Biden’s Pier Is a Gift to Hamas Terrorists

Biden’s Pier Is a Gift to Hamas Terrorists

There are mounting concerns that the Biden administration’s pier plan could ultimately boomerang, especially, as Netanyahu himself has warned, if the US aid and the port itself end up in the hands More »

Ubwami bw’Ubupersi na bamedi (Persian’s Kingdom and Med’s Kingdom)

Ubwami bw’Ubupersi na bamedi (Persian’s Kingdom and Med’s Kingdom)

‘Yoseri’ Museveni ari kumwe n’ababyeyi be, Kuki Museveni yanga u Rwanda akomokamo? Umugambi w’Abatutsi bo munzu (y’Abasinga, Abashambo. Abega, Abashingwe) mu karere kibiyaga bigari uhereye mu gihugu cy’Ubuperesi (Uganda) aho bafashe ubutegetsi More »

Hamas’s Industrial Murder: Why Is Senator Chuck Schumer Not Demanding a Change of Leadership in Hamas and Iran?

Hamas’s Industrial Murder: Why Is Senator Chuck Schumer Not Demanding a Change of Leadership in Hamas and Iran?

When the terrorist organization Hamas murders, tortures, rapes and abducts Jews in Israel, do not be surprised that the Jews of today will respond with the righteous might of a nation that More »

Israel’s Strategic Game of Survival

Israel’s Strategic Game of Survival

“They wanted Israel’s counterattack, and then they wanted to hold in the tunnels and use the hostages just to buy time for the international community namely, the United States to stop the More »

“Biden’s actions are a violation of Israel’s sovereignty.”

“Biden’s actions are a violation of Israel’s sovereignty.”

  Israel Betrayed? It seems clear that the Biden administration would like to see the rapid creation of a Palestinian state or at least a “Palestinian unity government” — unfortunately composed of More »

 

The Islamists of Sweden by Nima Gholam Ali Pour

  • It seems clear that Muslim civil society in Sweden has an ideological direction that is close to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, while they criticize the laws and measures that prevent Islamic terrorism.

  • The Islamic Association of Sweden (IFIS) writes on their website that they are members of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE). There are strong links between FIOE and the Muslim Brotherhood. When the United Arab Emirates decided to list the Muslim Brotherhood and all branches of the movement as terrorists, they also listed IFIS as terrorists.
  • The strength of the political influence of Sweden’s Muslim civil society is evidenced by a 1999 agreement between the Muslim Council of Sweden and the Social Democrat party, that “Muslims’ participation in social democracy will evolve so that: in 2002 there should be among social democratic elected representatives Muslims in 15 municipal lists, 5 county lists and on the parliamentary lists in at least five counties.”
  • When a debate started in 2014 on making it illegal for Swedish citizens to travel to other countries to participate in jihad, the Muslim Human Rights Committee claimed that such a law would be racist. Furthermore, they argued that people who fought in jihad abroad were not even a threat against Sweden.
  • The greatest threat from Islamism comes not from the suicide bombers who carry out spectacular attacks, but from Islamists quietly infiltrating our democratic institutions and normalizing their ideas among us. It is a threat that must be recognized and addressed.

In Sweden, there are a number of Muslim organizations that together constitute what is known as “Muslim civil society” (Muslimska civilsamhället). What is important, when discussing Muslim civil society in Sweden, is their political influence, their ideology and their structure.

IFIS

One of the most important organizations in Sweden’s Muslim civil society is the Islamic Association of Sweden (Islamiska Förbundet i Sverige — IFIS), established in 1981. Some of the goals of IFIS, which you can read about on their website, are to “influence and form opinions on issues that concern the Muslim group and its interests in Sweden” and “increase participation, influence and representation of Muslims in public institutions and bodies”. In other words, IFIS works as a lobby organization for Muslims in Sweden.

It is a lobby organization that has been successful.

Former IFIS chairman Abdirizak Waberi represented the second largest party, the Moderate Party, in parliament between 2010 and 2014, when this party was in government. When Waberi sat in parliament, he was a member of the defense committee, which decides the policies for the Swedish Armed Forces.

Waberi’s time in parliament was a remarkable experience for many Swedes. In several interviews before 2010, Waberi said he believed in a literal interpretation of the Koran. In an interview from 2006, he supported the idea that men could have four wives. In another interview from 2009, he said that he does not shake the hand of a woman; that men and women should not dance with each other, and that he would rather live in a country with Islamic sharia law. After these interviews, clearly revealing that Waberi is an Islamist, and that he got to represent Sweden’s second-largest party in parliament, apparently without Swedish media or anyone else providing scrutiny over his past statements.

Omar Mustafa, who took over as chairman of IFIS in 2011, after Waberi, was elected to the leadership of the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) in April 2013. Mustafa’s election into the leadership of Sweden’s largest party triggered a reaction in which the media actually started to write about IFIS operations. The media reported that shortly before Mustafa was elected to the SAP leadership, IFIS had organized a conference in Stockholm, where it had invited speakers with anti-Semitic views. When the media began to examine IFIS’s operations more closely, Omar Mustafa was forced to resign from the Social Democratic leadership.

Despite the scandal around Omar Mustafa, IFIS continues to have a close relationship with both the largest party, the Social Democrats and the second largest party, the Moderate Party.

Mehmet Kaplan and “Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice”

Mehmet Kaplan is an example of how a person with origins in Muslim civil society can climb up into the Swedish government. Kaplan was secretary of the Swedish Young Muslims (Sveriges Unga Muslimer — SUM) between the years of 1996-2000. Then he became the chairman of this organization, until 2002. Between 2005 and 2006, Kaplan was the press secretary for the Muslim Council of Sweden (Sveriges Muslimska Råd). In 2008, Kaplan founded the organization Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice (Svenska Muslimer för Fred och Rättvisa — SMFR).

