The common denominator in each of these places across North Africa is regression to an historical period in which Islamic law dominated society, destroyed individual liberty and sent women into the chattel status of a sexual object, possessed by men from birth to death. The steady progress of Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the U.S. government, legal system and society, accompanied by an increasingly oppressive official prohibition against speaking openly about Islam, jihad, or shariah should sound a warning that the same fate could befall America, too, unless the threat of sharia is acknowledged and confronted.

Women in particular stand to lose precious, hard-won legal protections whenever and wherever sharia extends its terrifying tentacles. Rights taken for granted under U.S. Constitutional law include the freedom of assembly, belief and speech. Equality before the law for all citizens is the foundation of the American system and is grounded in the belief that all people are created equal and therefore free. Inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are based on Judeo-Christian concepts of natural law.

Unfortunately, every bit of this is anathema to Islamic law. Under sharia, women are held to be inferior to men: Their testimony is worth one-half that of a man in court of law (Q 2:282); she inherits one-half what a man inherits (Q 4:11); her father has the legal right to mutilate her genitals (al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveler, Chapter o4.3), and marry her off to anyone he chooses, even if she is still a child (Q 65:4); and the husband has the Qur’anic right to beat (Q 4:34) and rape his wife (Q 2:233), marry other women (Q 4:3), acquire concubines (Q 4:3), divorce her upon a whim, take custody of the children and turn her out with no means of support.

Free people of the Judeo-Christian tradition often have trouble understanding how such things could possibly be the law under a system that presents itself as a “religion.” We are horrified that human beings, especially in the 21^st century, could treat one another like this. Yet, even a brief study of Islam and Islamic law will reveal that Islam is not merely a faith like any other of devotion to one’s deity but rather a complete “way of life” governed by an all-encompassing, smothering system of laws called “sharia.”

A creed of macho supremacism that must be imposed globally by warfare (jihad) sets Islam apart from every other faith-based belief system. Because of Islam’s command to jihad, Muslim men are called to dedicate their lives to fighting, according to the Qur’an:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (Q 2:216)

But as the intrepid Nonie Darwish (left) reminds us, women are the givers and protectors of life, which makes them an obstruction to the culture of jihad and “martyrdom” required for the forcible expansion of Islam. Falling in love and wanting to care for wives and children could tempt men to remain at home, instead of heading out to conquer kuffar (non-believers).

It is for this reason that Islamic law (sharia) is so harsh in its treatment of women: They must be controlled so that men can dedicate their lives to jihad. Offspring obviously are required for Islamic conquest to succeed, and so women are necessary to procreation, but equally must be restrained for one paramount reason—to ensure that all her offspring are her husband’s (or those of whichever jihadi captured or kidnapped her) and no one else’s. It’s also about ensuring the purity and proliferation of the bloodline because, according to Islamic law, all children born of a Muslim father are Muslim.

With this understanding of how sharia wages war not just on infidels, but on women both Muslim and non-Muslim, many of Islam’s horrific human rights abuses against women become clear. Clitoridectomies (Female Genital Mutilation or FGM) ensure women will never find (or seek) sexual fulfillment outside of submission to the desires of their Muslim masters. Suffocating, effacing, enveloping garments that obscure a woman’s face, form, hair and very identity are meant to keep other men from coveting female property that does not belong to them.

Flogging and stoning for adultery and fornication are to deter illicit sex (and illicit off-spring who just might not be Muslim). Denial of rights to initiate divorce, receive alimony or retain custody of children after divorce forces women to think twice about escaping the abusive bonds of a loveless, but Muslim, marriage. Everything about women in sharia is geared to maximizing output of Muslim off-spring and inhibiting the birth of non-Muslim children.

Recall that the 56 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) (plus the Palestinian Authority) opted out of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights with their 1990 Cairo Declaration and have declared that according to Islam, the only human rights are those granted under sharia. These are the concepts of “the right path” now descending upon the people of Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia.

These are the concepts embraced by the Muslim Brotherhood, whether in North Africa or the White House and Cabinet Departments in Washington, D.C. These are the concepts of female submission displayed to the world when American women officials abroad allow themselves to be bullied or gulled into donning the hijab. Such behavior has nothing in common with the U.S. Constitution or modern concepts of free personal expression that are embraced by millions of Muslims as well as non-Muslims the world over.

Only by reminding ourselves this Memorial Day that women as well as men have the right to live in dignity and individual liberty will the sacrifice of all who have fallen in their defense find its meaning and fulfillment.

SOURCE: Stop Radical Islam

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The Islamist Camp

Note that only about 44 percent of voters backed an Islamist candidate, compared to 75 percent in the parliamentary election, while only about 25 percent voted for the Muslim Brotherhood compared to about 47 percent in the parliamentary vote. Why?

