Category Archives: Blog

Obama’s Muslim adviser criticizes Assad for not being able to deliver “resistance to Israel”

Obama selected Dalia Mogahed as an adviser on the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She is an open advocate of Sharia, so it’s no surprise that she supports the Syrian revolutionaries, who are the same as the other “Arab Spring” revolutionaries: pro-Sharia Islamic supremacists. But for her to characterize Assad as not being able to deliver on “resistance to Israel,” besides purveying the Palestinian jihadist canard of Israel aggression, also ignores the fact that Damascus was headquarters for Hamas and other jihad organizations, and Assad pursued a course of consistent hostility to Israel.

But not hostile enough for Obama adviser Dalia Mogahed.

UPDATE: from a7

A Muslim adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama warned in a post on the Twitter social networking site last week that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can’t deliver ‘resistance to Israel.’ The adviser, Egyptian-born Dalia Mohaded, is employed in the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, at the White House.

The tweet, posted on March 10 and picked up by the media watchdog Jihadwatch, read as follows: “To those siding w/Assad: he cannot deliver stability, protection of minorities, or resistance to Israel. He is a killer w/o legitimacy.”

The tweet has sparked numerous responses in media, on the Internet and on Twitter reflecting concerns that Mohaded appeared to be more concerned about the Syrian president’s inability to carry out “resistance to Israel” — which is a key U.S. ally — than his compassion for his own people, and his murderous rampages against them.

More than 8,000 Syrians have died at the hands of government forces since the Arab Spring uprising a year ago sparked brutal retaliation by Assad loyalists against civilian protesters, including torture, rape and other atrocities. Many of the victims were women and children. Turkey has reported at least 14,000 refugees from Syria have crossed the border near Idlib into its territory; the United Nations estimates that more than 200,000 people have been left homeless by the burgeoning civil war in which Assad’s troops have fired heavy artillery at city neighborhoods in order to suppress the uprising.

The issue of Mogahed’s questionable priorities has also been raised by the Family Security Matters (FSM) organization, who noted that Mogahed serves on the U.S. Homeland Security Council, and is an executive at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and its polling center.

“Mogahed has been a tenacious defender of groups like the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood,” points out FSM in a post on the organization’s website.

CAIR was one of some 300 unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation conviction in which the organization was shut down for illegally channeling funds to the Hamas terrorist rulers of Gaza.

The organization insists that it is a civil rights group focused on promoting understanding of Islam and dedicated to fighting discriminating against Muslim Americans.

Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human Rights

By JanSuzanne Krasner

A controversy over the defeat of Florida legislation that would have restricted state courts from considering foreign laws as part of legal decisions has intensified.  This is after a Tampa judge ruled that two opposing Muslim parties have their dispute settled under Islamic sharia law “pursuant to the Quran” in spite of the fact that one Muslim group did not want to do this…and the Florida Appellate Court denied the petition to appeal the judge’s ruling.

The proposed law, SB 1360, had been opposed jointly and lobbied against by both CAIR and the ADL.  It drew the passionate attention of many in the Florida Jewish community, where opinions seem to be drawn on party lines.  These groups erroneously argue that this ban will actually put other religious laws in jeopardy as well, especially Jewish religious law, called Halakhah.

English: 11th Century North African Qur’an in ...

Abraham Foxman, Director of the ADL, claims that passage of the law would have been “harmful to the religious freedom of all Floridians, including observant Jews.”

He and others are seriously mistaken.  The defeated law and others proposed by several state legislators are meant to make it clear that disputes heard in religious alternative courts must not contradict or interfere with the administration, application, or exercise of state and federal constitutional law, and either party has the right to immediate redress in the civil secular court system for enforcement of those rights.  These proposed legal guidelines do not prohibit the use of other religious laws — only sharia law.

In a recent Florida Jewish newspaper article, the publisher emeritus made an argument in defense of sharia courts in America based on the existence of other religious courts.  He believes that sharia law is constitutionally compatible, just like Halakhah and Canon Law and is more economical, and that banning it is simply unconstitutional, discriminating against one religious group over others.