Kaplan was a member of the Green Party’s leadership between 2003 and 2011. He represented the Green Party in parliament between 2006 and 2014. Between 2014 and 2016, Kaplan was Sweden’s Minister of Housing.

After “alternative” media outlets in Sweden started writing about Kaplan’s dealings with various kinds of extremists, the Swedish mainstream media started to examine Kaplan. In 2014, Kaplan had already been criticized for having compared the Swedish jihadists who travel to Syria to join groups such as ISIS, with the Swedes who had gone to Finland during WWII to defend Finland from the Soviet military aggression.

When the media began to examine Kaplan, it emerged that in the summer of 2015, he had participated at a dinner where the leader of the fascist Turkish organization, the Grey Wolves, was in attendance. The media also found that Kaplan for several years had held meeting with the Islamist organization, Milli Görüs. It then emerged that Kaplan in 2009 compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis’ treatment of Jews.

Mehmet Kaplan was a minister in Sweden’s government until April 2016, when he was forced to resign after revelations that he compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to that of the German Nazis’ treatment of Jews. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Jan Ainali)

Kaplan also sat for several years on the board of an organization called Charter 2008, which defends dangerous jihadists and criticizes the war against terrorism.

When Mehmet Kaplan founded Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice (SMFR) in 2008, its “vision statement” stated:

“If you want to participate and influence the development of society, it is inevitable to become politically involved. Everything that is connected to power is ultimately linked to politics. Without power, it is not possible to create change. As an individual, organization and society, active players constantly seek power to get through various forms of changes, push through solutions to various societal problems, as well as the ability to express themselves about, as well as define, various societal challenges. One of SMFR’s goal is to gain power to change the world for the better.”

This “better” world is an Islamic world. In the same “vision statement”, SMFR writes:

“Islam should be the starting point for SMFR’s operations. It is on the basis of Islam where the main inspiration, commitment, drive, motivation, guidance and values will come from.”

SMFR embodies its goal by writing in its program that Islam should be a natural part of Europe’s cultural heritage. SMFR wants to work for a Swedish Muslim culture. In other words, SMFR works for the Islamization of Europe and Sweden.

SMFR is actively trying to realize their vision. The organization’s spokesperson and secretary-general, Yasri Khan, was nominated for the Green Party leadership and would certainly have been elected into the leadership, before a journalist in April 2016 revealed that Yasri Khan did not shake hands with women.

Members of the Green Party, which sits in the government of Sweden, apparently knew Yasri Khan refused to shake hands with women, and yet they were helping to elect him into the party leadership. The Green Party spokesman and Sweden’s Minister for Education, Gustav Fridolin, told the media:

“I knew about it. I had not realized how offensive some women think that it can be.”

Fridolin’s former press secretary is a woman named Anwahr Athahb. Only two years before Athahb became Fridolin’s press secretary, she had been elected to the vice-chairmanship of SMFR. Before that, she was the secretary of the organization. In 2014, Athahb was one of the Green Party’s leading candidates for the European Parliament. Her campaign-slogan was “The EU needs more Muslim women in Parliament”.

Today, Athahb works at an Arabic talk show on Sveriges Radio, Sweden’s national public taxpayer-funded radio broadcaster.

Muslim civil society’s political influence is great, reaches all the way up to the government, and that it exists in almost all major parties in Sweden.

Because there are so many examples of Muslim civil society’s political influence, it is not possible to include all examples in this article. But a final example may clarify how strong this influence is. Already in 1999, the Muslim Council of Sweden (SMR) signed an agreement with Sweden’s Social Democrat party that:

“In the coming term, Muslims’ participation in social democracy will evolve so that: in 2002 there should be among social democratic elected representatives Muslims in 15 municipal lists, 5 county lists and on the parliamentary lists in at least five counties.”

There are few lobbying organizations that can get the largest party in Sweden to sign an agreement with such clear and concrete promises.

Ideology

The Islamic Association of Sweden (IFIS) writes on their website that they are members of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE). There are strong links between FIOE and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Besides IFIS’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood through FIOE, IFIS often shows sympathy and support for the Muslim Brotherhood. In August 2013, IFIS held demonstrations in Stockholm in support of Egypt’s former Islamist President Mohamed Morsi, who had been deposed. The entire Muslim civil society in Sweden criticized the military coup against Morsi. Yet, the same Muslim civil society never criticizes the Islamist regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia. When the United Arab Emirates decided to list the Muslim Brotherhood and all branches of the movement as terrorists, they also listed IFIS as terrorists, because the authorities in the UAE assessed that this organization in Sweden was part of the international network of the Muslim Brotherhood.

When a debate started in 2014 on making it illegal for Swedish citizens to travel to other countries to participate in jihad, the Muslim Human Rights Committee (Muslimska Mänskliga Rättighetskommittén), one of the organizations within Swedish Muslim civil society, claimed that such a law would be racist. Furthermore, they argued that people who fought in jihad abroad were not even a threat against Sweden.

So when it comes to ideology, it seems clear that Muslim civil society in Sweden has an ideological direction that is close to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, while they criticize the laws and measures that prevent Islamic terrorism.

Structure

To understand the structure of Muslim civil society in Sweden, we need to look at Kapellgränd 10, in Stockholm, the official address for at least 15 different Muslim organizations, including the Stockholm Mosque. Muslim organizations such as IFIS, the European Muslim Rights Council, the Forum for Young Muslims, Sweden’s Imam Council, the Ibn Rushd Educational Association and the Swedish Muslim Scouts, use this same address for their organizations. The bulk of Muslim civil society in Sweden is controlled from Kapellgränd 10. Thus, the structure of Muslim civil society appears quite centralized.