To begin with, the two top Islamist candidates were removed by the election commission, the Brotherhood’s first choice and the only Salafist candidate. Presumably, many voters stayed home or opted for their second choice. The question is whether those who crossed the line and voted for a non-Islamist will return to the Brotherhood in the second round.

A key question is the 25 percent who backed a Salafist in the parliamentary election but could not do so in this one. Did they stay home, or vote for the Brotherhood or the “moderate Islamist,” or for a secular party?  And again, will most of them back the Brotherhood or a Mubarak era politician in the second round?

Clearly, the mistakes made by the Islamists were costly, and they do make many errors. The Salafists nominated a candidate who was vulnerable to vetting. He didn’t meet the qualifications of purely Egyptian citizenship for himself and his family.

On the Brotherhood’s part, victory in the previous elections made them more radical and more arrogant. They mistakenly cast off the cloak of pretended moderation too soon and too completely.  So much for the “Turkish model!” This hubris scared some voters.  Shafiq’s campaign managers warned voters that to an elect Mursi would set off a battle for an “Islamic empire.”

But note this theme of radicalism going along with victory because it is going to be one of the most important of all. Let’s summarize it:

When Islamists win, they become bolder and more aggressive. Western observers who talk about moderating Islamism think the opposite.

An opposing camp, however, those who argue all Muslims “must” be Islamists and that political Islam inevitably sweeps all before it have also been proven wrong. As I try to explain, this is a political struggle that can go either way depending on circumstances.

Islamism is by no means immune to social conditions. The strongest support for Mursi is in Egypt’s poor, underdeveloped south; the weakest backing is in the cities.

Yet let’s also remember that the Islamists are still heading for control over Egypt. They might win the presidency in the second round. The parliament, which they run, is going to make the rules and write the constitution. If they don’t like who becomes president, they will reduce his powers.

To read the entire article click here

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

After all, according to this the total Islamist vote is around 46 percent, not enough to win. One key question would be where would the Sabahi voters go? Are these people anti-Islamists who like a left-wing (virtually Communist-style) candidate or are they people who want a further-going revolution and might back the Brotherhood candidate?

Here are the two key points, assuming these numbers are correct:

–Once again we have been misled by “experts” and media who slanted coverage toward the alleged popularity of Abul Fotouh.  They should have backed secularists and not “moderate Islamists.” There should be some apologies and rethinking but of course that won’t happen.

–Egyptian/Arab nationalism has revived, receiving about 52 percent of the vote! And that means Shafiq could win in the run-off round. And here’s another point of importance: If Egyptians want an alternative to Islamism it will be radical populist nationalism, not moderate cosmopolitan liberalism.

Again: Caution, this is based on figures that might not be accurate.

If Mursi Becomes President

(winning second round run-off):

Remember that he and the Brotherhood are now not even trying to hide their extremism, openly demanding an immediate Sharia state and a Caliphate.

This would set off a crisis that will dominate the region for a decade or two. This would be a catastrophe equal to and perhaps greater than the Iranian revolution. No exaggeration. If there isn’t a war with Israel within three years (Hamas backed by Egypt or even involving Egypt) it would be a miracle.

Note that what’s most important is not the presidency in isolation but:

–Brotherhood control over parliament and president and writing constitution.

–Brotherhood triumphalism, which we have seen repeatedly, belief in victory leading to arrogance and more extremism.

There will be panic. Christians and liberals will start packing their bags.

If Shafiq Becomes President

(winning second round run-off):

The Islamists have two options, perhaps following both: A. View his victory as a return to the old regime and the overturning of the revolution. There could be real internal disorder and a lot of violence.

B. The Brotherhood and Salafists would still control parliament and constitution-writing. They would set up the system as having a strong prime minister (Muslim Brotherhood selected by parliament) and a weak, ceremonial president.

For his part, Shafiq would try to limit the radicalism, maintain good relations with the United States, and avoid war with Israel.

If the military backed him—and that makes sense—he would be stronger and might succeed.

In this case, though, watch for three things:

–The Brotherhood and Salafists will make life hard for Shafiq. There will be street violence and terrorism against Christians, “modern” women, liberals, tourists, and foreign installations. Will Shafiq call out soldiers to put down each disorder through repression? Would Obama and Europe back him or condemn the military as repressive and undermining democracy?

–The Islamists would help Hamas and very possibly try to stir up a Hamas-Israel conflict in which hysteria would sweep Egypt to fight Israel, painting Shafiq as a traitor for holding back?

–As the economic situation deteriorates, they would blame Shafiq and stir up disorder against him.

Again, remember that a constitution could well be written providing for a strong parliament and prime minister alongside a weak president. That would subvert the election results.