This position is substantiated by comparing sharia law to Jewish law, noting the similarity of the two.  But this editor falls short in his argument by avoiding a comparison of the serious differences that exist in the laws of the Quran, which sharia legislates.  Like others espousing this position, the editor presents an incomplete picture and uses it to belittle those who take an opposing viewpoint.  It is most important to include the inequalities inherent in Islamic law in any discussion of this nature because they expose the unconstitutionality and incompatibility of sharia law within the American justice system.

American citizens must be allowed to question, without being called “Islamophobes” or “bigots,” the inherent threat of Islamic sharia ideology, disguised as only religious law, before it endangers our American society.  The political correctness of this constitutional argument actually blinds one to the dangers of some Islamic laws…specifically those that pertain to women and children and the punishments rendered for breaking these laws.  It is clearly the dissimilarities that distinguish other religious laws from the unconstitutionality of sharia laws.

Opponents to SB 1360 offered as proof of the wisdom of their position that religious laws are already being used in local civil courts in determining judgments regarding family matters, dietary requirements, and business disagreements…and they point out that nothing disastrous has happened.  The guidelines applied to these decisions are in line with, and enforceable by, the American court system.  But it is also necessary that both parties agree to participate in a religious court rather than a secular court and that they both agree that the decision of the arbitrator is binding.

On the face of this, as the editor pointed out, is there is nothing “sinister” about religious courts settling family, dietary, and financial disputes, especially with this practice already having gone on for years in arbitration courts.  Some even wonder why anyone would question our Constitution’s and appellate courts’ ability to prevent the impact by Islamism in America.

The “sinister” fact is that Islamic ideology makes Muslim women and children powerless, intimidated by the obscene rules of a male-dominated society.  Sharia law requires women to present practically impossible proof of their innocence, such as eyewitnesses to being raped.  A woman who seeks justice for this crime, files for divorce, or desires child custody, or a child that strays into Western ways, has hardly any means to win in a sharia court.

In addition, the Islamic laws prescribe cruel and inhuman punishments that the American people would understand and agree to be inhumane and unconstitutional.  These penalties usually pertain to sexual matters, stealing, alcohol consumption, and apostasy and include punishments that are retaliatory in nature.

Caning and flogging in public are done in cases where a female is found guilty of a minor sexual infraction, and stoning to death for a wife’s adultery is common in the Muslim world.  Amputation of a hand or foot is considered an appropriate price for thievery, while beheading, crucifying, and hanging are the recommended penalties for murder or blasphemy.  Children can also be harshly treated under sharia law by being forced to remain in the custody of an abusive father after there is a divorce.

Killing in the name of “family honor” is an accepted form of Islamic punishment for a woman’s unfaithfulness or a Muslim child straying too far from the Islamic way.  To believe that Muslim women who seek justice in America are willingly agreeing to sharia courts is absolute blindness.

One has to wonder how anybody, whether liberal or conservative, religious or not, can support such treatment of more than half of the Muslim population (23% of the global population is Muslim) and condemn those of us fighting this unjust ideology entering our court system.  It seems that all that is heard is how victimized Muslims are, especially after 9/11, and we know how well Americans can identify with the so-called underdog.  (The facts show that religious persecution of Muslims is extremely small when compared to the global growth of anti-Semitism and the Islamic persecution of Coptic Christians.)

It is also important to add to the information the Muslim Brotherhood’s credo, which clearly presents the Quran as the supreme word of Allah, above all other laws: “Allah is our goal, the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way and death for the sake of Allah is the highest aspiration.”

This mission statement was written back in the late 1920s by the fastest-growing political organization in the Muslim world today.  It demands that the U.S. Constitution take a back seat to the Quran, which rejects America’s constitutional secularism and its legal penalties, while Halakhah and Canon law do not.

The evidence of extreme female and child subjugation in Islamic sharia law should be enough to justify strong American non-partisan support in favor of banning sharia courts without jeopardizing the other religious courts’ status.  Those religious leaders fearing that Halakhah or Canon laws are threatened by banning sharia law need only to take a look at the inherent unconstitutionality of sharia laws before condemning the proposed legislation.