The centralization of Muslim civil society can also be seen in that a few people sit in the leading positions of different Muslim organizations. If, for example, you take the organization, Ibn Rushd, which is an Islamic educational association in Sweden, its chairman is Helena Hummasten, who was chairman of the Muslim Council of Sweden until 2014. The principal of Ibn Rushd is Omar Mustafa, who was chairman of IFIS until 2016. The development manager of Ibn Rushd is Mustafa Tumturk, who is also a board member of the Muslim Council of Sweden. Mohammed Fateh Atia, who is responsible for digital development in Ibn Rushd, has also been vice-chairman of the Swedish Young Muslims (SUM). These are just a few examples of how a handful of people have strategic roles in several organizations in Sweden’s Muslim civil society.

Conclusions

Conclusions that can be drawn about Muslim civil society in Sweden include:

  • Muslim civil society has significant influence in almost all major Swedish political parties.
  • Muslim civil society’s influence is strong enough that one of their representatives was a government minister.
  • Muslim civil society in Sweden is an Islamist movement with organizational and ideological links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Muslim civil society consists, on paper, of several organizations but in practice, it operates as a single organization in which a few people have the leading roles.

We have been talking mostly about Islamism as something foreign, not among us in the Western world. But the influence of Islamists, or extremist Muslims, in a Western country such as Sweden is large; there have been Islamists in the Swedish government and parliament, without the media or establishment even reacting.

The greatest threat from Islamism comes not from the suicide bombers who carry out spectacular attacks, but from Islamists quietly infiltrating our democratic institutions and normalizing their ideas among us. It is a threat that must be recognized and addressed.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour is a member of the board of education in the Swedish city of Malmö and is engaged in several Swedish think tanks concerned with the Middle East. He is also editor for the social conservative website Situation Malmö. Gholam Ali Pour is the author of the Swedish book “Därför är mångkultur förtryck“(“Why multiculturalism is oppression”).

The Islamic Jihad and Peace with Jews by Bassam Tawil

  • On the face of it, the anti-normalization campaign appears driven by political motivations. However, it turns out that there is also a powerful Islamic angle to this campaign of hate, which is aimed at delegitimizing Israel and demonizing Jews.

  • The Palestinian anti-normalization “enforcers” do their utmost to conceal the Islamic aspect of their campaign. They are not eager for the world to know that Islam supplies much of the ideology and justification for their anti-Israel activities.
  • Fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) and statements issued by leading Muslim scholars and clerics have long warned Muslims against normalization with the “Zionist entity.” Such normalization, they have made it clear, is considered an “unforgivable crime.” The authors of these hate messages are not opposed to normalization with Israel because of settlements or house demolitions, but rather because they believe Jews have no rights at all to any of the land.
  • In 1989, more than 60 eminent Muslim scholars from 18 countries ruled that it was forbidden for Muslims to give up any part of Palestine.
  • The vicious campaigns to boycott Israel and Jews, while political in dress, are in fact deeply rooted in Islamic ideology.
  • These campaigns are patently not a legitimate protest. They are not even part of an effort to boycott Israeli products or politicians and academics. The real goal of the campaigns is revealed in the words of the Muslim leaders: that Jews have no rights whatsoever to the land, and must be targeted through jihad as infidels and enemies of all Muslims and Arabs
  • Settlements, checkpoints and fences are irrelevant; Muslim scholars want Jews off what they define as sacred Muslim land. Supporters of BDS and the anti-normalization movement would do well to consider this fact. Failing to do so is tantamount to aiding and abetting Muslims to destroy Israel, and kill as many Jews as possible in the process.

Muslim scholars have feverishly citing chapter and verse from the Quran and the hadith, the words of the Prophet Mohammed, in their efforts to encourage Arabs and Muslims to avoid normalization with Jews.

The Quran and hadith have also been leveraged to promote boycotts against Israel and Jews — thereby refuting claims by anti-Israel activists that their campaigns are just about politics.

Palestinians have long maintained that their campaign to ban normalization with Israel is mainly directed against the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The Palestinian anti-normalization movement, which continues to target Israeli and Palestinian peace activists who hold — horrors! — public meetings, has in recent years gained momentum, largely thanks to the ongoing anti-Israel campaign of incitement and indoctrination in the Palestinian media and mosques.

In recent years, Palestinian anti-normalization activists have managed to foil several meetings between Israelis and Palestinians, under the pretext that such encounters cause damage to the Palestinians. The activists justify their disruption by citing what they see as Israeli practices against Palestinians, and violently object to any meetings with Israelis, including those who wholeheartedly support the Palestinians and oppose the policies of the Israeli government.

The most recent incident occurred at the Ambassador Hotel in East Jerusalem, where Israeli and Palestinian activists gathered to talk about peace and coexistence. Shortly after the meeting began, a number of anti-normalization activists stormed the conference hall to protest the meeting.

“Meeting with Zionists is an act of treason,” one of the protesters shouted. “There are no solutions. Palestinian must be freed, from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea. Shame on you!”

The protesters claimed that they were opposed to the meeting because Israel was “demolishing Arab houses and killing Palestinians.”

Palestinian “anti-normalization” activists disrupt an unofficial Israeli-Palestinian peace conference Jerusalem’s Ambassador Hotel, in 2104.

Hind Khoury, a Christian woman who has previously served as Palestinian Authority ambassador to France, received the brunt of their anger. Khoury’s attempts to persuade the protesters that the meeting was not about normalization, but about achieving a just and comprehensive peace, fell on deaf ears. Ironically, it was the intervention of the Israeli Police that allowed Israeli and Palestinian activists to proceed with their conference.

Such scenes have become commonplace at the East Jerusalem hotel, a preferred site for unofficial peace conferences organized by Israelis and Palestinians. Anti-normalization activists raid the conference hall several times a year in their attempts to disrupt such gatherings.

