Matters | Sept. 7, 2011

Sharia advocates desperately want to convince legislators and the public that Islamic law is plain vanilla — and totally nonthreatening to existing U.S. legal codes. Notwithstanding a nationwide Muslim Brotherhood-backed pro-sharia push, nothing could be further from the truth.

“There are many unpleasant doctrines within Islam,” including its “repugnant” criminal code, honor killings, female genital cutting, and a Quranic verse Muslim clerics often cite, proclaiming “wives as a tilth unto you” (2:223), to deny the existence of marital rape.[1]

So allowed sharia professor Sadiq Reza at an Aug. 25-26 New York Law School (NYLS) conference. Any attempt to enforce its criminal code, he added, “would violate Constitutional law.” He insisted, though, that western Muslims don’t “favor” these aspects of Islam and none seek to impose them. Evidence that they do abounds (here, here, here, here, here) but Reza said his broad web search found none.

Northwestern University Islamic law professor Kristen Stilt, too, disdained sharia criticism as “lunacy.” And University of Toronto Islamic law professor Mohammed Fadel referred the audience to a glossy, Soros-funded condemnation of skeptics, breathlessly entitled “Fear, Inc.” to persuade the gullible.

Soon afterward, journalist Joseph Klein recalled some points of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood “scholar” Yusuf Qaradawi, revered by the Islamic world — and “Fear, Inc.” co-author Wajahat Ali. Qaradawi identifies fully with sharia as described by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and fellow so-called hate mongers headed by Center for Security Policy CEO Frank Gaffney, not Ali and his co-detractors. Qaradawi considers charity “jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money,” as I noted in fall 2007. Like the MB-backed Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Qaradawi also seeks to internationally criminalize insults to Islam or Mohammed.

CSP’s sharia description is quite correct — not the “hate” or “lunacy” that Reza, Ali, Stilt and Fadel call it. Sharia is indeed a

“complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law… Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society.”

Despite all sharia’s sobering negatives, orchestrated campaigns to hype it and smear its critics — with Reza in a vocal role — have worked their expected magic. Days after NYLS’s pro-sharia confab, in a Sept. 2 New York Times op-ed, Yale assistant professor Eliyahu Stern dutifully parroted the line of former Harvard Custodian of Two Holy Mosques prof. Frank Vogel, who thinks sharia “quite brilliant.” (On Sept. 3, its shine likewise compelled an unasked Dutch cleric, to “invite” Queen Beatrix to Islam.)

One might think a Yale assistant professor or the Times would check their facts prior to publication. One would be wrong. True enough, over 12 U.S. states are currently considering legislation that would outlaw using laws alien to U.S. foundational precepts in American courts. But Stern misspoke. A “bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote ‘the destruction of the national existence of the United States’,” he incorrectly groused.

Stern cited the summary of a proposed Tennessee bill version not actually passed into law. The real banana, Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011 (House Bill No. 1353), signed into Tennessee law Jun. 16, 2011 to amend its criminal code on terrorism, never once mentions the words “sharia,” “Muslim,” “Islam,” or “Islamic law.” Nor does American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts, House Bill No. 3768, signed into Tennessee Public Chapter 983 in May 2010, to address foreign laws containing discriminatory or unequal precepts or clauses otherwise alien to U.S. and state civil, criminal and Constitutional laws and public policies.Yet — evidently, without any independent study of sharia — Stern admonished its U.S. critics to forgo their Constitutional rights to free speech, and worse, allow and accept U.S. court recognition of Islamic law.

But also on Sept. 2, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (ALIC) endorsed Michigan’s proposed HB4769 version of American Laws for American Courts.

Though apparently oblivious, in assuming a pro-sharia position, Stern effectively accepted a 7th century sharia dictate intended to suppress second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis): Islamic rule prohibits non-Muslims especially, at dire risk, from criticizing Mohammed, Islam or sharia, what most Muslims project as divine, perfect, immutable — and indivisible — laws. (Several conference speakers unwittingly echoed Qaradawi and, while lauding sharia, also noted Islam’s total ban on its criticism.)

Put another way, the professors want American non-Muslim critics to comply with sharia and shut up.

Many women suffer real “oppression” in Muslim majority lands, for example, especially rape victims living under zina (extra-marital sex) or other sharia statutes, U. of Wisconsin law professor Asifa Quraishi admitted. Yet at every opportunity, including the NYLS conference, Quraishi has pushed hard to integrate sharia for Muslims into U.S. courts. Meanwhile, she’s advised international women’s rights advocates in Muslim majority countries that they would serve best “not to mention Islamic law at all.”

Quraishi blamed overseas human rights opposition to “sharia legislation (and sharia in general)” for exacerbating the plight of Muslim women. They “created an unwinnable and unnecessary war, of ‘sharia vs. women’s rights’.” That again said Muslims will not adapt, and infidels must follow sharia.

Here is the 7th century dictate to second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis), writ large: non-Muslims’ criticism of Mohammed, Islam or sharia equals blasphemy. Such efforts to silence legitimate discussion render exceedingly troubling any consideration of separate and unequal sharia practices for use in U.S. courts. Already, too many U.S. Muslims ask and expect fellow citizens to censor themselves on sharia-related questions — or suffer bullying, and name calling best limited to pre-schoolers.