What the Koran REALLY says

THE QUR’AN SAYS THAT ALLAH GAVE THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO THE JEWS
AND WILL RESTORE THEM TO IT AT THE END OF DAYS by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi

1702 Visscher Stoopendaal Map of Israel, Pales...

THE QUR’AN SAYS:

“To Moses We [Allah] gave nine clear signs. Ask the Israelites how he [Moses] first appeared amongst them. Pharoah said to him: ‘Moses, I can see that you are bewitched.’ ‘You know full well,’ he [Moses] replied, ‘that none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth has revealed these visible signs. Pharaoh, you are doomed.'”

“Pharaoh sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharaoh] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: ‘Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel].”

“We [Allah] have revealed the Qur’an with the truth, and with the truth it has come down. We have sent you [Muhammed] forth only to proclaim good news and to give warning.”

[Qur’an, “Night Journey,” chapter 17:100-104]

SHAYKH PROF. PALAZZI COMMENTS:

God wanted to give Avraham a double blessing, through Ishmael and through Isaac, and ordered that Ishmael’s descendent’s should live in the desert of Arabia and Isaac’s in Canaan.

The Qur’an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled.

 

****************************************MUSLIMS MUST RECOGNIZE THE STATE OF ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE

Is there any fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel as a friendly State?

I realize that a negative answer to the above question is taken for granted by popular opinion. My approach, however, is not based on popular opinion or the current political situation, but on a theological analysis of authentic Islamic sources.

Viewing the Jewish return to Israel as a Western invasion and Zionists as recent colonizers is new. It has no basis in authentic Islamic faith. According to the Qur’an, no person, people or religious community can claim a permanent right of possession over any territory. The Earth belongs exclusively to God, and He is free to entrust sovereignty over land to whomever He likes for whatever time period that He chooses.

“Say: ‘O God, King of the kingdom (1), Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and Thou strippest off the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest; Thou endowest with honour whom Thou pleasest, and Thou bringest low whom Thou pleasest: all the best is in Thy hand. Verily, Thou hast power over all things.'”(2) [Qur’an 3:26]

From the above Qur’anic verse we deduce a basic principle of the Monotheistic philosophy of history: God chooses as He likes in the relationship between peoples and countries. Sometimes He gives a land to a people, and sometimes He takes His possession back and gives it to another people.

In general, we can say that He gives as a reward for faithfulness and takes back as a punishment for wickedness, but this rule does not permit us to say that God’s ways are always plain and clear to our eyes, since His secrets are inaccessible to the human intellect.

Using Islam as a basis for preventing Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over the Land of Israel is new. Such beliefs are not found in classical Islamic sources.

Concluding that anti-Zionism is the logical outgrowth of Islamic faith is wrong. This conclusion represents the false transformation of Islam from a religion into a secularized ideology.

Such a false transformation of Islam was in fact made by the late Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini. He is the one person most responsible, both morally and materially, for the repeated Arab defeats in their conflict with the Jews in Israel.

Husseni not only incited Arabs against Jews. He also encouraged the torture and murder of all Arabs who correctly understood that Arab cooperation with Jews was a precious opportunity for the development of the Land of Israel. Husseini ended his woeful life by putting his perverted religious teachings at the service of the evil and pagan Nazis.

After Husseini came Jamal al-Din ‘Abd al-Nasser. Nasser based his policy on Pan-Arabism, hatred and contempt for Jews, and an alliance with the atheistic Soviet Union. Nasser’s terrible choices were critical factors in maintaining Arab backwardness. Fortunately, most of Nasser’s mistakes were afterward corrected by the martyr Anwar Sadat. (3)

After the defeat of Nasserianism, Islamic fundamentalist movements made anti-Zionism the primary feature of their propaganda. They presented the negation of any Jewish rights to the Land of Israel as rooted in authentic Islam and derived from authentic Islamic religious principles.

 

***********************************THE LAND OF ISRAEL IN QUR’ANIC EXEGESIS

The fundamentalist Muslim program to use Islam as an instrument for political warfare against Jews finds a major obstacle in the Qur’an itself. Both the Bible and the Qur’an state quite clearly that the right of the Israelites to the Land of Israel does not depend on conquest and colonization. This right flows from the will of almighty God Himself.