Let me make it clear from the start that this article is based on Muslim Brotherhood statements and leaks. The information may not be accurate. We will not know for sure until Sunday when official tallies are provided.

Article originally published here.

Sources:

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/05/25/216337.html

About Barry Rubin

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan)

http://www.egyptdailynews.com/

After gaining independence from France in 1956, the Moroccan government restricted Jewish emigration out of the country. In response, the Israeli government tasked Mossad with facilitating such emigration, using clandestine means. The Mossad initially organized illegal departures by boats, but that effort came to a halt in 1961 after the Egoz disaster, in which a ship carrying 44 immigrants capsized, drowning all passengers.

Operation Mural was a clandestine effort headed by Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, to facilitate the emigration of Jewish Moroccan children to Israel.

Read more about David Littman and More Here

In only one of these wars, World War II, was its national security directly threatened, and even then a great deal of its fighting was done in places such as Greece and North Africa rather than in direct defense of Australia. This leaves us to wonder why a country as wealthy and seemingly secure as Australia would have participated in so many conflicts.

Importance of Sea-Lanes

To understand Australia, we must begin by noting that its isolation does not necessarily make it secure. Exports, particularly of primary commodities, have been essential to Australia. From wool exported to Britain in 1901 to iron ore exported to China today, Australia has had to export commodities to finance the import of industrial products and services in excess of what its population could produce for itself. Without this trade, Australia could not have sustained its economic development and reached the extraordinarily high standard of living that it has.

This leads to Australia's strategic problem. In order to sustain its economy it must trade, and given its location, its trade must go by sea. Australia is not in a position, by itself, to guarantee the security of its sea-lanes, due to its population size and geographic location. Australia therefore encounters two obstacles. First, it must remain competitive in world markets for its exports. Second, it must guarantee that its goods will reach those markets. If its sea-lanes are cut or disrupted, the foundations of Australia's economy are at risk.

Think of Australia as a creature whose primary circulatory system is outside of its body. Such a creature would be extraordinarily vulnerable and would have to develop unique defense mechanisms. This challenge has guided Australian strategy.

First, Australia must be aligned with -- or at least not hostile to -- the leading global maritime power. In the first part of Australia's history, this was Britain. More recently, it has been the United States. Australia's dependence on maritime trade means that it can never simply oppose countries that control or guarantee the sea-lanes upon which it depends; Australia cannot afford to give the global maritime power any reason to interfere with its access to sea-lanes.

Second, and more difficult, Australia needs to induce the major maritime powers to protect Australia's interests more actively. For example, assume that the particular route Australia depends on to deliver goods to a customer has choke points far outside Australia's ability to influence. Assume further that the major power has no direct interest in that choke point. Australia must be able to convince the major power of the need to keep that route open. Merely having amiable relations will not achieve that. Australia must make the major power dependent upon it so that Australia has something to offer or withdraw in order to shape the major power's behavior.

Creating Dependency

Global maritime powers are continually involved in conflict -- frequently regional and at times global. Global interests increase the probability of friction, and global power spawns fear. There is always a country somewhere that has an interest in reshaping the regional balance of power, whether to protect itself or to exact concessions from the global power.

Another characteristic of global powers is that they always seek allies. This is partly for political reasons, in order to create frameworks for managing their interests peacefully. This is also for military reasons. Given the propensity for major powers to engage in war, they are always in need of additional forces, bases and resources. A nation that is in a position to contribute to the global power's wars is in a position to secure concessions and guarantees. For a country such as Australia that is dependent on sea-lanes for its survival, the ability to have commitments from a major power to protect its interests is vital.

Deployment in the Boer War was partly based on Australian ideology as a British colony, but in fact Australia had little direct interest in the outcome of the war. It also was based on Australia's recognition that it needed Britain's support as a customer and a guarantor of its security. The same can be said for the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia might have had some ideological interest in these wars, but its direct national security was only marginally at stake in them. However, Australian participation in these wars helped to make the United States dependent on Australia to an extent, which in turn induced the United States to guarantee Australian interests.

There were also wars that could have concluded with a transformation of the global system. World War I and World War II were attempts by some powers to overthrow the existing global order and replace it with a different one. Australia emerged from the old political order, and it viewed the prospect of a new order as both unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Australia's participation in those wars was still in part about making other powers dependent upon it, but it also had to do with the preservation of an international system that served Australia. (In World War II there was also an element of self-defense: Australia needed to protect itself from Japan and certainly from a Japanese-controlled Pacific Ocean and potentially the Indian Ocean.)

Alternative Strategy

Australia frequently has been tempted by the idea of drawing away from the global power and moving closer to its customers. This especially has been the case since the United States replaced Britain as the global maritime power. In the post-World War II period, as Asian economic activity increased, Asian demand increased for Australian raw materials, from food to industrial minerals. First Japan and then China became major customers of Australia.