In 19th century Europe, Stern wrote, both political elites and philosophers embraced “fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty.” Immanuel Kant “argued that the particularistic nature of ‘Jewish legislation’ made Jews ‘hostile to all other peoples’,” Friedrich Hegel opposed Jewish dietary and other Mosaic laws as limits on an ability to identify with “fellow Prussians” or provide dutiful civil service and Bruno Bauer demanded that Jews renounce private religious rules in exchange for “full legal rights” and citizenship.

However, European Jewish history offers no logical reason for U.S. sharia critics to forgo their “full legal” and Constitutional rights to free speech or to allow Islamic law in secular courts. All citizens, including Muslims, already hold full rights, which no one seeks to revoke. Freedom requires no fixing.

To Muslims, sharia means justice, we’re told. Ironically, accepting such law in U.S. courts would create injustice, by making American Muslims more equal than others. They’d get exclusive rights, namely civil court access to religious cannon, not allowed to anyone else. This would substantially differ from the right to privately adhere (within the law) to religious cannon, which America has always allowed. Reinforcing this truth, the courageous U.S. men and women of AILC have clearly enumerated,

“the law should treat people of all faiths equally, while protecting Muslims and non-Muslims alike from extremist attempts to use the legal instrument of shari‘ah (also known as Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh) to incubate, within the West, a highly politicized and dangerous understanding of Islam that is generally known as “Islamism,” or “radical Islam.”

“We see no evidence that statutes like HB 4769 will adversely impact the free exercise of our personal pietistic observance of Islam, which is not in conflict with the U.S. or Michigan constitutions. We recognize that not only Muslims, but also Jews, Christians and all people of faith need the government to protect their right to peaceful assembly, mediation and arbitration free of coercion, … within the bounds of American constitutional principles. Therefore, we stand together as a diverse coalition in support of any legislation that serves to protect and integrate our communities into the fabric of this great nation, by strengthening our accountability to the laws of the land, and the constitutions of the various states in which we live.”

If sharia were advanced, progressive, wonderful and “brilliant,” its truth and beauty could withstand all criticism and questions. But sharia raises a major reg flag, in banning free speech and inquiry. How it would play out in the U.S. is perhaps best examined by looks at Britain and Germany, where all sharia‘s ills stand fully exposed. One needs no PhD or LD to realize that officially accepting any part of a legal system so often demonstrably at odds with our own would, yes, prescribe genuine national disaster.

If anything, intense pressure from closet Muslim radicals for U.S. sanction of sharia should push every state that can to pass its own bill as quickly as possible.

________________________________
NOTES

[1] Andrew G. Bostom, “Sharia-sanctioned marital rape in Britain—and North America,” American Thinker,Oct. 15, 2010,, citing “Is there such a thing as marital rape?,” AMJAonline Jurisprudence Section, Association of Muslim Jurists in America, May 30, 2007, (first viewed 10/15/2010). Based on sharia, the influential Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America insists that marital rape is not a crime. The imams actually approve of felony attacks on wives. In 2007, a husband asked AMJA,“Is there such a thing as marital rape in the shariah?…is a man permitted to FORCE his wife to have sexual intercourse with him? … she is naashiz and unwilling to have coitus.” Fatwa # 2982 replied,

“For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz [rebellious] under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.”

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen is a U.S.-based investigative journalist focusing on the Middle East and Islam. She is a former Senior Fellow for the American Center for Democracy (2005-2008); former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor (1993-1999), Working Woman (1991-1993) and Corporate Finance (1991). She was previously an Associate Editor at Forbes, where she worked upwards of 12 years (1978-1990), and an editor and staff writer at several other publications. She is also a poet. Her website is https://www.alyssaalappen.org.


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

The Anti-Defamation League’s Flat-Footed, Off-Key Shouter

An open letter to the head of the ADL, denouncing his condemnations of those who see Sharia as a threat to American values and liberty.

by Alyssa A. Lappen
Family Security Matters | Aug. 18, 2011

Dear Mr. Foxman,

For centuries Vilna occupied a special place in the hearts and minds of Europe’s Jewish communities. People celebrated the city as a study center, replete with libraries, schools, poets, playwrights, rich Jewish culture — and especially, learned rabbis and Jewish legal intellects.

From Rabbi Samuel of Babylonia to Rabbi Gershom of Germany, scholars throughout Jewish history taught the people to adapt to their host nations — and never demand the reverse. Rabbis also prized those students blessed with generosity and sufficient wisdom and humility to admit their errors and apologize to injured parties. No one is perfect, of course, but they correctly tutored Jewish men and women that those trying to achieve these charitable goals (among others) would at least reach goodness.

Alas, as a native of Vilna and child survivor of the Holocaust, none could have shouted more obstreperously than did your Aug. 10 JTA op-ed, headlined “Shout down the Sharia myth makers.” Leaders do not shout. They speak, listen and continue to learn. Through off-key cheer-leading, you merely highlighted your own ignorance.

“The separation of church and state embodied in U.S. and state constitutions,” you wrote, renders completely unnecessary, proposed “anti-Sharia bills” in several states. Our constitution already “prohibits our courts from applying or considering religious law in any way that would constitute government advancement of or entanglement with religious law.”