Both the Jewish and Islamic Scriptures teach that God, through His chosen servant Moses, decided to free the offspring of Jacob from slavery in Egypt and to constitute them as heirs of the Promised Land. Whoever claims that Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel is something new and rooted in human politics denies divine revelation and divine prophecy as explicitly expressed in our Holy Books (the Bible and Koran).

The Qur’an relates the words by which Moses ordered the Israelites to conquer the Land:

“And [remember] when Moses said to his people: ‘O my people, call in remembrance the favor of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'” [Qur’an 5:20-21]

Moreover – and those who try to use Islam as a weapon against Israel always conveniently ignore this point – the Holy Qur’an explicitly refers to the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel before the Last Judgment – where it says: “And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'” [Qur’an 17:104]

Therefore, from an Islamic point of view, there is NO fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel as a friendly State.

 

*********************************************ISLAM AND NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ISLAMIC STATES AND THE JEWISH STATE

PLO documents can in no way be regarded as Islamic. The PLO leaders are a gang of criminals and thieves, and Arabs will be the main victims of any supposed “Palestinian State” under their leadership.

I do not believe that Islam is the factor preventing normalization between Arabs and the State of Israel. The real problem is that members of the ruling classes in Arab countries believe their authority and power would be threatened by democracy, modernization, and education in the Arab world. They use a distorted interpretation of Islam as a political tool, and unfortunately the majority of uneducated Arabs believe their poisonous propaganda.

I believe that we must return to the time when Islam was in the vanguard of scientific progress and interfaith dialogue. Instead of false “leaders” such as Qadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Arafat [el-Husseini] or Yasin, we Muslims again need true leaders such as al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldum.

King Faysal of Iraq said: “The Arabs, and particularly the educated ones among them, must look at the Zionist movement with the deepest sympathy.”

Tragically, true leaders such as Faysal were silenced, and fanatics such as Haj Amin al-Husseini prevailed.

The evil consequences of the victory of fanaticism are clear for all to see: Jews expelled from Arab countries where the lived in peace for over one thousand years, “Palestinian” refugees, terrorism, etc. To avoid future mistakes, we must learn from our past ones.

Unfortunately, there are Arabs who believe that they must fight against Israel until they completely destroy it (a tragedy which I do not believe the God of Israel will ever permit to happen – Never again!).

Unfortunately, there are also naive and foolish Israelis who believe, incredibly to me, that they will achieve “peace” with their Arab neighbours by giving the murderer “Arafat” [el-Husseini] a State, an army, etc. This is insane. You Jews are supposedly famous for your intelligence. How can some of your “leaders” be so stupid?

From the perspective of the natural world, I am not optimistic about what the future holds. However, from the supernatural perspective of faith, we who believe in God must face the future with a positive attitude.

We must have faith that we will see the day when real peace and prosperity – which can only be based on true faith in God and His Word (the Bible and Rabbinic Tradition for you; the Bible, Qur’an and Authentic Islamic Tradition for us) – will spread throughout the world. Meanwhile, we must work together to prepare for a better future.

 

********************************************MUSLIMS MUST RECOGNIZE JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY OVER JERUSALEM

From an Islamic point of view, is there any fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Jerusalem both as an Islamic Holy Place and as the capital of the State of Israel?

I realize that a negative answer to the above question is taken for granted by popular opinion. My approach, however, is not based on popular opinion or the current political situation, but on a theological analysis of authentic Islamic sources.

JERUSALEM IN THE QUR’AN

The most common argument against Muslim acknowledgment of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is that, since al-Quds [Jerusalem] (4) is a Holy Place for Muslims, Muslims cannot accept that it is ruled by non-Muslims, because such acceptance amounts to a betrayal of Islam.

Before expressing our point of view on this question, we must reflect upon the reason for which Jerusalem and Masjid al-Aqsa [the Al Aksa mosque] hold such a sacred position in Islamic faith.

As is well known, the inclusion of Jerusalem among Islamic holy places derives from al-Mi’raj, the Ascension of the Prophet Muhammed to heaven. The Ascension began at the Rock, usually identified by Muslim scholars as the Foundation Stone of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem referred to in Jewish sources.

Recalling this link requires us to admit that there is no connection between al-Miraj [the Ascension] and Muslim sovereign rights over Jerusalem since, in the time that al-Miraj took place, the City was not under Islamic, but under Byzantine administration. Moreover, the Qur’an expressly recognizes that Jerusalem plays for Jews the same role that Mecca does for Muslims.