The anti-normalization activists have also been vocal in Ramallah and other Palestinian cities. The Palestinian newspaper Al Quds, which recently published an interview with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, has also come under attack. For these Palestinians, conducting an interview with an Israeli government official is engaging in “media normalization.”

“The newspaper must apologize to the Palestinians,” the protesters demanded.

On the face of it, the anti-normalization campaign appears driven by political motivations. However, it turns out that there is also a powerful Islamic angle to this campaign of hate, which is aimed at delegitimizing Israel and demonizing Jews. The Palestinian anti-normalization “enforcers” do their utmost to conceal the Islamic aspect of their campaign. They are not eager for the world to know that Islam supplies much of the ideology and justification for their anti-Israel activities.

Fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) and statements issued by leading Muslim scholars and clerics have long warned Muslims against normalization with the “Zionist entity.” Such normalization, they have made it clear, is considered an “unforgivable crime.”

The authors of these hate messages are not opposed to normalization with Israel because of settlements or house demolitions, but rather because they believe Jews have no rights at all to any of the land.

“Normalization with the Zionist enemy means turning the presence of Jews in Palestine to something normal,” explained one scholar, Adnan Adwan. “Normalization means accepting the right of the Zionist entity to Arab lands and Palestine.”

In response to an inquiry from Palestinians about the perspective of Islam regarding peace and normalization with Jews, a group of leading Muslim scholars issued a fatwa stating that this was completely haram (forbidden). They even went farther by ruling that any form of peace with Jews was also haram, despite the fact that Prophet Mohammed signed a treaty, known as the Constitution of Medina, with Jews and other non-Muslims shortly after his arrival at Medina from Mecca in 622 CE.

In their fatwa, the Muslim scholars wrote: “It is true that Prophet Mohammed signed a treaty with the infidels, including the Quraysh tribe and the Jews, but he did not make concessions that are contrary to Islam.” They pointed out that Prophet Mohammed did not strike the deal with the infidels in order to allow them to stay in their homes permanently. Nor did the prophet promise to abandon jihad (holy war) as a result of this treaty, they added in their fatwa. “There is no evidence whatsoever that the Prophet or any of his successors had made peace with infidels controlling Islamic lands,” the fatwa clarified.

To support their argument, the scholars quote verses from the Quran which — they maintain — prohibit Muslims from making peace or ever placing their confidence in Jews. One verse which they claim refers to Jews is taken from Surah Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War): “And if they intend to deceive you, then verily, Allah is All-Sufficient for you. He it is Who has supported you with His Help and with the believers.” (62) According to the fatwa, this verse from the Quran refers specifically to Jews.

The scholars continue with another verse from the same Surah Al-Anfal to explain why Muslims must continue to fight against Jews:

“O Prophet (Mohammed)! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome a two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand.” (65)

Yet a further verse from the Quran is then cited to substantiate their ideology of war against the Jews — verse 7 from Surah At-Taubah (The Repentance):

“How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikin (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) expect those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun (the pious).”

According to the fatwa, the “treacherous” Jews have since failed to “repent” (presumably, convert to Islam) and that is why it is forbidden to make peace with them.

The Muslim scholars also point to several fatwas prohibiting peace and normalization with Jews issued in the past century. The ban dates back to 1935, when a group of Muslim scholars and clerics ruled during a conference in Jerusalem that it was forbidden for Muslims to sell Arab-owned lands to Jews. A year later, scholars from Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, one of the first Islamic universities in the Arab world, ruled that it was the duty of all Muslims to engage in jihad “to salvage Palestine.” In 1989, more than 60 eminent Muslim scholars from 18 countries ruled that it was forbidden for Muslims to give up any part of Palestine.

Other Muslim scholars have referred to another verse in the Quran to justify banning normalization with Jews. In Surah Al-Mumtahinah (The Woman to be examined), verse 1 states: “O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth.” They also quote the following hadith (a saying attributed to Prophet Mohammed) to support their claim against making peace with Jews: “Those who side with the unjust to assist them in their injustice, while knowing that they are unjust, walk out of Islam.”

The vicious campaigns to boycott Israel and Jews, while political in dress, are in fact deeply rooted in Islamic ideology.

The anti-normalization activists and those promoting boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel perceive Jews as the enemies of Allah and Prophet Mohammed. These campaigns are patently not a legitimate protest. They are not even part of an effort to boycott Israeli products or politicians and academics. The real goal of the campaigns is revealed in the words of the Muslim leaders: that Jews have no rights whatsoever to the land, and must be targeted through jihad as infidels and enemies of all Muslims and Arabs.

Muslim scholars have left no room for doubt about their view of the true nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Settlements and checkpoints and fences are irrelevant; Muslim scholars want Jews off what they define as sacred Muslim land. BDS and anti-normalization movement supporters might do well to consider this fact. Failing to do so is tantamount to aiding and abetting Muslims to destroy Israel, and kill as many Jews as possible in the process.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

The Invisible (Female) Palestinians by Khaled Abu Toameh

  • Instead of referring to the female candidates by name and publishing their pictures, the electoral lists are using the terms “the wife of” or “sister.”

  • “It is disgraceful for any Islamic, national or independent list to scrap the names of the women. If they are not willing to recognize the woman’s name, how will they accept the role of the women after they are elected? … I’m against the participation of women in this manner. Let men participate in the election alone.” — Nahed Abu Taima, Media Development Center at Bir Zeit University.
  • Dr. Walid Al-Qatati, a writer and analyst specializing in Islamic affairs, said that the move reminded him of wedding invitations that are sent out without naming the brides.
  • When Palestinian women carry out attacks against Israelis, Palestinian society glorifies them as heroes. Then the names and photos of these women are plastered across billboards. Yet it appears that when the women wish to work for life rather than for death, their identities are not fit for public consumption.