The Australian alternative (aside from isolation, which would be economically unsustainable) was to break or limit its ties to the United States and increasingly base its national security on Japan or, later, on China. The theory was that China, for example, was the rising power and was essential to Australian interests because of its imports, imports that it might secure from other countries. The price of the relationship with the United States -- involvement in American conflicts -- was high. Therefore, this alternative strategy would have limited Australia's exposure to U.S. demands while cementing its relationship with its primary customer, China.

This strategy makes sense on the surface, but there are two reasons that Australia, though it has toyed with the strategy, has not pursued it. The first is the example of Japan. Japan appeared to be a permanent, dynamic economic power. But during the 1990s, Japan shifted its behavior, and its appetite for Australian goods stagnated. Economic relationships depend on the ability of the customer to buy, and that depends on the business cycle, political stability and so on. A strategy that would have created a unique relationship between Australia and Japan would have quickly become unsatisfactory. If, as we believe, China is in the midst of an economic slowdown, entering into a strategic relationship with China would also be a mistake, or at the very least, a gamble.

The second reason Australia has not changed its strategy is that, no matter what relationship it has with China or Japan, the sea-lanes are under the control of the United States. In the event of friction with China, the United States, rather than guaranteeing the sea-lanes for Australia, might choose to block them. In the end, Australia can sell to many countries, but it must always use maritime routes. Thus, it has consistently chosen its relationship with Britain or the United States rather than commit to any single customer or region.

Australia is in a high-risk situation, even though superficially it appears secure. Its options are to align with the United States and accept the military burdens that entails, or to commit to Asia in general and China in particular. Until that time when an Asian power can guarantee the sea-lanes against the United States -- a time that is far in the future -- taking the latter route would involve pyramiding risks. Add to this that the relationship would depend on the uncertain future of Asian economies -- and all economic futures are now uncertain -- and Australia has chosen a lower-risk approach.

This approach has three components. The first is deepening economic relations with the United States to balance its economic dependencies in Asia. The second is participating in American wars in order to extract guarantees from the United States on sea-lanes. The final component is creating regional forces able to handle events in Australia's near abroad, from the Solomon Islands through the Indonesian archipelago. But even here, Australian forces would depend on U.S. cooperation to manage threats.

The Australian strategy therefore involves alignment with the leading maritime power, first Britain and then the United States, and participation in their wars. We began by asking why a country as wealthy and secure as Australia would be involved in so many wars. The answer is that its wealth is not as secure as it seems.

Read more: Australia's Strategy | Stratfor

Renewed talks with Iran come on the heels of a speech delivered Sunday by Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran’s military chief of staff, in which he called for the “full annihilation of Israel.” Like every other Iranian pronouncement revealing the murderous nature of the current regime, it will likely be brushed aside when negotiations between Iran and P5+1, (the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain plus Germany), begin in Baghdad tomorrow.

Amano’s rare trip to Iran marks the fourth meeting between the IAEA and Tehran. Two rounds of talks took place in Tehran in January and February this year, followed by a third round in Vienna on May 14-15. Yet despite reports of a more “upbeat atmosphere” both last week and yesterday, a large degree of genuine substance apparently remains beyond reach.

“We have extensive activities in fighting cancer, food safety and security, supplying water needs and other applications of the nuclear technology,” Amano said.

In other words, there was no indication of progress regarding the principal disagreement between the IAEA and Iran, namely a deal allowing the IAEA to inspect Iranian nuclear sites, most specifically the Parchin research facility, where IAEA inspectors were refused entry as recently as February.

Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator who attended the meeting Monday and who will be in Baghdad tomorrow, inadvertently confirmed the banality of the talks between the two sides, noting that his country was “a serious supporter of…global disarmament, confronting the spread of nuclear weapons and the usage of peaceful nuclear technology for (non-proliferation treaty) member states.” “Today we have good negotiations with Amano on these three fields and we hope to have good cooperation with the agency in the future in these areas,” Jalili said.

Furthermore, Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) may have revealed Iran’s true intent in negotiating with the IAEA prior to the Baghdad meeting.

“The IAEA’s opposition to the U.S. false claim over Iraq helped the agency steer clear of Washington so that the U.N. agency’s officials could not be considered as accomplice to the crimes committed by the U.S. statesmen in Iraq,” it reported. “Iran considers IAEA’s independence and promotion as a factor which would prevent violation of the member states’ rights,” it added.

This is a useful gambit in that it seeks to draw a dividing line between the IAEA and the United States. For optimists, it presents the possibility that Iran might be willing to make substantial concessions as long as it can make them directly to the U.N. instead of the U.S., thereby saving a certain amount of face should that reality come to pass. For realists, it is little more than an attempt to introduce another stumbling block between the international body and the P5+1, one either designed to gain Iran leverage in Baghdad–or give the Islamic nation still more time to develop nuclear weapons.