We read:

“…They would not follow thy direction of prayer (qiblah), nor art thou to follow their direction of prayer; nor indeed will they follow each other’s direction of prayer…” (5)

All Qur’anic commentators explain that “thy qiblah” [direction of prayer for Muslims] is clearly the Ka’bah of Mecca, while “their qiblah” [direction of prayer for Jews] refers to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

To quote only one of the most important Muslim commentators, we read in Qadn Baydawn’s Commentary:

“Verily, in their prayers Jews orientate themselves toward the Rock (sakhrah), while Christians orientate themselves eastwards…” (6)

In complete opposition to what “Islamic” fundamentalists continuously claim, the Book of Islam [the Qur’an] – as we have just now seen – recognizes Jerusalem as the Jewish direction of prayer.

Some Muslim commentators also quote the Book of Daniel (7) as a proof for this.

After reviewing the relevant Qur’anic passages concerning this matter, I conclude that, as no one denies Muslims complete sovereignty over Mecca, from an Islamic point of view – despite opposing, groundless claims – there is no reason for Muslims to deny the State of Israel – which is a JEWISH state – complete sovereignty over Jerusalem.

 

************************************ISLAMIC HOLY PLACES

Anti-Jewish sentiments expressed by Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East are, in fact, not religious in nature, but, rather, political. The best proof of this is in the fact that Islamic anti-Judaism is quite recent.

Omar ended the Roman ban that prevented Jews to enter Jerusalem, the Ummayad caliphs in Cordoba built a synagogue for Maimonides, and Salahu-d-Din, after defeating the Crusaders, wrote to the Jewish leaders, “Your exile is over. Whoever wants to come back is welcome.”

The late King Faysal of Iraq openly expressed his sympathy for the Zionist movement, while King Abdullah of Jordan was compelled to wage war against Israel by the other Arab leaders.

Recently, the Resident Arab [“Palestinian”] Wakf has made pronouncements, such as that the Western Wall (Kotel) is not a Jewish shrine, but, rather, the wall to which the Prophet’s [steed] was tethered, or, at best, the wall surrounding the Muslim Mosque. The Wakf has also stated that all of Hebron should be turned over to the Resident Arab [“Palestinian”] Authority, and that Jews would be forbidden to pray in the Cave of the Patriarchs.

These kinds of declarations by the PLO gangsters are ridiculous and absurd.

The Kotel was effectively, according to the Islamic tradition, the place where al-Buraq [the Prophet’s steed] was tethered, but it was already an existing part of the Herodian structure. Muslims have never prayed close to it, and it has never had a special relevance in Islam. On the contrary, everyone knows how important it is for Jewish worshippers.

Apart from Mecca, no Islamic holy place is off-limits for non-Muslims. Historical sources say that the Prophet Muhammad entertained a delegation of Christians from Najran in the Mosque of Medina, and permitted them to celebrate a mass inside the Mosque, notwithstanding the fact that Christian rites can include words that are against Islam [such as stating that Jesus is God].

There is nothing in Jewish worship that can be offensive for Muslims, and nothing in Islamic Law prevents Jews to pray on Haram al-Sharif/Har Habayyit (the Temple Mount), in the Cave of Machpela or in any other place that is regarded as holy by Muslims.

Every time I meet those who say otherwise, I ask them to identify a single authoritative Islamic source as legal proof of their claim. None of them has ever answered such a request of mine.

 

********************************************NOTES:

1. The original Arabic word we translated as “kingdom” is mulk, from a Semitic root m-l-k, that is common to both Arabic and Hebrew. According to Islamic theological terminology, the three synonyms for “kingdom” are mulk, malakut and jabarut. They refer respectively to the physical, psychic and spiritual levels of existence. Of course, G-d can be called King of all of them; if here only mulk is quoted, it depends on the fact that this verse directly concerns the earthly domain. To denote a kingdom in the secular and political sense, Arabic commonly uses another derived form, that is mamlakah.

