Muslim Clerics Declare Sandy A Just Punishment For America

BLUF: Leading Saudi Arabian and Egyptian clerics are calling Hurricane Sandy a just soldier (one of allah's weakest) taking vengeance against America.

Saudi clerics. the Saudi prince, and Egypt have no respect or positive regard for our nation, none whatsoever. The US has given grants and funds to Egypt for decades. In 2009 the United States gave Egypt $3.5 billion dollars in grants and economic & military aid, according to US Census Bureau information. These monies from American tax payers when added to the money earned from the Suez Canal totals $8.2 billion dollars yearly revenue. We provide political support and billions in financial aid and they kick us while we are down. Typical, really, for the Middle East at large.

What about Saudi Arabia? Saudis must surely appreciate being the beneficiary of the largest transfer of wealth in world history. According to the Energy Information Agency (www.eia.gov) in 2010 the U.S. imported approximately 1.2 billion barrels of oil which, at today's rates $84.62, is $203 billion dollars in two years. 

When a natural disaster strikes any one of the 190 countries in the world, America cries with those victims. What do the leading Islamic voices in these two countries do when America gets hit? The majority of the religious elites called Hurricane Sandy revenge from Allah against America.

The Arabian and Egyptian  clerics directly published on this include Saudi Clerics Nassir al-Omar, Sheikh Salan al-Odeh, Sheikh abd al-Aziz bin 'Abdallah aal al-Sheikh, Egyptian Cleric Al-Azhar Sheikh Salam abd al-Al Galil, and UK native Anjem Choudray (one group of his was banned  in England) have all spoken about the damage to the East Coast.

Al-Omar issued a fatwa to celebrate the death and destruction along the East Coast. He referred to America as "the spearhead of evil then asks why not celebrate? We are called arrogant and tyrannical and all Muslims globally should celebrate Hurricane Sandy's swath of death and destruction.

Choudray chimed in that hurricanes are among the least of allah's army and that America deserves them.

Aal al-Sheikh, the Saudi Arabian Mudti, was concerned only for the Muslims who were in the path of Sandy. He said that to celebrate the destruction and to "curse them is improper" as there were muslims in the areas hit. Real deep concern, right folks?

Galil was concerned about the image that Muslims would earn if seen celebrating. He is telling the muslim community that it is perfectly fine to dance, sing, and rejoice privately, just do not do it in the streets where you will be seen.

Al-Odeh was even less obvious saying that America is, as Muhammad said, idolaters in Mecca "may their sons become muslim.

These and other public statements should be shown all over American news. Our policy makers should penalize those countries. Pull our aid, get England to stop arms sales to these and other anti-West states (read as our enemies). If they rejoice at our pain then they are clearly not friends. Geo-Politically, not being friends in this manner equates to enemies. We have an obligation to not pay them.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/67

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx86.htm

Threats to Religious Freedom in Post-Revolt Arab Nations

I originally posted this piece on September 4th of 2011. It continues to draw traffic, so I am reposting it today.

Clinton and Obama may appear to be making a statement in support of religious freedom, but do not believe that is so. What I think they are saying is that we should ignore dictators and how they treat their subjects so as not to bring religious intolerance to their countries. They point at the growing levels of intolerance in Egypt and Libya with a gentle nod towards Syria and Iran. They are saying that we should ignore what is going on in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and other similar countries (to include Somalia). Their claims of toppling dictators has opened various religious sects in those countries to intolerance, rather than the bigotry, prejudice, and fanaticism they have faced for generations. Check the timeline, you two, the term “generations” is cutting it kind of short, try centuries.

US Sounds Alarm on Threats to Religious Freedom in Post-Revolt Arab Nations

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration warned Tuesday of growing religious intolerance and violence in Arab nations undergoing popular revolts that could undermine fragile democratic transitions.

While the overthrow of longtime autocratic leaders in the Middle East and North Africa has given millions hope for freedom it has also opened up religious and ethnic minorities to new threats, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. She urged countries not to “trade one form of repression for another” and to embrace the freedom to worship for all faiths as they embrace political pluralism for the first time in generations.