Obviously, it would contradict every bedrock American principle to force any U.S. resident — whether citizen, legal resident, or illegal alien — to unwillingly comply with religious law. On this we agree. There, our agreement ends.

For you also allege that the bills — addressing recently exposed U.S. state court outrages imposing foreign laws that infringed upon constitutional law and universal human rights alike — were based not on reality or actual decisions. The bills rest on “prejudice and ignorance,” you claim, advanced through “myth making … about the threat of Sharia” in the U.S. These ills, you further assert, have effected “camouflaged bigotry” against Islam and Muslims.

Theoretically, American courts should strictly adhere to U.S. constitutional law concerning any and all religious practices, edicts or canons. But the record could not be more clear: they too often err on the side of foreign law — and make no apology.

Criminal defendants asked U.S. courts, as I noted to you in March 2011, to substitute Islamic laws in lieu of domestic statutes. In Massachusetts, a federal court denied the motion of jihad-financiers to excuse their terror-funding tax fraud via First Amendment religious freedom guarantees, which they asserted to protect their rights to provide Islamically-mandated “charity.” Based on sharia, however, a New Jersey court did absolve wife beating and rape before that state’s appeals court reversed its ruling. And a Florida court similarly ordered parties in a civil dispute to follow Islamic, not U.S. law.

Face it, Mr. Foxman: for decades, U.S. courts have also miserably failed Muslim women and children on foundational precepts. On Mar. 24, 1986, for example, Laila Malak lost her 14-year old son and 9-year-old daughter when California’s appeals bench enforced a Beirut sharia custody ruling — given without her knowledge or participation, and allowing only 15 days from her post-facto notification to mount what would almost assuredly have been a futile “appeal.”

Sharia courts always give custody of minor children to fathers, a fact mentioned in footnote 2 to the California’s appeals bench decision. Married to Abdul in 1970 in Beirut, Laila in 1976 fled its bloody religious war with him and their son Fadi, and bore Ruha Jan. 25, 1977, in Abu Dhabi. In July 1982, without Abdul’s permission (and therefore against Islamic law), Laila moved with her children to her brother’s San Jose home, where she filed for a divorce and custody. Santa Clara county superior court denied three attempts by Abdul to enforce a Nov. 1982 Abu Dhabi sharia order that gave him custody, without due process, Laila’s knowledge or court consideration of the children’s “best interests.”

Simultaneously, however, Abdul had secured a Beirut sharia custody order — also without due process or the consideration of children’s “interests” requisite in U.S. courts. Ostensibly, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) allows “comity” only for foreign rulings that hail from “legal institutions similar in nature” to U.S. courts — with “reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard” for everyone. What should apply, however, does not always.

Sharia courts are not “similar in nature” to U.S. courts, Mr. Foxman. As strictly Islamic judiciaries — neither secular nor civil — these dictatorial forums often force religious law on unwilling victims without recourse. Likely, Laila Malak has never seen her kids again. By contrast, Jewish law would not allow this; nor would a Jewish Beit Din ask that its decision replace U.S. criminal, civil or secular law.

Laila Malak’s tragic case could and would have been avoided had California previously adopted something like the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) bills recently passed in Tennessee (May 2010), Louisiana (Aug. 2010) or Arizona (Apr. 2011). While the bills vary somewhat, none mentions sharia, contrary to your assertions regarding the Tennessee and Louisiana laws.

Since the 1970s, in dozens of similar cases, American courts nationwide applied sharia in lieu of constitutional laws. Albeit incomplete, a review of state courts and appellate benches produced manifold instances of “unconstitutional application of foreign and religious law in our judicial system.” Whatever their total, one cannot accurately describe cases unearthed thus far, as “a proverbial solution in search of a problem,” as you want us to believe. For the women and children affected they were life-destroying cataclysms.

No American, nor any Jewish leader, should accept that. You head an institution founded to defend and protect the Jewish people from anti-Semitism. Mr. Foxman, in Islamic nations, sharia laws implement institutional discrimination against Jewish people and other non-Muslims. Sharia demands and requires non-Muslim subservience. Who are you to defend it? How dare you?

With or without your unwarranted shouting, many courageous citizens, state and national legislators fortunately have acted, and will so continue, to prevent future travesties of justice.

Based perhaps on the experiences of your early life, Mr. Foxman, many long trusted and believed you to represent the American Jewish mainstream. Nevertheless, you lack an ounce of the humility evident in most great men. Via your intolerance of scholarship — and declarations on subjects of which you know less than nothing — you have unfortunately relinquished the right to trust, on any account.