2. Koran 3:26. For typographical reasons, it is not possible to reproduce here the original Arabic text of the Koran, which must nevertheless be understood as quoted. As well here as in other Koranic quotations, the English translation of the meaning of Koranic words from Arabic is my own, but based on the most authoritative English commentaries, such as M. Marmaduke Pickthall’s “The Meaning of The Glorious Koran” (Beirut 1973), ‘A. Yusuf ‘Ali, “The Holy Koran – Text, Translation and Commentary” (Maryland 1983) and A. ‘A. Maududi “The Holy Koran – Text, Translation and Brief Notes” (Lahore 1986).

3. In using the term “martyr” I do not simply refer to one who lost his life for a good cause. I give a precise translation of the Arabic word “shahid,” which identifies a “martyr” in the strictly religious sense; that is to say, someone who spent his life serving the cause of G-d. Since making peace with former enemies is an explicit Koranic order (see Koran 8:61), and since, according to Islam, Peace is G-d Himself, any believer who is killed because of his search for Peace must be understood as a religious martyr. The same considerations clearly apply to Yitzhak Rabin. 4. Arabic name of Jerusalem, from the root q-d-s, meaning “holiness”. It is an abridged form of Bayt al-maqdis, “the sanctified House” or “the House of the Sanctuary”, an exact equivalent of the Hebrew Beth ha-mikdash. The name originally referred only to the Temple Mount, and was afterward extended to the City as a whole. This extension of meaning became common among Arabs from the tenth century C.E. onwards. Earlier Islamic sources use the name Iliyia, an adaptation to Arabic pronounciation of the Roman name Aelia.

5. Koran 2:145.

6. M. Shaykh Zadeh Hashiyaah ‘ali Tafsir al-Qadn al-Baydawn (Istanbul 1979), Vol. 1, p. 456.

7. Daniel 6:10

 

***********************************Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi has been a lecturer in the Department of the History of Religion at the University of Velletri (Rome, Italy).

In 1987, after completing his secular and religious education in Rome and Cairo, he was asked to serve as an Imam (spiritual leader) for the Italian Islamic Community. In addition to numerous Masters Degrees, Prof. Palazzi hold a Ph.D in Islamic Sciences by decree of the Grand Mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In 1989 he was appointed a member of the Board of Directors of the Italian Muslim Association (AMI) and afterward elected its Secretary General.

In 1991 he was asked to act as Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community (ICCII), with a program based on the development of Islamic education in Italy, refutation of fundamentalism and fanaticism, and deep involvement in inter-religious dialogue, especially with Jews and Christians.

In 1997, Prof. Palazzi’s essay entitled “The Jewish-Moslem Dialogue and the Question of Jerusalem” was published by the Institute of the World Jewish Congress.

In 1997, Prof. Palazzi joined the International Council of the Root & Branch Association.

In 1998, Prof. Palazzi and Dr. Asher Eder (Jerusalem, Israel) co-founded the Islam-Israel Fellowship, which promotes a positive Muslim attitude towards Jews and Israel based on what Prof. Palazzi believes are the authentic teachings of Muhammed as expressed in the Koran and Hadith (Muslim Oral Tradition). Prof. Palazzi serves as Muslim Co-Chairman of the Fellowship. Dr. Eder serves as the Jewish Co-Chairman.

[reprinted with the permission of Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Executive Vice-President of the National Council of Young Israel (NCYI), from the Winter ’98 issue of NCYI’s “Viewpoint” magazine. The NCYI is the coordinating and umbrella organization of 150 Torah-observant (“orthodox”) synagogues in North America and over 60 synagogues in its sister council — Yisrael HaTzair, Young Israel of Israel. For further information on NCYI, please contact Rabbi Lerner at: Email — [execvp@youngisrael.org]; Telephone — 212-929-1525]

Related articles

Muslim Antisemitism: What everyone needs to hear

Great read: :Muslim Antisemitism: What My Daughter’s Friend and Ambassador Gutman Need to Know by Richard Landes.