“In the Middle East and North Africa, the transitions to democracy have inspired the world but they have also exposed ethic and religious minorities to new dangers,”  Really? By bringing down tyrants and dictators and introducing freedom religious minorities are NOW being persecuted? What about the Christians who had their throats slit open on film in Somalia by al-Shabaab? Those attacks did not happen JUST because of “freedom from oppression”. How would she respond to the now six month old slaughter of Syrians sunni muslims by Bashir al-Assad? Is that due to a new found freedom?
“The people of the region have taken exciting first steps toward democracy, but if they hope to consolidate their gains they cannot trade one form of repression for another,” she said. She must have meant this in relation to Somalia. You know, the former al-Shabaab/al Qaeda senior leader turned miitant war-lord Inda Ahde is now openly and unabashedly stealing weapons, money, food, and other supplies from AMISOM forces and the national government of Somalia. To be certain he is also taking aid provided by both Iran and America, right Hillary? Please see http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/07/clinton-un-et-al-get-called-with-bs.html and http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/n-aid-convoy-looted-in-mogadishu.html for more on this.

Since the beginning of the year, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have all ousted longtime authoritarian rulers and pledged to move to democracies. Rebellions are also under way in Syria and Yemen. The U.S. has publicly expressed concern about post-revolt sectarian violence and the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in Egypt and Libya. It has also condemned attacks on religious minorities in Syria as the government continues a months-long brutal crackdown on opponents.

In addition to highlighting concerns in those countries, the report also took aim at abuses of religious freedom in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Iran and Saudi Arabia were identified once again as “countries of particular concern” for their records, meaning that governments there “engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.” That designation can bring about U.S. sanctions, but Clinton waived sanctions against Saudi Arabia, a key regional U.S. ally that forbids the public practice of any religion other than Islam. All religious minorities in Iran, particularly Bahais, Sufis, Christians and Jews, were targeted for discrimination in Iran, the report said.

Saudi Arabia, the seat of Wahabism, is now listed as a country of concern? Really? You mean, a country with a history of arresting people for religious views other than islam ( and raping & beating them while in custody) is now a country of concern? Why, then was the State Department warning travelers of the dangers and risks of going there in 2010?

Freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice. The country is an Islamic state governed by a monarchy; the king is head of both state and government. Sunni Islam is the official religion. The country's basic law declares the Holy Qur'an is the constitution, and the legal system is based on the government's application of the Hanbali school of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

The State Department lists one or two examples of why someone would go to court.

… closed court proceedings in capital cases made it impossible to determine whether the accused were allowed to present a defense or were granted basic due process, and there were reports that the government killed civilians in conflict.

The government reportedly announced 26 executions during the year, all by beheading. Death sentences for two women and one man convicted of witchcraft and sorcery were reportedly vacated.

With the basis of their law being the quran and the law is sharia law, how can she say these things about a society run by the religion of piece? Keep in mind that, while things in Saudi Arabia are dark for travelers, how must it be in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control?

How about other countries where we can see the peace and stability of sharia? Look at all that has been on the Evening News about Syria … or, how about Obama’s success with the Sudan/South Sudan accord? Alright, Iran is there with the regimes while they slaughter their citizens and Obama/Clinton are not vocal about that. Nor have they said anything about the Iranian supported discord in Yemen. Interesting, I have not seen much about Iran in Saudi Arabia, maybe that is because the two countries are at odds?

In earlier posts I made the assertion that Saudi is in a precarious position with Iranian led violence and allies to the north in Syria and Lebanon as well as to the south in Yemen. Not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood is no friend to the House of Saud, either. Saudi Arabia is in a tight spot.

While the Washington Post reports Clinton as saying toppling dictators leads to religious intolerance, I say religious intolerance leads to dictators and the introduction of free speech and press (also the internet) brings awareness of those evils to the world. I encourage you to search my blog for anything and everything to do with Clinton or Obama and their failed foreign policies. Yes, these are their failed foreign policies, they have done it together.