Sincerely yours,

Alyssa A. Lappen
Investigative journalist and poet
https://www.alyssaalappen.org

CC: U.S. Rep. Allen West
CC: Ami Eden, Editor in Chief, JTA
CC: Andrew McCarthy, Columnist and former U.S. Attorney
CC: Diana West, Syndicated columnist
CC: Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, Cong. Mount Sinai; Exec. V.P., New York Board of Rabbis
CC: Jeffrey Weisenfeld, Philanthropist and Trustee
CC: Morton Klein, CEO, Zionist Organization of America
CC: Debra Burlingame, Co-founder, 9/11 Families
CC: Tim Brown, Co-founder, 9/11 Families
CC: Binyamin L. Jolkovsky, Editor in Chief, Jewish World Review
CC: Matthew R.J. Brodsky, Editor, InFocus, Jewish Policy Center
CC: Gary Rosenblatt, Jewish Week
CC: Susan Rosenbluth, Editor, Jewish Voice and Opinion
CC: Rick Greenfield, Editor, Jewish Ledger
CC: Steven Baum, Editor, Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism

_____________________________________________________________________________________

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen is a U.S.-based investigative journalist focusing on the Middle East and Islam. She is a former Senior Fellow for the American Center for Democracy (2005-2008); former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor (1993-1999), Working Woman (1991-1993) and Corporate Finance (1991). She was previously an Associate Editor at Forbes, where she worked upwards of 12 years (1978-1990), and an editor and staff writer at several other publications. She is also a poet. Her website is https://www.alyssaalappen.org.


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Is a ‘Little Bit of Sharia’ Okay?

By Alyssa A. Lappen and Andrew G. Bostom
American Thinker | Jul. 25, 2011

Some Americans argue that U.S. civil and criminal legal codes and courts should recognize Islamic law (sharia), as applied to Muslim families, at least. But sharia critics need point no further than Australia to show the utter incoherence of that contention.

Polygamy is illegal in Australia, as is marriage of underage women and children.

Nevertheless, Australia accepts

“valid Muslim polygamist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas,… with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits,”

according to The Australian legal affairs editor Chris Merritt. Australia accepts them, even though in many such marriages a woman is “under [Australia’s] lawful marriage age.”

In effect, Australia has allowed a parallel legal system — operating against its own statutes as a sort of illegal “shadow system” — to take hold.

Courts and attorneys down under may be largely “oblivious,” but sharia has taken root there, according to legal research by academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadie to be published Jul 25 in The New South Wales Law Journal. In a 2008 survey, they found that 90% of Australian Muslims adhere to its civil laws and reject sharia.

Yet the researchers also found that, under the radar, many Australian Muslims have also long observed Islamic traditions and sharia, particularly in family matters. Not all Australian Muslims register new marriages taking place there, for example. Since Islamic law endorses polygamous and underage marriages, some families seal marital vows solely with religious ceremonies, breaching Australia’s Marriage Act. A man may take multiple wives (marry polygamously) — or take a wife or wives below the age at which Australia confers majority, allowing men and women to marry with “informed consent,” of their own volition.

The Australian Muslim push for broad acceptance of sharia has not occurred in a vacuum, however. In North America, U.S. and Canadian Muslim organizations and leaders likewise advocate for adaptation of sharia laws in as many venues as possible.

Jamal A. Badawi, a onetime board member of the U.S. arm of the global Muslim Brotherhood, naturalized Canadian, self-styled Christian-Islamic relations expert — and director of the MB’s Consultative Council of North America (CCNA) and the U.S. Hamas arm, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted Holy Land Foundation co-conspirator — seeks Western legalization of polygamy for Muslims.

Islam does not require second wives, so Muslims in the West must “follow the laws,” Badawi wrote in a May 2005 Islam Online fatwa. Yet he claims that Western prohibition of second wives for Muslims denies “a particular right according to [our] own sharia.” Western democracies should “reciprocate” what Badawi considers Islamic tolerance of religious minority worship, teachings, family law, and estate division with equal “autonomy in [Islamic] issues … , including marriage.” They should except their own laws to legalize Muslim sharia, making Islamic polygamy “quiet [sic] legitimate,” and superior to Western secular laws allowing homosexual marriage.

Often, he claims, no “solution would be better than polygamy” — for men with barren wives “instinctively aspir[ing] to have children or heirs,” for example, or whose “chronically ill” wives they must divorce or forever “suppress … instinctive sexual needs” and secretly take “one or more illicit sex partners.” Forget women’s wants or needs. Polygamy is an “optional solution,” Badawi claims.

Clerics at the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) — an offshoot of the North American Imams Federation (NAIF), describing itself as “a fiqh council, basically” — likewise extol sharia-endorsed polygamy. AMJA currently encourages Muslim Americans to engage in polygamous marriages in the U.S., where polygamous marriages, in every state of the union, remain completely and totally illegal.

In early Aug. 2007, a Muslim questioner of AMJA clerics stated that “as long as you don’t register your marriage to the registrar, it is okay to have more than one wife here in the states[.]” A friend argued that “the law prohibits marrying more than one is against shaariah so, it is okay for us to break it[.]” In essence, he asked whether Islam makes it legal or forbidden (“haram”) to abide by U.S. law.

Al-Haj replied in favor of Islam (emphasis added):

Polygamy is halal [permissible] in Islam and may be highly recommended when the number of females is bigger than that of males to afford all females a decent life that suffices their physiologic, emotional and other needs. The US law about polygamy is against the Islamic law, for no one can make prohibited that which Allah specifically made allowable.

A Muslim should respect U.S. laws on polygamy, al-Haj also suggested, only so as not to harm the reputations of either polygamy or Muslims, or harm his community or family, including “the second partner and her children from him.” Since “many celebrities hav[e] extramarital affairs,” who are not prosecuted, al-Haj concluded, the Muslim man should perhaps consult “a legal expert” on the lawfulness of entering an “undocumented marriage” (as in “undocumented worker,” i.e., illegal alien).