One of my daughters recently wrote me about a friend who thought
that “most of the Muslim antisemitism in Europe wasn’t based on their
dislike of what is going on in Israel and not so much on religion.” I knew
this belief was widely held not only by anti-Zionists, but also by liberals in
general, including Jews. It includes the widely held assumption that suicide
bombings were a response to the despair that Palestinians felt because of
how Israel treated them. It is also directly related to the problem of
“Islamophobia is the new Antisemitism,” in which speaking of Muslim
antisemitism becomes a new form of racist antisemitism. Of course, I did
not expect a Jewish U.S. ambassador to make those kinds of remarks, which
is just what Howard Gutman said to a group of Jewish lawyers in Belgium:
What I do see as growing, as gaining much more attention in the newspapers
and among politicians and communities, is a different phenomena

Antisemitic caricature by C.Léandre (France, 1898)

. . . It is the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes
even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab
immigrant groups and Jews. It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely
born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories,
and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing
Israeli-Palestinian problem.

Either the good ambassador has no awareness of just how paranoid,
genocidal, and depraved Muslim antisemitism is, or he is contemptuous in
his lack of standards.

He would never excuse virulent Jewish hatred for Palestinians “merely” on the basis of the fact that Palestinians target Israeli children, dance in the street when they succeed, and display exhibits honoring the dead Jews. And yet, somehow, virulent Palestinian hatred is
understandable.

Of course, the actual situation differs radically from this benign contempt.
Most of this regional tension is a product of the mainstream [news]
media (MSM), both ours and theirs. Virtually none of the people who hate
Israel have seen this matter up close: their impressions and beliefs about
what’s happening are the product of what they read in the media, and
reports from activists who document the “apartheid” ways.

The argument, of course, can work inversely: Palestinians have produced
a constant stream of lethal narratives describing Israelis as baby-killers,
and have spread the virus throughout the Muslim world. These
narratives inspire suicide bombers and their cheering supporters, and the
violence that Israel does against the Palestinians—from targeted killings to
the separation barrier, to the Gaza blockade responding directly to
antisemitic propaganda.

Because the Western mainstream news media has focused some of this
propaganda, people, including my daughter’s friend, have formed beliefs
that are based on the television images and justify their disdain. “No wonder
French Muslims hate you,” the French Christians say to their French
Jewish co-citizens, “look at what your brethren in Israel do to their cousins
in Palestine.” To grant the Palestinians and other Muslims permission to
hate the Jews reveals unthinking racism: I don’t really expect anything
remotely rational or balanced from these folks. If you piss them off, you
deserve their rage.

The MSM not only report lethal narratives as news, but omit reporting
the hatreds that inspired such narratives. In the summer of 2000, the PA was
blasting hatred of Israel. If the MSM were surprised by Arafat’s Camp
David “no,” it’s because they ignored what he and his friends were saying
in Arabic. On the contrary, driven by a belief that peace was around the
corner, they felt that dwelling on such bad news would queer the peace
process. Nor did the Oslo war make a difference. Sheikh Halabiya gave a
sermon calling on Muslims to “slaughter the Jews everywhere.” William
Orme wrote a piece on Palestinian incitement in which he quoted Halabiya
saying: “Labor, Likud, they’re all Jews.”

As a result, the ferocious strain of antisemitism in Palestinian irredentism
transferred easily from the mufti’s contribution to the Final Solution,
Nazi propaganda, and helping Nazism flourish in Egypt and Syria, to
Arafat’s national liberation and Hamas’s apocalyptic paranoia. Nor is this
merely a quirk of journalism, but a widespread practice of the “post-colonial” field of Middle East studies in the wake of Edward Said’s masterpiece
of cognitive warfare forbidding Westerners from othering Muslims.

Yet, what are we to make of crowds rallied by the moderate Muslim
Brotherhood chant, “One day we will kill all Jews”? Since 2000, Arab and
Muslim news media have been awash with gory video depictions of the
Elders of Zion carrying out their blood sacrifices of innocent Muslim youth.
Specialists disagree over whether this is primarily an import from the worst
of European hate-mongering, or an indigenous growth with roots in the
Koran. European anti-Zionists may like their fantasy that their attitude is
not antisemitic, but in the case of the Arab and Muslim world, the slide
from opposing Israel to ranting about al Yahud everywhere is effortless.1
Phillip (Mondo) Weiss’s response to Ambassador Gutman offers additional
insight. Citing two other comments, Weiss proves Gutman’s thesis by
pointing to a study showing that antisemitic incidents in England spiked
after the Mavi Marmara incident. Of course, the near doubling of
antisemitic incidents did not arise in response to Israel’s behavior, but to the
reports of them, in which the MSM reported unfiltered anti-Zionist lethal
narratives about the IDF coming down spraying bullets and killing 19
peaceful, humanitarian activists. He also omits data showing that, compared
to Arabs, Israelis commit a faction of violence. Weiss, who never met a
lethal anti-Zionist narrative he didn’t like, probably still believes the initial
reports. But unless you are willing to argue that when Israeli soldiers carrying
paint-gun rifles, defending themselves from a lethal assault by Jihadis
posing as activists, kill nine of their assailants, that justifies a wave of
antisemitism, this case hardly supports Gutman’s analysis. On the contrary,
it proves the opposite.