While we are on this, Hillary, Barry, let’s stop sending them money and aid since all that is only going towards further oppressing the rights which our country was built on.

Take a look at some of my earlier postings

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/religious-intolerance.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/07/aid-to-somalia-really.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/syrian-slaughter-is-family-tradition.html

http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2011/08/sudan-no-longer-terroristic-but-still.html

Bibliography

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-sounds-alarm-on-threats-to-religious-freedom-in-post-revolt-arab-nations/2011/09/13/gIQApurlPK_story.html

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148843.htm

Nine Fronts in the Next War

After having written and posted several pieces regarding Iran and its malignant spread I find this piece at Front Page Magazine. The BLUF is that, in case of a war against Israel, nine fronts have the potential to exist. Israel is surrounded and will have to make one of two choices

1.      1. Fight conventionally and die

2.      2. Go nuclear

There will be no help from the Obama administration if it happens before the next election. That’s my take. Please, let me know your take.

Nine Fronts in the Next War

Posted By David Meir-Levi On September 7, 2011 @ 12:30 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage |

The current unrest pursuant to the “Arab Spring” is a mixed blessing for Iran. On one hand, if young Bashir were to fall, Iran will lose its most important ally in the western part of the Arab world. A break with Syria would be a serious defeat for Iran, since it would no longer be able to supply Hezbollah directly, nor would it have direct contact and supervision over its proxy terror armies in Lebanon, the Sinai, and the Gaza Strip.  It would also be very bad news for Hezbollah, whose terrorist leaders rely heavily on Iranian supplies, funds, and armaments, all channeled into Lebanon via Syria.  Hamas too would suffer from a break in its link with its Iranian godfather.

But on the other hand, Iran is exploiting the great opportunity created by the chaos and upheaval of the “Arab Spring”.  Iran does not want to see its foothold in the west undermined by this upheaval, so it has helped Bashir in his use of extreme force; and it has also begun to manipulate the “Arab Spring” violence and unrest to its advantage.

To gain maximum benefit from the situation in Egypt and to turn the world’s attention from Syria, Iran has activated two of its proxies, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to renew attacks on Israel: blowing up the natural gas pipeline from the northern Sinai to Israel, firing scores of rockets into Israeli towns and villages near the Gaza Strip, most recently launching three brutal attacks on civilians near Eilat, and more in the offing.  Igniting a new war between Israel and Egypt, or at least precipitating a crescendo in the incendiary calls for war from the Egyptian populous and neighboring Arab states, would be a marvelous win-win for Iran and for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the best organized and most popular of the political groups contending for power in post-Mubarak Egypt.

If Israel’s response to the attacks from the Gaza Strip and Sinai were to trigger a war with Egypt, Israel is likely to win; but the turmoil and upheaval in the wake of that war would weaken the Egyptian generals currently ruling Egypt with a temporary de facto mandate.  Once shamed in defeat, they would lose credibility and popularity (there already have been protests against their continued rule and postponed elections).  This scenario would create the perfect storm into which the MB could sail to political control.  If, despite the attacks, Israel shows restraint, the MB can still shame the generals for not confronting Israel, and then either provoke a war or use the failure of the generals to confront Israel as a way to shame and weaken them and pave the way for the MB’s own rise to power.

Better yet, if Iran, through its proxies, could spark a war with Israel, and the other forces confronting Israel were to join in, Israel would be fighting on many fronts at once.  In that case, the likelihood of Israel’s victory is in question.

El Qaeda is thoroughly ensconced in the Sinai.  Currently Israel and Egypt are said to be in conversation about Egypt’s re-militarizing the Sinai, so perhaps the Egyptian army could be deployed against al-Qaeda and Hamas there.  But if the MB succeeds in gaining a position of political strength in Egypt, it is not likely that the Egyptian military will be deployed in the Sinai to drive al-Qaeda out.  Quite the opposite, the MB wants a military confrontation with Israel. So it is likely to see al-Qaeda in Sinai as an ally in such a war. And if the MB and al-Qaeda go to war against Israel, then Hamas in the Gaza Strip is sure to follow.  Hamas cannot stand idly by while its Egyptian brethren initiate the great final jihad against Israel.