In a move that has outraged Palestinian women and various Palestinian factions, a number of Palestinian lists contesting the upcoming local elections, scheduled to take place on October 8, have decided to omit the names and photos of female candidates.

Instead of referring to the female candidates by name and publishing their pictures, the electoral lists are using the terms “the wife of” or “sister.”

Critics have denounced the move as a “sign of retardation, extremism and bigotry.” Other Palestinians have gone so far as comparing the removal of the female candidates’ names and photos from the lists to the cruel pre-Islamic practice of infanticide (wa’d).

The decision to conceal the names and photos of female candidates is seen in the context of the increased “Islamization” of Palestinian society, which is already considered highly conservative.

Apart from being a severe blow to the struggle of Palestinian women for equality, the move is in violation of the 2005 Palestinian Local Election Law, which stipulates that candidates must be fully identified by name, age, address and registration number in the electoral list.

This anti-woman undertaking is not taking place only in the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamist Hamas movement. It is also baring its fangs in some parts of the West Bank, which is ruled by the Western-funded Palestinian Authority (PA), headed by Mahmoud Abbas.

Yet Palestinian women’s names and pictures have been hidden from electoral lists before. In the previous local election, for example, which took place in 2012 only in the West Bank after Hamas decided to boycott the vote, female candidates’ names and photos were replaced with images of a rose or pigeon.

Nahed Abu Taima, gender unit coordinator in the Media Development Center at Bir Zeit University, expressed resentment over the disappearance of females from the electoral lists and called on women to boycott the vote:

“I’m against the participation of women in this manner. Let men participate in the election alone. Either we have an honorable appearance or we don’t want this fake appearance, which ignores the reality of women. The Palestinian Election Commission is not fulfilling its role as required. It is disgraceful that they are using the terms ‘sister’, ‘daughter of’ and ‘wife of’. Women are not nobody, so as to be hidden or have their names removed or replaced with the names of their husbands. This is the pinnacle of betrayal and repudiation.”

Another prominent Palestinian female activist, Nadia Abu Nahleh, strongly condemned the misogynistic move:

“We consider this action a grave regression in our performance as Palestinians because we are proud of our women’s major and basic role in society. Our women have always been partners in our national life. Therefore, it is disgraceful for any Islamic, national or independent list to scrap the names of the women. If they are not willing to recognize the woman’s name, how will they accept the role of the women after they are elected? If our names are ‘awra [the part of the body of a Muslim that is required to be covered] then our votes should not go to those lists that conceal the names of women.”

In Islam, a woman’s ‘awra is the whole of her body except her face and hands. However, some Islamic clerics have ruled that the entire body of the woman is ‘awra, including her nails. By contrast, the ‘awra for men includes the area from the end of the navel down to, and including the knee. Exposing the ‘awra is unlawful in Islam and is regarded as a sin.

Many Palestinians took to social media to denounce the practice of hiding the women’s names and pictures. On Twitter, activists launched a hashtag entitled, “Our names are not ‘awra.”

“It is deplorable that we have to resort to social media to prove that our names are not ‘awra,” wrote Palestinian blogger Ola Anan in a post on Twitter.

“It is very piteous that a there are people today who are ashamed to mention the names of their mothers or wives. It is deplorable to see that our society is not marching backward, but is in fact living behind. Months, years and decades pass by and our society does not want to move forward from this ‘backward’ attitude – not even one step.”

Palestinian experts and activists are in agreement that the anti-woman move is both illegal and immoral.

“What some of the lists did against women is a violation of human rights and the rights of women, as well as a breach of equality,” protested Najat Al-Astal, a Fatah female member of the Palestinian Legislative Council. “All women must reject this practice by some of the lists because the conditions for running in the election include publishing the name and identity of all candidates, including females.”

Karm Nashwan, a lawyer and legal rights activist, said that the removal of the women candidates’ names and photos was a breach of the Palestinian law. He added that the move was in the context of attempts to marginalize the role of women in Palestinian society. Female activist Intisar Hamdan condemned the move as being “part of the culture that is ashamed of women’s names.”

Some men have also come out against the move. Furthermore, the Palestinian Central Election Commission has ruled that the move is in violation of the law and its regulations. This is good news for those women who are now threatening to boycott the upcoming election. But the lists that removed the women’s names and photos from the public eye do not seem to be deterred by the outcry and protests. While they did submit the full details of their female candidates to the commission, the lists continue to conceal the names and pictures of the women in their public election campaigns, most of which are taking place on social media.

Dr. Walid Al-Qatati, a writer and political analyst specializing in Arab and Islamic affairs, said that the move reminded him of wedding invitations that are sent out without naming the brides:

“The name of the bride has become a letter or an image and those invited to the wedding can only guess who it is. It is as if this is a new form of female infanticide. During the jahiliyyah [pre-Islamic period of ignorance and barbarism], females were being buried alive. Today, they are also being buried alive, but above the soil. They are being buried as human beings first and as women second.”

Another Palestinian man, Hassan Salim, noted the hypocrisy of those Palestinians who often boast of the progress women have made in Palestinian society:

“What kind of hypocrisy is this that while they boast of the role and struggle of women, describing them as angels, we are at the same time ashamed even to mention their names and we replace their pictures with images of roses? … This degradation of women requires a boycott of these lists.”

Some Palestinian political groups have also come out against the move. One of them, the Palestinian People’s Party (formerly the Communist Party), said in a statement: “The humanity of a woman is not ‘awra, the name of a woman is not ‘awra, the voice of a woman is not ‘awra.” Calling on the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Central Election Commission to dismiss the “alien and aberrant phenomenon,” the party warned against attempts to “drag the Palestinians back towards the Stone Age or even worse than that.”

When Palestinian women carry out attacks against Israelis, Palestinian society glorifies them as heroes. Then the names and photos of these women are plastered across billboards for all to see and applaud. Yet it appears that when the women wish to work for life rather than for death, their identities are not fit for public consumption.