Adding to the intrigue is the idea expressed by many diplomats that Amano would not have traveled to Iran — his first trip to that nation since becoming the IAEA chief in 2009 — unless a deal between his agency and Tehran was close. Yet when Amano was asked if some sort of framework had been found that would answer questions about Iranian intentions, he declined to get specific. “I will not go into details but the agency has some viewpoints and Iran has its own specific viewpoints,” he said.

One of those “specific Iranian viewpoints” was revealed Sunday by Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran’s military chief of staff. “The Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel,” he said in a speech to a defense gathering in Tehran. Firouzabadi further insisted that the world should recognize the dangers imposed by the Zionist regime of Israel, and reiterated the idea that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei considers defending Palestine a religious imperative.

Earlier this year, Khamenei himself promised to “support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world” even as he flaunted his nation’s reputation for belligerence and anti-Semitism. “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off,” he said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February. “And it definitely will be cut off.”

Iranian apologists have long insisted that remarks such as the ones made by Khamenei and/or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been misquoted, misunderstood, or mis-translated and that the Iranians have never actually called for Israel’s destruction. American Jewish Committee executive director David Harris puts the lie to that notion. “Iran’s military chief of staff has left no doubt what is the regime’s goal, and why, if further proof is needed, its nuclear program must be stopped…General Firouzabadi’s comments are a timely and sobering reminder of the stakes involved,” said Harris. “They should also put to rest, once and for all, the fanciful views of those remaining political leaders, diplomats, and journalists who contend that Iran is a ‘peaceful’ nation which has simply been ‘misunderstood’ by the global community.”

No doubt they should, but the capacity for diplomatic self-delusion has a long and tattered track record, ranging from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 declaration that he had achieved “peace in our time” prior to the Nazi’s march through Europe and their extermination of six million Jews, up through the Agreed Framework of 1994, in which former president Bill Clinton and his North Korea negotiator, Jimmy Carter, convinced themselves the Hermit Kingdom had abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Thus, when Yukiya Amano has been quoted as as saying that his meeting with Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili heralded a “good atmosphere” for the Baghdad gathering on Wednesday, it must be measured against an INRA report that Jalili referred to Washington as “Hiroshima culprits” who continue to produce and stockpile nuclear weapons, and as such cannot lead the global nonproliferation campaign. Add a withering analysis by Mehdi Mohammadi, domestic political analyst and contributor to the newspaper group Kayhan, detailing why the West is negotiating from a position of weakness, and it seems clear that nothing substantive is likely to come from the latest round of diplomacy save one sobering reality: an apocalyptic regime led by men who believe it is their religious duty to usher in the second coming of the Hidden Imam will not be deterred from its “sacred” mission.

It is a sacred mission which necessitates acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet for Western appeasers who, via the IAEA, have been negotiating with Iran for nine years, there is always room for another round of talks. It is a tragic irony they are incapable of holding the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, and other members of this despicable regime to account.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/22/renewed-iranian-calls-for-israels-annihilation/

Copyright © FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

“All three male members of our family, including my father, brother and myself, were out for work when Irfan Safdar and his accomplices trespassed into our house and started beating up my mother, sister-in-law and my wife, who was in her fifth month of pregnancy, mercilessly,” he said.

Masih’s elderly mother said she pleaded for the attackers to spare his wife, but they did not listen.

“They murdered our children, they raped our daughter,” she said. “We have nothing left with us.”

In a country where Muslim criminals believe police and courts will give little credence to the complaints of Christians, the family accuses three Muslims of gang-raping the girl at an outhouse on March 29.

“She had gone to a nearby field to use the toilet when she was forcibly taken away by three men later identified as Irfan Safdar and Shahid. Their third accomplice remains unidentified as yet,” Masih said. “At first we thought that she might have stopped at some neighbor’s house, but when she did not return after a long time, we set out to look for her.”

He said a villager informed the family that he had seen Safdar and two others taking the girl to an outhouse. The family rushed to the site, but Safdar and his accomplices fled, Masih said.

“We found [name withheld] inside the outhouse, raped and badly injured,” he said.

Masih said the family tried to register a First Information Report (FIR) with local police, but officers turned a deaf ear, as Safdar is the son of former police inspector Safdar Bajwa.

“They also refused to register [the victim’s] statement under Section 164, which is mandatory in such cases,” he said.

Police refused to file their complaint for more than a week, during which time the suspects repeatedly threatened the family, he said.

“They told us we were poor and weak and could not face them no matter how much we tried,” Masih said. “There are about four or five Christian families in the overwhelmingly Muslim village, but almost everyone is fed up with the Bajwa family because of their criminal activities.”