In Oct. 2007 AMJA cleric Main Khalid Al-Qudah also approved a Muslim’s request for Islamic validation of polygamy in another religious ruling (fatwa 2134). Polygamy, he wrote:

is permissible for different reasons, like:

1- The sexual energy of men is more than that of women in general. So, in some cases, one wife is not enough to fulfill the conjugal desire of her husband

2- Pregnancy and delivery negatively affect the shape and physical attraction that women have.

3- World wide, the percentage of females is always more than that of males, eventually, there must be a solution, either to permit adultery and prostitution, or to allow polygamy

4- One husband could take care of more than one wife at the same time; socially, financially, and even sexually as I mentioned above. However, the opposite is not right because of the physical and psychological capability that Allah the all mighty gave men.

Anyone who thinks a little bit of sharia is a-okay should reconsider. A little bit of sharia is akin to being “a little bit” pregnant.

A nation must consider whether all its citizens should be governed by secular law — or not.

Once sharia is “a little bit accepted,” there is no going back. That explains, moreover, why Muslim clerics would like nothing better than to introduce a little bit of sharia at a time.


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

A Foreign Policy Institute Obamamania Love Fest

Seeing the President as a “Born Again Neocon”

by Alyssa A. Lappen
Family Security Matters | May 24, 2011


Muhammed Ali (1769-1849)

To hear former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht tell it, Ottoman governor Muhammed Ali and his Menemencioglu tribe supporter, Ahmed Bey, spawned Egypt’s current parliamentary and democratic longings in the 1830s. Gerecht presumably somehow credits the Macedonian renegade’s 1832-1840 [1] effort to usurp control of the Nile region from his Ottoman Turk masters and effect his own Egyptian empire. In any case, Ali’s military prowess brought the Sublime Porte to the verge of ruin, forcing the Ottomans, in desperation, to seek unheard of aid from infidels — that era’s great Western powers. [2]

Gerecht posited his theory of Egypt’s glorious 19th century democratic nascence at a May 19, 2011 University Club gathering in Manhattan hosted by Washington D.C.’s Foreign Policy Institute. The “organic discussions” initiated in 1830s Egypt were “œessentially shut off by dictatorship in the 1950s,” a situation duplicated across “the entire Middle East,” Gerecht said. Strangely, he did not hint at what he believes to have thwarted Egyptian democracy from 1840 to the 1950s. Colonialism, no doubt, although it actually conveyed any and all enlightenment to have stuck.

Gerecht’s historical conception underpins his enthusiasm for the new push for Egyptian democracy. He lauded President Barack Obama’s hopes for “Democracy in the Muslim World and democracy in the Arab world.” From initially appearing “a little bit George H.W. Bush and a little bit more Frantz Fanon,” Obama has morphed, growing “as the great Arab revolt has unfolded, a little bit more George W. Bush,” Gerecht said. Fellow FPI panelist, historian Max Boot, concurred. While still “very critical” of Bush even during his first years in office, Obama has “done a 180 in many ways” and now feels “compelled in the same way that Bush became a born again neocon,” Boot approvingly observed.


Reuel Marc Gerecht.

Granted, Gerecht is not completely dewey-eyed. “It’s going to be a rough ride,” he admits. He correctly expects Egypt’s imminent elections, whether in September 2011 or later, to win the Muslim Brotherhood at least 25% of the vote and seats in parliament, perhaps more. Gerecht also recognizes that upon winning such a margin, the MB will propose a legislative “vote to cancel the peace treaty with Israel” and attempt to formally institute as many aspects of sharia (Islamic law) as possible, succeeding in many (though he naïvely thinks, not all) aspects.

Unlike pragmatic realists, Gerecht said he does not “have a problem” with the likely results. “I want to see the Brotherhood do well enough so they can be a force,” he asserts. “I want to see great debates happen. The only way that you’re going to get evolution in this affair is for people to let rip.” He foresees a replay of “organic discussions” he imagines Egypt entertained nearly two centuries ago.

Nevermind that the Muslim Brotherhood now hopes to win 50% of the vote. [3] Nevermind that a recent poll found that at least 60% of Egyptians maintain fundamentalist Islamic views, 85% regard Islam’s political role as a “positive” (only 2% say it’s negative), and only 20% portray themselves as secular. [4] Nevermind that 91% of Egyptian girls routinely suffer female genital mutilation, [5] while Egyptian clerics routinely insist that Islamic law requires the practice. [6]

Boot differed slightly on U.S. “devotion to democracy” which he said insufficiently recognizes that the “actual messy, … semi-democracy” with which Egypt will emerge may “be more hostile to us and to Israel.” The U.S. should abandon its “overly idealistic” late 20th century view that everything will be fine given an uncompromised vote. “We should get our hands dirty here,” he said, and fund “more moderate, more secular, more pro-Western parties,” as done in the Cold War for pro-U.S. Forces.

Gerecht is not the only one with a distorted view of Egyptian democratic traditions.