When Palestinian women carry out attacks against Israelis, Palestinian society glorifies them as heroes. Then the names and photos of these women are plastered across billboards for all to see and applaud. Yet it appears that when the women wish to work for life rather than for death, their identities are not fit for public consumption.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

The Indonesian Jihad on Christian Churches by Raymond Ibrahim

  • “We will not stop hunting Christians and burning churches. Christians are Allah’s enemies!” – Islamic leaders, Aceh region.

  • In other parts of Indonesia, where Islamic law, or Sharia, is not enforced, churches, even fully registered ones, are also under attack

  • On Dec. 25, 2012, with all required paperwork in place, when the congregation assembled on empty land to celebrate Christmas, hundreds of Muslims threw rocks, rotten eggs, and bags filled with excrement at the Christians. Police stood by and watched.


  • For Indonesia, the country once hailed as the face of “moderate Islam,” the “extremist” behavior one would expect of ISIS has apparently become the norm.

In compliance with Islamic demands, Indonesian authorities in the Aceh region have started to tear down Christian churches. Their move comes after Muslim mobs rampaged and attacked churches. At least one person was killed; thousands of Christians were displaced.

On Friday, October 9, after being fired up during mosque sermons, hundreds of Muslims marched to the local authority’s office and demanded that all unregistered churches in Aceh be closed. Imams issued text messages spurring Muslims from other areas to rise up against churches and call for their demolition.

On Monday, October 12, authorities facilitated a meeting with Islamic leaders and agreed to demolish 10 unregistered churches over the course of two weeks.

Apparently this was not fast enough to meet Muslim demands for immediate action. On the following day, a mob of approximately 700 Muslims, some armed with axes and machetes, torched a local church, even though it was not on the list of churches agreed upon for demolition.

The remains of a church in the Aceh region of Indonesia, still on fire, after hundreds of Muslims attacked it on October 13, 2015. (Image source: CCTV video screenshot)

The Muslim mob then moved on to a second church, an act that led to violent clashes. One person, believed to be a Christian, died after being shot in the head. Several were injured, as Christians tried to defend their church against the armed mob.

Approximately 8,000 Christians were displaced; many fled to bordering provinces. Their fears were justified: Islamic leaders continued issuing messages and text messages saying, “We will not stop hunting Christians and burning churches. Christians are Allah’s enemies!”

Instead of punishing those who incited violence and took the law into their own hands by torching and attacking churches, local authorities demolished three churches (a Catholic mission station and two Protestant churches) on October 19. In the coming days, seven more churches are set to be demolished; in the coming months and years, dozens more.

Authorities had originally requested of church leaders to demolish their own churches. “How can we do that?” asked Paima Berutu, one of the church leaders: “It is impossible [for us to take it down] … Some of us watched [the demolition] from afar, man and women. It was painful.”

The situation in Aceh remains tense: “Every church member is guarding his own church right now,” said another pastor

As for the displaced Christians, many remain destitute, waiting for “desperately needed clean water, food, clothes, baby food, blankets, and medicines.” As Muslim militants were reportedly guarding the border with an order to kill any Christians crossing the line, reaching the Christians is difficult.

Many Muslims and some media try to justify this destruction by pointing out that the churches were in the wrong for not being registered. In reality, however, thanks to Indonesia’s 2006 Joint Decree on Houses of Worship, it is effectively impossible to obtain a church permit. The decreemade it illegal for churches to acquire permits unless they can get “signatures from 60 local households of a different faith,” presumably Muslims, as well as “a written recommendation from the regency or municipal religious affairs office” — that is, from the local sheikh and council of Muslim elders: the same people most likely to incite Muslims against Christians and churches during mosque gatherings. Christian activists say there are many mosques that are unregistered and built without permits, but the authorities ignore those infractions.

Others try to justify these recent attacks on churches by pointing out that they took place in Aceh, the only region in Indonesia where Islamic law, or Sharia, is officially authorized, and where, since 2006, more than 1,000 churches have been shut.

Yet in other parts of Indonesia, where Islamic law is not enforced, even fully registered churches are under attack. These include the Philadelphia Protestant Church in Bekasi — nearly 1,500 miles south of Sharia-compliant Aceh. Even though it had the necessary paperwork, it too was illegally shut down in response to violent Muslim protests. On December 25, 2012, when the congregation assembled on empty land to celebrate Christmas, hundreds of Muslims, including women and children, threw rotten eggs, rocks, and plastic bags filled with urine and feces at the Christians. Police stood by and watched.

A church spokesman stated, “We are constantly having to change our location because our existence appears to be unwanted, and we have to hide so that we are not intimidated by intolerant groups. … We had hoped for help from the police, but after many attacks on members of the congregation [including when they privately meet for worship at each other’s homes], we see that the police are also involved in this.

Bogor is another area where Islamic law is supposedly not enforced. Yet the ongoing saga of the GKI Yasmin Church there illustrates how Islamic law takes precedence over Indonesian law. In 2008, when local Muslims began complaining about the existence of the church, even though it was fully registered, the authorities obligingly closed it. In December 2010, the Indonesian Supreme Court ordered the church to be reopened, but the mayor of Bogor, refusing to comply, kept it sealed off.

Since then, the congregation has been holding Sunday services at the homes of members, and occasionally on the street, to the usual jeers and attacks by Muslim mobs. On Sunday, September 27, the church held its 100th open-air service.