Safdar Bajwa first denied that his son was involved in the case, but when several Muslim villagers started visiting the police station with the victim’s family, the accused surrendered a servant identified as Shahid to police, saying he had raped the girl, Masih said.

“The police tried to give a clean sheet to Irfan in the initial investigation, because of his father’s influence, but then registered FIR No. 145/12 under Section 376 against three men, including Irfan, when the villagers insisted,” he said, adding that police still did not arrest Safdar. “In April, Irfan and his accomplices illegally grabbed a piece of land owned by us. They did this to pressure us into giving up the case, but we stood our ground. We are poor, but we chose not to compromise on our honor.”

Masih said the Muslim family used various tactics to compel the victim’s family to drop the charges, and when all efforts failed, they attacked their house.

After neighbors informed the men at work of the attack, they took the injured women to a hospital.

“The doctors tried to save the babies, but Nosheen had a miscarriage because of the severe injuries inflicted by the attackers,” he said, adding that his wife was still in a state of shock and grief.

Masih said that the family has registered case No. 184/12 against Irfan Safdar and nine others, but the suspects managed to get pre-arrest bails with the help of police.

“Their interim bails end on May 22, and we know they will be able to influence their way out of this case as well,” he said. ‘There is no justice for the poor and helpless in Pakistan, especially if you belong to a minority community.”

Thus far, he added, they have received no assistance from any government or Christian organization.

“We cannot leave the village, because we don’t have any other place or means to go,” he said. “The villagers are giving moral support to us, but we need help in facing this situation. In villages, it is the police that matter, and in this case, the entire police machinery is working against us.”

Saddar Station House Officer Sohail Tariq was unavailable for comment.

www.compassdirect.org

**********

Copyright 2012 Compass Direct News

For subscription information, contact:

Compass Direct News
P.O. Box 27250
Santa Ana CA 92799-7250
USA
TEL: 949-862-0304
E-mail:  info@compassdirect.org
www.compassdirect.org

"Jerusalem is for Israel the focal point of Jewish History: the symbol of ancient glory, of longing, of prayer, of modern renewal." -- Abba Eban

Jerusalem just as Israel were words pronounced by G-d himself for the first time ever.  And, those who want to contend this, they can feel free to show us where are those two words, Jerusalem and Israel mentioned before the Torah.

The Tallmud says Jerusalem was named by G-d and the name is formed of two roots:  Yira means “to see” or “vision” and and shalayim comes from the word-root shalom which means “peace.”   

The Talmud also says that the creation began in Jerusalem and from there, the world radiated.  As a matter of fact, medieval maps show Jerusalem at the epicenter of Asia, Europe and Africa.  The world flows into this spot and life itself resonates from there.

As Abraham said, Jerusalem is the place where one can see G-d.  It was also the place of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac.

In the year 1004, before the common era, the G-d loving, fierce Jewish warrior, King David establishes Jerusalem as the Capital of the United Kingdom of Israel.

His successor and son, King Solomon, in 960, builds the Temple on the site designated by his father.  However, in 922, the Kingdom was divided between north (Israel) and south (Judah) with Jerusalem as capital of the southern kingdom.  In 586, Nebuchednazzar, King of Babylon captured and destroyed Jerusalem including the First Temple, and exiles the Jews to Babylon.   Entre 536-537, exile in Babylon ends and the Jews began their way back home led by Ezra and Nehemia.  During the reign of Darius in Persia, Jerusalem is restored and they dedicated the Second Temple.   Antiochus Epiphanes, King of Syria, plunders Jerusalem in 170, And during 167 to 164, the Maccabean revolts by Hasmoneans ended by the desecration of Temple by Antiochus.

And nowadays we are looking forward to rebuilding the Third Temple.

Let's celebrate Jerusalem Day, with joy in our hearts and prayers for her safety and the safety of the Land of Israel...

And, I have chosen King David, G-d's Fierce Warrior, the Founder of Jerusalem, to tell the world of the Jewish Sovereignty in Jerusalem, the Capital of the Land of Israel, Given by G-d to the Jews.

May G-d bless Jerusalem and the Land of Israel and His Faithful Jews worldwide -and our devoted friends...

Copyright©ElianaBenador
Art©StephenEHughes
Visit Eliana's blog atwww.elianaschoice.blogspot.com
Follow her on twitter
www.twitter.com/ElianaBenador

Goodwill Ambassador Eliana Benador is a global strategist and founder of Benador Associates. For speaking requests  kindlycontact her here. Stephen E. Hughes is Director of Research at Benador Associates.