Yes, in 1866 Khedive Ismail decreed that an advisory body be formed. [7] Ismail likewise encouraged cultural development. He initiated construction of what’s now called the Suez Canal, and increased the size of both the Alexandria port and trade with the West. [8] Ismail also expanded Egypt culturally. In 1770, for example, the Khedive commissioned Giuseppe Verdi to compose the opera Aida, which premiered in January 1771 at the recently constructed Cairo opera house. [9]

Arab League secretary general Amre Moussa points to such change as more democratic than any European structure then extant. [10] Former Egyptian dissident Saad E. Ibrahim has long expressed similar views. Not surprisingly, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy boost them, from a strategic Washington D.C. office headed by Muslim Brother Ali Abuzakook. [11] Ibrahim reiterated his idyllic image of Egyptian democratic revolution at an Apr. 5 Middle East Forum lunch. [12]

Attributing anything at all revolutionary to Egypt’s 1866 parliament, however, is utterly preposterous. The U.K. Parliament predated Egypt’s dictatorially mandated advisory council by centuries. [13] Russia established its nobles’ Boyar Duma in 1547; a century and two-thirds later, in 1711, Peter the Great transferred the Duma’s genuine powers to a new Governing Senate. [14] Norway first convened its Parliament in 1814; [15] French revolutions spawned public representation starting in 1830. Austria-Hungary and Romania both established parliaments in 1866. [16] Other European democratic efforts undoubtedly abound. To say nothing of North America, where 13 colonies established their first representative government in 1774, where New England towns for more than a century before that held annual representative meetings — and each colony self-governed on most internal affairs.

Under close scrutiny, Egypt’s little democratic developments actually look far less significant than Gerecht suggests. He appears completely oblivious to the fact that, even at its apogee in the 1920s, Egypt’s secular parliamentary heyday barely existed. Moreover, by the 1930s the Muslim Brotherhood had advanced considerably in its original Islamiyya center, and in Cairo and other populous areas too.

Indeed, Muhammad Heykal published his hagiography of Muslim prophet Muhammad in 1935, according to Dr. Andrew G. Bostom. Other prominent “liberal nationalists” later successfully published similar pious hortatory Islamic volumes, ushering in what Nadav Safran termed the “Reactionary Phase” of Egyptian political thought and discourse. Brotherhood adherents believed secular Western ideologies and constitutions had failed. Islam thus re-emerged as an infinitely more popular alternative. As Safran noted in 1961,

Haykal’s argument (i.e., already in the mid-1930s) that the Egyptian cultural soil was inhospitable any but Muslim inspired ideals and values seemed to receive resounding confirmation from the events and met enthusiastic approval from the public.

Since the 1930s, and certainly after the collapse of the Wafd (Delegation) Party in the wake of World War II, Egypt’s populace demolished imported Western ideologies. Islamic leaders successfully replaced them by traditional loyalties to the Arab and larger Islamic communities, Bostom reported, providing a succinct description of the phenomenon, penned by Gabriel Warbeurg in 1983:

[I]nstead of the principles of the French Revolution and British parliamentarism, Islam re-emerged as the main source for government.”

In the 83 years since Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, his heirs and its leaders had time and resources aplenty to develop a network in Egypt and worldwide, cultivate considerable financial aid from foreign governments (including Saudi Arabia) [17] and build a web of “charitable” funds—headed by “spritual” leader Yusuf al Qaradawi. The latter, an ardent supporter of jihad, suicide bombing, and wife beating, runs dozens of illegal and legal businesses to finance planned government takeovers. U.S. and European authorities have long known of MB plans written in 1982 [18] and 1991 respectively, [19] to impose sharia law globally and in North America. Organized and disciplined, the MB accumulated enough political expertise in the last near-century to dwarf any skills opponents might have retained from Egypt’s brief “democratic” experiment in the fairly distant past.

That MB experience hardly represents peacefulness, regardless of the latest MB spin. The organization parented every known Sunni terrorist organization today, and works closely with Hezbollah and Iran.

MB Shura Council member Abdul Moneim abu el-Fotouh, now making an Egyptian presidential bid, [20] in 1970 founded Jamaa Islamiya (JI). [21] That group assassinated President Anwar el Sadat [22] and in 1997 murdered 71 tourists in Luxor. [23] JI leader Karam Zohdi in 1981 received a life sentence for Sadat’s murder. But in 1997, Zohdi reputedly played a “major role” in a JI renunciation of violence and Egypt freed him in 2003.[24] The JI renunciation was either only local, or only temporarily expedient — or both — for in 2006, JI reportedly joined forces in several al Qaeda liquid bomb plots. [25]

Whenever convenient, el-Fotouh likewise routinely presents himself as a moderate. [26] That anyone ever believes him constitutes a sick joke.

In Jan. 2011, el-Fotouh said that the murder of 21 Coptic Christians praying in their church on New Years’ Eve was “a criminal act with Zionist…finger prints” to “sow hatred among Muslims and Coptic Christians.” Egyptian Muslims could not have murdered committed this atrocity. [27] Similarly, in Aug. 2006, el-Fotouh told the New York Times it was ‘better to support a Hezbollah-Iranian agenda than an ‘American-Zionist’ one.” He also accused the U.S. of invading Iraq only “to divide Muslims.”