The Indonesian jihad is taking place in varying degrees all throughout the East Asian nation and is not limited to Sharia-compliant zones such as Aceh. For the country once hailed as the face of “moderate Islam,” the “extremist” behavior one would expect of the Islamic State (ISIS) — hating, attacking, and demolishing churches — has apparently become the norm

The Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism on Free Speech by Denis MacEoin

  • The 57-member-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have been working hard for years to render Islam the only religion, political system and ideology in the world that may not be questioned with impunity. They have tried — and are in many respects succeeding — to ring-fence Islam as a creed beyond criticism, while reserving for themselves the right to condemn Christians, Jews, Hindus, democrats, liberals, women and gays in often vile, even violent language. Should anyone say anything that seems to them disrespectful of their faith, he or she will at once be declared an “Islamophobe.”

  • Like almost every world leader, Obama declares, with gross inaccuracy, that “Islam is a religion of peace”. It is politically expedient to deny the very real connection to jihad violence in the Qur’an, the Traditions (ahadith), shari’a law, and the entire course of Islamic history. They do this partly for political reasons, but probably more out of fear of offending Muslims. We know only too well how angry many Muslims can become at even the lightest offence.
  • “If PEN as a free speech organization can’t defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name. … I hope nobody ever comes after them.” – Salman Rushdie, on the PEN members who objected to giving its award to Charlie Hebdo, after 12 of its staff were murdered by jihadists.
  • The OIC succeeded in winning a UN Human Rights Council resolution that makes “defamation of religion” a crime. But the OIC knows full well that only Muslims are likely to use Western laws to deny free speech about their own faith. Last year, the US Congress introduced House Resolution 569, also purportedly intended to combat hate speech. It contains an oddity: it singles out Muslims for protection three times. It does not mention any other faith community.

One of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment in Europe and the United States is the principle of free speech and reasoned criticism. Democracy is underpinned by it. Our courts and parliaments are built on it. Without it, scholars, journalists, and advocates would be trapped, as their ancestors had been, in a verbal prison. It is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, in the words

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Without full freedom to express ourselves in speech or in print, none of us could criticize a religion, an ideology, a political party, a law, an academic theorem, or anything else we might feel to be misguided, flawed, or even dangerous. Through it, we are free to worship as we choose, to preach as we see fit, to stand up in a parliament to oppose the government, to satirize the pompous, to take elites down a peg or two, to raise the oppressed to dignity, or to say that anything is nonsense.

Sir Karl Popper, the philosopher, wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies in defence of democracy, freedom and free speech. In Popper’s open society, all people have to be able to think and express themselves freely, without fear of punishment or censorship.

Closed societies are totalitarian and depend on claims to absolute truth. The citizen is not free to challenge the ideas of the state. Theocracies, including past and present Islamic states, rest for their authority on the rigid application of infallible scripture and divinely revealed laws.

The chief threat to free speech today comes from a combination of radical Islamic censorship and Western political correctness. Over the past century and more, Western societies have built up a consensus on the centrality of freedom of expression. We are allowed to criticize any political system or ideology we care to: capitalism, socialism, liberalism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism, even democracy itself. Not only that, but — provided we do not use personalized hate speech or exhortations to violence — we are free to call to account any religion from Christianity to Scientology, Judaism to any cult we choose. Some writers, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, have been uncensored in their condemnations of religion as such.

It can be hard for religious people to bear the harsher criticisms, and many individuals would like to close them down, but lack that power. Organizations such as Britain’s National Secular Society (established in 1866) flourish and even advise governments.

It used to be possible to do this with Islam as well. In some measure it still is. But many Muslim bodies — notably the 57-member-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — have been working hard for years to render Islam the only religion, political system and ideology in the world that may not be questioned with impunity. They have tried — and are in many respects succeeding — to ring-fence Islam as a creed beyond criticism, while reserving for themselves the right to condemn Christians, Jews, Hindus, democrats, liberals, women, gays, or anyone else in often vile, even violent language. Should anyone say anything that seems to them disrespectful of their faith, he or she will at once be declared an “Islamophobe.”

I am not talking here about hate literature comparable to the ubiquitous anti-Semitic writing so freely available on the internet. Much milder things have fallen and continue to fall afoul of Islamic defensiveness. We know some of the more obvious: a novel, a bunch of cartoons, some films, some political speeches, and a few blogs which have resulted in savage floggings, imprisonment, torture, death threats and murders. There is plenty of vulgar anti-Muslim comment online, just as there is plenty of everything in the public arena. But Muslim sensibilities have become so tender now that even fair, balanced, and informed questions about Muhammad, his early followers, the Qur’an, various doctrines, aspects of Islamic history, the behaviour of some Muslims, even the outrages committed by them, are rejected as Islamophobic.

Politicians and the media rush to disavow any connection between jihadi violence and Islam, and hurry to protect Muslims from the anticipated anger that massacres might provoke. Officials are not wrong to urge against reprisals or hatred targeting ordinary, uninvolved Muslims. But many often seem too quick to avoid pinning blame on actual Islamic laws and doctrines that inspire the jihad attacks.

Just after the horrendous slaughter in a gay nightclub in Orlando on June 12, U.S. President Barack Obama made a speech in which he described the attack as an “act of hate” and an “act of terror”. Not “Islamic terrorism” or even the misleading phrase “Islamist terrorism”. Like almost every world leader, he declares, with gross inaccuracy, that “Islam is a religion of peace”. It is politically expedient to deny the very real connection to jihad violence in the Qur’an, the Traditions (ahadith), shari’a law, and the entire course of Islamic history. Obama and many others simply deny themselves the right to state what is true, partly for political reasons, but probably more out of fear of offending Muslims in general, and Muslim clerics and leaders in particular. We know only too well how angry many Muslims can become at even the lightest perceived offence.

The list of threats, attacks, and murders carried out to avenge perceived irreverence towards Islam, Muhammad, the Qur’an or other symbols of Islam is now long. Even the mildest complaints from Muslim organizations can result in the banning or non-publication of books, distancing from authors, condemnations of alleged “Islamophobes” by declared supporters of free speech, the cancellation of lectures, arrests, and prosecutions of men and women for “crimes” that were not crimes at all. There are trials, fines and sentencings for advocates of an accurate and honest portrayal of Islam, its sources, and its history.