Both fatwas elicited no condemnation from the main Pakistani media. However, two Pakistani women – an author and a blogger –slammed the clerics' fatwas, arguing that there is an urgent need to stop such fatwas against women. In an article titled "Fatwas Against Women: From The One Who Wears Bangles," Fouzia Saeed – an author and a social scientist – stated: "I think it is time for our society to forcefully stop such people who not only violate the dignity and safety of women citizens, but also give a bad name to Islam…"

Fouzia Saeed: "A Fatwa Was Announced In A Mosque On May 11, Stating That Any Woman Using A Cell Phone Will Have Acid Thrown In Her Face"

Following are excerpts from Fouzia Saeed's article:[2]

"Fatwas against women are becoming common again. In Noshki, Baluchistan, a fatwa was announced in a mosque on May 11, stating that any woman using a cell phone will have acid thrown in her face. Another fatwa was issued in Kohistan about two weeks ago, warning 'NGO women' that they would be forcefully married to their local men if they dared to enter the area. There was a time when such fatwas were more common, resulting in serious punishments inflicted on women who dared to venture beyond the four walls of their homes.

"However, over the last four years there has been a steady improvement in creating space for women to be more visible in public. After decades of repression, women have turned the cycle in a different direction by building a high level of solidarity among women from many backgrounds. The awareness that one woman's advancement is linked to breaking the shackles of others has gained ground. Not just women; many men are fully in support of this process of change.

"Who will tell the 'fatwa guys' that they are nearly an extinct species? Who will tell these men that they need to wake up to 2012. Who will tell them that our interest in them is limited to a single news item? Perhaps they should be kept in a museum with the caption 'we used to have people like this who thought work for women was 'un-Islamic' but marrying them by force was 'Islamic.'  Idiots who thought talking on a cell phone was 'un-Islamic' but throwing acid in women's faces was 'Islamic'!'

"I think it is time for our society to forcefully stop such people who not only violate the dignity and safety of women citizens, but also give a bad name to Islam, a religion which places a priority on the dignity of women."

"I Am More Worried About Those Who Put On A Progressive Facade And Continue To Reinforce Myths That Imply Women Are Inferior"

"I am not so worried about these fatwas because I am confident that our society will not let itself regress. I am more worried about those who put on a progressive facade and continue to reinforce myths that imply women are inferior. Our society takes these 'put-downs' for granted and uses them in a patronizing manner.

"Putting down a man by calling him a 'woman,' and thus a coward, has gone on for generations. These 'humiliations,' while being common among the ignorant, do concern me more when they are commonly used by our leaders.

"About two weeks ago, a senior minister raised his hands and announced that he was not wearing bangles, implying that he was not a coward but was 'brave' like a 'man' and would handle the violence in Karachi with a 'man's courage.' Ironically, men with their 'bravery' and 'courage' have already given that city enough trouble…

"I am a woman who wears bangles yet feels quite brave.  I am also a daughter of a brave woman, a woman who wears bangles and has felt very brave all her life. I salute my mother today on Mothers' Day and all the mothers who wear bangles while standing bravely…"

Tazeen Javed: "Fatwas Are So Commonplace That Even A Power Utility Company Resorted To Seeking One A Few Years Back To Get People To Pay For Their Electricity"

Following are excerpts from Tazeen Javed's article:[3]

"[We] are teeming millions of people who cannot feed themselves, have limited access to energy, and will be dumber and weaker in the future because of the stunted mental and physical growth of our children due to the lack of education. At such a juncture in history, amongst us are individuals who issue fatwas and promote misogyny and obscurantism against hygiene, education, health, and progress.

"The latest fatwa is one issued by a former legislator. Maulana Abdul Haleem of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazlur Rehman group) came up with a series of misogynist fatwas clearly detailing what the priorities of his political and religious followers should be. For starters, the fatwa declares formal education for women to be un-Islamic. As if declaring the act of going to school and getting an irreligious education was not enough, he also reprimanded the parents in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Kohistan district who send their daughters to school and asked them to terminate their education. He also strictly told them that failure to do so would earn them a spot in eternal hellfire.

"The fatwa goes on to declare all NGOs working in the region as 'hubs of immodesty.' He first blamed the women working in those NGOs for mobilizing the local women on health and hygiene issues and then called on the local men to marry the unmarried NGO workers – forcefully, if they have to – to make them stay at home.

"In short, a former legislator issues fatwas during a Friday sermon inciting hatred against a group of people (NGO workers) and declaring the constitutional rights of getting an education for half of the population forbidden and no one, barring a few bloggers and tweeters, raises even an eyebrow…

"Had it been just one fatwa from one cleric in one remote corner, perhaps, we could have ignored it. However, unfortunately, we churn out one edict after another without realizing what the rest of the world may think of us. If declaring hair implant services and vegetarian items, such as potato chips, halal is considered a viable marketing gimmick, then the abduction of minor girls from minority communities also gets legitimized through decrees by half-literate mullahs [clerics].