With Egypt, al-Qaeda and Hamas attacking Israel on its southern and western fronts, Iran will want Hezbollah to get in on the action and make use of the thousands of rockets and missiles that it has stockpiled just for this very moment, thus opening a northern front.

Syria may have difficulty deploying a large military force on the Golan front if it must use its military against its civilian demonstrators; but Iran will be in a position to aid Syria in suppressing unrest (probably in a manner similar to what Bashir’s father Hafez el-Assad did in 1982), and young Bashir will want a distraction on the Golan front to turn his citizenry’s attention, and the opprobrium of the world, from his slaughter of unarmed demonstrators. Even if Bashir falls, undesirable for Iran but an eventuality that the Mullahs may be anticipating, a Syrian government run by the MB or other Islamo-fascists of that ilk will be delighted to join Egypt and others in a pincer-movement assault on Israel. So a Syrian Golan front is very likely to open once Israel is at war with Egypt, Hamas, el-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

In the West Bank, Hamas is strong because its extreme Islamo-fascist ideology and commitment to Israel’s annihilation hold the sympathies of many.  Fatah and the PLO, the main components of the PA, are condemned in some circles for their collaboration with Israel.  The PA will not be able to maintain a position of power if it chooses to sit out a war against Israel; especially since the PA is in stiff competition with Hamas for the hearts and minds of the West Bank electorate, and it looks like entering a shooting war with Israel is a good way to win those hearts and minds.  So it is very likely that another intifada could erupt once the southern, western and northern fronts are aflame, probably targeting the Israeli communities scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.  Such a terror offensive could cause high numbers of casualties but is not likely to create an existential military threat.  However, a West Bank terror war would be a serious distraction for Israel and would reduce Israel’s ability to concentrate its military on the fronts that are existential threats.

And then there are the Arab Israelis.  No one knows for sure how many Arab Israelis are active supporters of Hamas et al, but however many there are, they could be mobilized for fifth column terrorism against Israeli military bases, infrastructure, and civilians: another distraction that would sap Israel’s ability to face the greater threats on its borders.

Egypt, al-Qaeda in Sinai, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria in the Golan, Palestinian terrorist forces in the West Bank, and Arab Israelis in downtown Israel: Seven fronts.

But there’s more!

Jordan sits on a powder keg and the MB is itching to light the fuse.  If the MB succeeds in supplanting the Hashemites, there can be little doubt that the newly Islamized Jordan will join the war against Israel, at very least by aiding and abetting the West Bank Arab terrorists, and perhaps by launching their own invasion from the east: front number eight.

Iran is moving ahead with alacrity to achieve WMD capabilities, despite some setbacks engineered by Israel over the past 5 years (Stuxnet being the most recent). Iran already has missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads to Israel and beyond.  West Bank or Israeli Muslims vaporized by Iran’s nuclear attack are not part of the Mullahs’ concerns.  Muslim men will be martyrs, united with their celestial virgins (unclear what happens to the women and children), and besides, “Allah knows best who is wounded in His way.”[i] The Arabs of the West Bank and Israel are merely expendable pawns , collateral damage, just part of the price that the Arab world must pay for its final victory over Israel.  Syria is a very important part of this equation, because Syria has substantial stockpiles of missiles and chemical warheads which can be deployed against all of Israel at very close range, to augment the internal terrorism from the West Bank and from Arab Israelis, and to mop up whatever of Israel may survive Iran’s nuclear attack.

So Iran is front number nine – and it will be a nuclear front.

In short, Israel is in greater danger now than it has ever been, even more so than during its 1948 war of survival.

Notes:

[i] A quote from Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, from his writings on Jihad, quoting a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari.  See http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/ and http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0061.aspx for Qur’anic and extra-Qur’anic sources.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/09/07/nine-fronts-in-the-next-war/print/

Islam Does Not Set a Minimum Age for Marriage

Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-'Arifi: Islam Does Not Set a Minimum Age for Marriage

Muhammad Al-'Arifi: "There is no agreed-upon minimum age for the marriage of a boy or a girl. It depends upon their maturity. Let's assume that someone wants to marry your 20-year-old daughter. But your daughter's mentality and capabilities… She wouldn't know how to handle it. You feel that her marriage is bound to fail, because she has no understanding of how she is supposed to behave. You think that this girl is not ready to get married. It would be best to wait two or three years. 