Danish author Lars Hedegaard suffered an attack on his life and lives in a secret location. Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, suffered an axe attack that failed, and is under permanent protection by the security services. In 2009, in Austria, the politician Susanne Winter was found guilty of “anti-Muslim incitement,” for saying, “In today’s system, the Prophet Mohammad would be considered a child-molester,” and that Islam “should be thrown back where it came from, behind the Mediterranean.” She was fined 24,000 euros ($31,000) and given a three-month suspended sentence. The phrase “child molester” was based on the fact, recorded by Muslim biographers, that Muhammad had sexual relations with his new wife A’isha when she was nine years old.

In 2011, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a former Austrian diplomat and teacher, was put on trial for “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion,” found guilty twice, and ordered to pay a fine or face 60 days in prison. Some of her comments may have seemed extreme and fit for criticism, but the court’s failure to engage with her historically accurate charge that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl and continued to have sex with her until she turned eighteen, regarding her criticism of it as somehow defamatory, and the judge’s decision to punish her for saying something that can be found in Islamic sources, illustrates the betrayal of Western values of free speech in defence of something we would normally penalize.

The stories of the bounty placed on Salman Rushdie’s head by the Ayatollah Khomeini, the threats and attacks against the artists who drew the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, or the murderous assault on the editorial team at Charlie Hebdo on January 7, 2015 are well known. Accustomed to free speech, open blasphemy, and satire, at home with irreverence for individuals and institutions, and assured of the legality of those freedoms — threats and attacks like those terrify us. Or should.

Iran’s then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini put a cash bounty on the head of British novelist Salman Rushdie 27 years ago, because he deemed Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, offensive. In February 2016, a group of Iranian media outlets added $600,000 to the cash reward.

But even more terrifying is the way in which so many politically correct Western writers and politicians have turned their backs on our most basic values. There are many instances, but the most disturbing has to be the reaction of Pen International, the internationally acclaimed defender of free speech everywhere, to Charlie Hebdo. PEN International is known worldwide as an association of writers. Together they work tirelessly for the freedom of authors from imprisonment, torture, or other restrictions on their freedom to write honestly and controversially. In 2015, PEN’s American Center planned to present its annual Freedom of Expression Award during its May 5 gala to Charlie Hebdo. The award was to be handed to Gerard Biart, the publication’s editor-in-chief, and to Jean-Baptiste Thorat, a staff member who arrived late on the day when Muslim radicals slaughtered twelve of his colleagues. This is the sort of thing PEN does well: upholding everyone’s right to speak out even when offence is taken.

When, however, this was announced, six PEN members, almost predictably, condemned the decision to give the award to Charlie Hebdo, and refused to attend the gala. Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi exercised their right to double standards by blaming Charlie Hebdo for its offensiveness. Kushner expressed her discomfort with the magazine’s “cultural intolerance.” Does that mean that PEN should never have supported Salman Rushdie for having offended millions of Muslims just to express his feelings about Islam?

Peter Carey expressed his support, not for the satirists, but for the Muslim minority in France, speaking of “PEN’s seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognize its moral obligation to a large and disempowered segment of their population.” We never heard Carey speaking out when a young Jewish man, Ilan Halimi, was tortured to death for weeks in France, or when Jews in Toulouse were shot and killed. He seems to be saying that the French government should shut up any writer or artist who offends the extreme sensitivities of a small percent of its population.

Teju Cole remarked, in the wake of the killings, that Charlie Hebdo claimed to offend all parties but had recently “gone specifically for racist and Islamophobic provocations.” But Islam is not a race, and the magazine has never been racist, so why charge that in response to the sort of free speech PEN has always worked hard to advance?

A sensible and nuanced rebuttal of these charges came from Salman Rushdie himself, a former president of PEN:

“If PEN as a free speech organization can’t defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name. What I would say to both Peter and Michael and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them.”

Those six later morphed into something like one hundred and forty-five. By April 30, Carey and the others were joined by another one hundred and thirty-nine members who signed a protest petition. Writers, some distinguished, some obscure, had taken up their pens to defy the principle of free speech in an organization dedicated to free speech — many of whom live in a land that protects free speech in its First Amendment precisely for their benefit.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation had succeeded in winning a UN Human Rights Council resolution (16/18, 2010) that makes “defamation of religion” (read: blasphemy in the eyes of its followers) a crime. But the OIC knows full well that only Muslims are likely to use Western laws to deny free speech about their own faith. Five years later, in December 2015, the US Congress introduced House Resolution 569, intended to combat hate speech and other crimes. Insofar as it addresses matters of genuine concern to us all, it seems beyond reproach. But it contains an oddity. It singles out Muslims for protection three times. It does not mention any other faith community.

The greatest defence of our democracy, our freedom, our openness to political and religious debate, and our longing to live in Popper’s open society without hindrance — namely freedom of expression — is now under serious threat. The West survived the totalitarianism of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union without any loss of our freedoms. But today, a new enemy has arisen, global in its reach, more and more often militant in its expression, rooted in 1.6 billion people, seated at the UN and other international bodies, and already partially cowing us into submission to its repressive prejudices. Since the edict against Salman Rushdie, there is no way of calculating how many books have been shelved, how many television documentaries have never been aired, how many film scripts have been tossed in the waste bin, how many conferences have been cancelled or torn down, or how many killers are waiting in the wings for the next book, or poem, or song or sport that will transgress the strictures of Islamic law and doctrine.

Denis MacEoin PhD is a specialist in Islamic affairs. He is currently writing a study of concerns about Islam in the Western world.

Skip to toolbar