"Fatwas are so commonplace that even a power utility company resorted to seeking one a few years back to get people to pay for their electricity. Since that utility is still burdened with thousands of unpaid bills, we know how useless that fatwa turned out to be.

"A country like ours can ill-afford adventurism of any kind but most dangerous is the practice of resorting to a fatwa to get a point across. Not only does this breed a narrow and rigid view of issues, it also leaves no room for dialogue, debate and consultation, making us an increasingly 'stunted' and intolerant society."

SOURCE: MEMRI

© 1998-2012, The Middle East Media Research Institute All Rights Reserved.

Furthermore, the Syrian crisis has created rifts within the Lebanese government, with the Shiite parties, Hizbollah and Amal, standing steadfastly behind President Assad, in contrast to other members of the coalition, including PM Najib Mikati and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who have displayed much less enthusiasm towards the Assad regime. Internal quarrelling within the coalition has severely impaired the effectiveness of the current government.

However, the most severe byproduct of the Syrian crisis is the current rise of inter-sectarian tensions. The recent violent confrontations in Tripoli are a reflection of a largely factionalized and polarized society, characterized by a growing Sunni-Shiite divide. With the Sunni community largely backing the anti-Assad forces and the Shiites standing behind Assad, the Syrian crisis has escalated the tones of already sour political relations and the deep sectarian rift.

This latest round of violent inter-sectarian confrontations exploded on May 12, 2012 following the arrest of Sunni Islamist Shadi al-Mawlawi by the General Security Directorate (GSD). The GSD asserted that al-Mawlawi was involved in supporting terrorist activities against the Assad regime, a claim that has been largely rejected by the local Sunni community. Instead, they claimed that he had been unfairly detained because of his work in support of the anti-Assad opposition forces. Indeed, numerous Sunni politicians spoke against the arrest of the alleged terrorist, questioning the motives of the GSD – traditionally believed to be pro-Hizbollah and pro-Assad. As a result of the arrest, protests exploded around Tripoli, soon escalating into a fully-fledged armed confrontation between the Sunni and the Alawite community and resulting in approximately eight deaths.

While the Lebanese army has been able to stop the violence and reestablish order, the underlining sectarian tensions within Tripoli are all but subdued. Similarly, while the localized outbursts of violence are unlikely to escalate into a larger armed confrontation at the national level, the debate surrounding these episodes has had broader national implications. All in all, the national polarization over the clashes in Tripoli further confirmed the growing internal sectarian divide. In addition, some political observers within Lebanon worry that more violence may erupt in the Bekaa valley, currently home to a large number of Syrian refugees.

The recent violence in Tripoli also tells another story, one of growing divisions not just between the Sunnis and the Shiites, but also within the Sunni community.

In the years following the 2005 Syrian withdrawal, Lebanon has seen the gradual rise of both violent and non-violent Salafist groups. These groups were present in Lebanon since the 1980s, concentrated in areas around Tripoli and the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in the north, and Sidon and the Ein al-Hilweh Palestinian camp in the south. However, during the years of Syrian occupation of Lebanon, these Islamist groups were closely monitored by Syrian intelligence and prevented from criticizing both the government and the occupation, thus reducing their political status as well as their levels of activity.

Following the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, the newly elected March 14 forces led by the Sunni Future Movement allowed for non-violent Salafist groups to become more politically active, at times turning a blind eye towards the extremism showed by some of the other Salafists. While the Future Movement did not publicly endorse these groups, it indirectly tried to co-opt them by relying on the common anti-Syrian and anti-Hizbollah agenda in an effort to unite the Sunni community and ensure the political dominance of the party.

At the same time, over the years repeated confrontations between the violent Salafists and the Lebanese army have led to questioning the role of Salafists groups, especially in light of their potentially radicalizing impact. A prominent example of Salafist-driven violence is the bloody clash between the armed forces and the Salafi-jihadist group Fatah al-Islam, which lasted over a hundred days, claiming more than 400 lives. More recently, especially since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, there is a strong concern over the growing political influence of Salafism within the Sunni community. Although not powerful or significant enough to challenge the political dominance of the Future Movement, these groups have been gaining more followers within Lebanon. In turn, this raises the issue of the potential radicalization of the Lebanese Sunni community, as reflected in the recent clashes within Tripoli.

Finally, beyond the current impact of the Syrian crisis on Lebanese inter and intra-sectarian relations, in the longer term, if the Syrian regime were to collapse, this would have a more dramatic effect on Lebanon, likely giving new power and credibility to the political forces behind the March 14 coalition. In parallel, Hizbollah would be affected and would probably loose political capital, power, and popularity once its Damascus partner is gone. In turn, this would likely lead to a reshuffling of the Lebanese political cards, and the creation of new political alliances.