"We don't want to marry her off, and then have her husband divorce her after 2-3 weeks, saying: 'What is this?! This girl doesn't know what to do, she has no appreciation of marital life. She knows nothing.' In such a case, it is better to delay marrying her off.   

"In the days of Prophet Muhammad and his companions, people would get married at a younger age. For example, how old was 'Aisha when the Prophet Muhammad married her? I will give you a hint." 

Member of panel of Saudi youth: "She was seven years old."   

Muhammad Al-'Arifi: "And how old was she when he had sex with her?"  

Member of panel: "Fourteen."  

Muhammad Al-'Arifi: "Fourteen?! No way, she was nine. You are getting married tonight and you still can't count…   

"She was nine years old. People might think it is strange that he married such a young girl. But this was the age at which they used to get married. The proof is that when the Prophet told Abu Bakr that he wanted to marry 'Aisha – what did Abu Bakr say? He said: 'You are more than welcome, oh Messenger of Allah, but my daughter is already married.' At seven years old she was already married. […]  

"If a girl's physical and mental build allows her to get married, it is okay for her to get married. There is no minimum age for a girl's marriage set by Islam." […]

Saudi Columnist: Obama – Get Out!

The following are some paragraphs from a new column in Saudi ARabia. I think it is quite clear how the Saudi cleric feels about Obama

"All last month, I kept my eyes out for Mr. Obama, who appeared so often at the outset of the 'Arab Spring' and suddenly disappeared, leaving the tyrants' armored vehicles to wreak havoc in the land. I sought 'Abu Hussein' [i.e. Obama] everywhere [and] wondered where he was hiding – this man whose [face] did not leave the TV screen throughout the Egyptian revolution, and who had asked [Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak to step down, appearing every five minutes to say to his erstwhile ally: 'Get out today, not tomorrow!'

"Obama got lost in the old neighborhoods of Damascus. He 'dissolved like a lump of salt,' as our brothers in Egypt say. [He did so] even though, [in contrast to] the U.S.'s [close] ties with Hosni Mubarak's regime, U.S. relations with the Syrian regime [are weak], and even though the number of victims in the protests of the Egyptian revolution [was far smaller] than the number of victims in the protests now sweeping Syria's cities.

"In Egypt, 'mother America' pressured Hosni Mubarak to step down immediately, while in Syria, 'mother America' has pressured the opposition to engage in dialogue with the regime.

"How is one to interpret this? Who supports whom, and who is against whom? What is Obama thinking? And why did 'mother America' become so hard of hearing the minute the cries broke out in Der'a, Hama, Homs, and Aleppo?

"Obama is not the only one who uses a double standard [vis-à-vis the revolutions in Egypt and in Syria]. The Arabs as a whole are toeing his line. The press, the intellectuals, and the revolutionary parties all tried to coordinate [their positions] with the cries of the revolution of Egypt's youth, raising Cain throughout the world when [Libyan ruler Mu'ammar] Al-Qadhafi began to oppress his people, and demanding that the president of Yemen step down when the revolution broke out there. [But] less than an hour after the bloody events began in Syria, they all fell silent, as if a raven were sitting on their heads and pecked at the bodies of the innocent.

"When [Hizbullah leader] Hassan Nasrallah praised the revolution of Egypt's youth and then became an enemy of the youth in Syria, by asking them to adhere to their regime – it was not difficult to understand [his motives], nor was [it difficult to understand Iranian Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei's stance. But the position of the U.S., which is not very different from that of Iran in both cases – the Egyptian and the Syrian – is difficult to understand. Where is Obama hiding?

"We do not want him to say a thing. This time, we want to say to him: Obama – get out!"

Endnotes:

[1] 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), July 12, 2011.