In March 2003, el-Fotouh supported Islamic scholars who performed their ‘basic religious duty‘ in inciting Muslims to join jihad against the U.S. Al Azhar had rightly urged them to “defend themselves and their faith” against an “enemy” — stepping “on Muslims’ land” — which the clerics called “a new Crusader battle targeting our land, honor, faith and nation.” The al Azhar decree amounted to its clerics’ “attempt … to fulfill their duty before God,” since the U.S. planned “to enslave the Arab nation.” In Oct. 2006, the U.S. banned el-Fotouh from entering due to his many such past statements. [28]

Since New Year’s Eve, Muslims have only increased wholesale attacks against Egypt’s Coptic Christians—an estimated 12 million, up to 15% of Egypt’s people. [29] Perhaps since “divine” sharia law sanctions criminal abuses for innumerable inhuman reasons, Egypt’s military stands idly by, watching. Now, the MB has now joined a coalition with Egypt’s JI, increasing risks for its Christian minority. [30]

In April 2011, Saad Ibrahim dubbed Egypt’s turmoil a “lotus revolution” after a native Cairo flower. But the Muslim Brotherhood will assuredly gain control of Egypt by “democratic” vote. At that juncture, logical observers can expect to see Cairo water its “lotus” flowers with rivers of blood that could make Khomeini’s slaughter of Iranian civilians look like a Sunday picnic.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen is a U.S.-based investigative journalist focusing on the Middle East and Islam. She is a former Senior Fellow for the American Center for Democracy (2005-2008); former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor (1993-1999), Working Woman (1991-1993) and Corporate Finance (1991). She was previously an Associate Editor at Forbes, where she worked upwards of 12 years (1978-1990), and an editor and staff writer at several other publications. She is also a poet. Her website is https://www.alyssaalappen.org.

NOTES:

[1] C. Kafadar H. Karateke C. Fleischer, “Historians of the Ottoman Empire: Ahmed Bey,” http://www.ottomanhistorians.com/database/pdf/menemenciogluahmed_en.pdf (viewed 5/20/2011).
[2] Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 5, 27-42, 48, 69, 74-75, 289.
[3] “Muslim Brotherhood announce party chief, seek 50% of parliament,” al-Ahram, Apr. 30, 2011, http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/11085/Egypt/Politics-/Muslim-Brotherhood-announce-party-chief,-seek–of-.aspx (viewed 5/20/2011).
[4] Doug Schoen, “Why the Muslim Brotherhood will win,” Fox News, Feb. 10, 2011, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/10/muslim-brotherhood-win/ (viewed 5/17/2011).
[5] Armen Hareyan, “UNICEF calls on Egypt to end female genital cutting,” ExmaxHealth, Sept. 12, 2007, http://www.emaxhealth.com/48/15932.html Michael Slackman, “In Egypt, a rising push against genital cutting,” New York Times, Sept. 19, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/world/africa/20iht-20girls.7576384.html?pagewanted=print; “Female circumcision: 90% of childbearing women in Egypt” Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM) News Blog, Feb. 15, 2011, http://fgcdailynews.blogspot.com/2011/02/female-circumcision-90-percent-of.html (all viewed 5/22/2011).
[6] “Egyptian Shaykh: Muslim Scholars Say That FGM Is Either Obligatory or Commendable,” Translating Jihad, May 17, 2011, http://translating-jihad.blogspot.com/2011/05/egyptian-shaykh-muslim-scholars-say.html (viewed 5/17/2011).
[7] “Democracy is born,” al-Ahram, May 25-31, 2000, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/483/chrncls.htm (viewed 5/22/2011).
[8] “Alexandria,” ArchNet Digital Library, undated, http://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=1455&order_by=author&showdescription=1 (viewed 5/22/2011).
[9] Richard Willmer, “Music,” The Italian Language, undated, http://www.italian-language-study.com/italian-culture-abroad/music.htm (viewed 5/22/2011).
[10] Amre Moussa, Doha Debate Special Event, Qatar Foundation, Oct. 29, 2006, http://www.thedohadebates.com/debates/debate.asp?d=15&s=3&mode=transcript (viewed 5/22/2011).
[11] “Saad Eddin Ibrahim on democracy in the Arab world,” CSID Email Bulletin, Nov. 11, 2006, https://www.csidonline.org/publications/csid-bulletins/58/356#succor (viewed 5/22/2011); Washington, D.C. CSID director Aly Abuzaakook https://www.csidonline.org/about-csid (5/22/2011) is also former American Muslim Council (AMC) executive director, former International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) publishing chief, and former head of the Hamas-funding, designated terrorist organization United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). Steven Emerson, “Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade,” Jul. 31, 2008, http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/357.pdf, pp. 16-17, citing “Aly. R. Abuzaakouk, Guest CV,” Live Dialogue, Islam Online, undated, http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Guestcv.asp?hGuestID=OVzzHu (blocked link), now at http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080416030303/http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Guestcv.asp?hGuestID=OVzzHu; Nadifa Abdi, “MYNA moves,” Islamic Horizons, Feb. 1988, pp. 16-17, and U.S. State Dept. FOIA documents, case 20070224, Dec. 10, 2007 (all viewed 3/4/2011).
[12] Saad Ibrahim remarks, Middle East Forum, Apr. 5, 2011. This reporter was present.
[13] Lionel Cecil Jane, “Coming of Parliament: England from 1350 to 1660,” Story of the Greatest Nations: From the Dawn of History to the Twentieth Century, ed. Edward S. Sliis, A.M. And Charles F. Horne, MS, (New York: Francis R. Niglutsch, 1905), http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofcentr00brisiala/catalogueofcentr00brisiala_djvu.txt; See also L.C. Jane, http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Parliament-England-1350-1660/dp/1459000455/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306086992&sr=1-1-fkmr1 (both viewed 5/11/2011).
[14] “Boyar Duma,” The Free Encyclopedia, http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Boyar+Duma (viewed 5/22/2011).
[15] “Parliament of Norway,” Wikipedia, as modified Apr. 13, 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Norway (viewed 5/22/2011).
[16] Josephus Nelson Larned, The New Larned History for Ready Reference, Reading and Research, Vol. 1, (complete revised edition, 1922, p. 705, digitized by Google Books. Claudia Ursutiu, “Jewish Question in the Romanian Parliament (1866-1919),” Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of antiSemitism, http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/reslist.html (viewed 5/22/2011).
[17] Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “Shari’a financing and the coming ummah,” Chapter 28, Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency, ed. Jeffrey Norwitz, (U.S. Naval War College: Jun. 2008), pp. 389-404, https://www.alyssaalappen.org/wp-content/uploads/sharia-financing-and-the-coming-ummah-by-ehrenfeld-and-lappen.pdf (first viewed 6/2/2008); Ehrenfeld and Lappen, “The truth about the Muslim Brotherhood,” Front Page Magazine, Jun. 16, 2006, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=3996 (first viewed 6/16/2006).
[18] Patrick Poole, “The Muslim Brotherhood ‘Project’,” Front Page Magazine, May 11, 2006, http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4475 (first viewed 5/11/2006).
[19] Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, 5/22/1991,” www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/Akram_GeneralStrategicGoal.pdf (first viewed 9/18/2007), as cited in Lappen, “Yousef Qaradawi’s U.S. Minions,” Act for America Special Report, Feb. 25, 2011, https://www.alyssaalappen.org/2011/02/25/yusuf-qaradawis-u-s-minions/ (viewed 2/25/2011).
[20] “Muslim Brotherhood leader to run for Egyptian presidency,” Sydney Herald Sun, May 11, 2011, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/muslim-brotherhood-leader-to-run-for-egyptian-presidency/story-e6frf7jx-1226054262936; “Egypt’s Muslims design presidential candidate for U.S. nod,” Debkafile, May 13, 2011, http://www.debka.com/article/20930/ (both viewed 5/19/2011).
[21] “Abdel Moneim Abu el-Fotouh,” Egypt Today, Mar. 5, 2006, http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=4686 (viewed 5/19/2011).
[22] “AJ Islamiya and Zawahiri’s EIJ assassinate Sadat,” America and the Mid-East, Xtimeline, Oct. 6, 1981, http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=12888 (viewed 5/22/2011).
[23] Simon Reeve, “The Liquid bombs plot: al Qaeda corrupts a generation,” The Mirror, Aug. 12, 2006, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+LIQUID+BOMBS+PLOT:+Al-Qaeda+corrupts+a+generation-a0149377156 (viewed 5/22/2011).
[24] Lamia Radi, “Egypt frees leader of Jamaa Islamiya,” Middle East Online, 9/29/2003, http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=7187=7187&format=0 (viewed 5/22/2011).
[25] Reeve, “Liquid bombs plot: al Qaeda corrupts a generation,” The Mirror, Aug. 12, 2006, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THE+LIQUID+BOMBS+PLOT:+Al-Qaeda+corrupts+a+generation-a0149377156 (viewed 5/22/2011).
[26] “Muslim Brotherhood leader to run for Egyptian presidency,” Sydney Herald Sun, May 11, 2011,http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/muslim-brotherhood-leader-to-run-for-egyptian-presidency/story-e6frf7jx-1226054262936; “Egypt’s Muslims design presidential candidate for U.S. nod,” Debkafile, May 13, 2011, http://www.debka.com/article/20930/ (both viewed 5/19/2011).
[27] “Islamists blame Jews for Coptic Church bombing,” IPT News, Jan. 3, 2011, http://www.investigativeproject.org/2468/islamists-blame-jews-for-coptic-church-bombing (first viewed 1/3/2011).
[28] Lappen, “Islam’s Useful Idiots,” American Thinker, Oct. 23, 2006, http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/islams_useful_idiots.html (viewed 10/23/2006).
[29] Egypt’s Coptic Christians, http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/copticchristians.htm; see also Michelle Boortstein, “Egypt’s uprising stirs fears of persecution of minority Coptic Christians,” Washington Post, Feb. 4, 2011 (both viewed 5/22/2011).
[30] Michael Weiss, “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Salafi pact puts Egyptian Christians in great danger,” Telegraph, May 13, 2011, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100087770/the-muslim-brotherhoods-salafi-pact-puts-egyptian-christians-in-great-danger/; “Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader visits Jamaa Islamiya in Tripoli,” Lebanon News, May 13, 2011, http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=270587 (both viewed 5/13/2011).


All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.