No violent anti-Arab demonstrations exploded on British soil when
Lebanese soldiers killed seventy Palestinian refugees in a massive air
assault in 2007, or during the last year while the Syrian army killed over
3,000 of its own people. If you were to argue that Islamophobia is caused
by Muslim behavior, would you not get accused of Islamophobia by the
same people so ready to blame Israel for antisemitism?
All of it is linked to a particularly dangerous form of political correctness,
in which criticism of Muslims is the new form of antisemitism. As a
Parisian colleague insisted, “The experience of the Muslims in Europe
today is exactly the same as the Jews a century ago.” Of course, that’s not
the case at all: both in terms of the wildly different behavior of the two
minorities, and in terms of how the European elites reacted to their presence.

By that logic, however, any attack on Islam is immediately comparable to an attack on Jews a century ago.

Even those Jewish organizations designed to protect Jews from
antisemitism share this attitude. Berlin’s Zentrum f ¨ur Antisemitismusforschung
held a conference whose main theme was the close identity of
Islamophobia and Judaeophobia. In the United States, the Anti-Defamation
League released only 2.6 percent of 4,269 press releases since 1995 on
either Islamic extremism or Arab antisemitism, of which only .005 were
released since September 11, 2001—precisely when the threat to Jews from
Islamic extremism dramatically increased. That is almost as small as the
percentage of Jews in the world, or the percentage of the Arab world “occupied”
by Israel: 0.002.

Which brings us to the dilemma that faces the morally concerned
Western observer. We are faced with two opposing narratives: one in which
the Muslims/Palestinians are victims who might be forgiven their imperialist
Israelis hate; and one in which the Israelis are victims, who might be
forgiven their resistance to assaults from paranoid, sadistic antisemitism.
Why not toss a coin? Aside from the fact that in so doing one would
greatly increase support for the imperialist Zionists to 50 percent, there are
serious consequences to misreading this situation.

If I am wrong, and Palestinian hatred is merely a result of the occupation,
then Israeli concessions should lessen Palestinian hatred. Of course, if
the Palestinians really are rational—really want their own state rather than
to destroy Israel, then they should be amenable to making some important
moves toward reconciliation, such as, for example, cutting off the hate
incitement on TV, and resettling their refugees out of the miserable camps
they’ve been confined to since 1948.

If I am right, if Muslim antisemitism is profoundly rooted among
Arabs and Muslims today, then it’s another story entirely. Solving the refugee
problem by allowing these poor victims of war to have a real home is
not on the Palestinian agenda. On the contrary, these refugees are designated
victim-weapons in a war of annihilation.

If I am right, then every time Israel makes concessions, it encourages
further aggressions. So despite the politically correct paradigm, each time
Israel engages in anti-imperialist activities—withdrawing from most of the
West Bank (1994-2000), southern Lebanon (2000), and Gaza (2005)—
increased aggression occurred.
There is a widespread fantasy that throwing Israel into the maw of the
beast will somehow solve the problem. Ultimately, the dilemma of
antisemitism is not a Jewish but a Christian problem. Granted, the Jews
suffer from antisemitism, but the ultimate price is paid by those foolish enough to get sucked into the vortex of hatred and paranoia that antisemites
peddle. As any historian of World War II can tell you, if six million Jews
were murdered, more than ten times as many Christians died in that
madness!

The Arab world in the latter half of the 20th century offers a striking
parallel to Spain in the 16th century. Both worlds had expelled their Jews
(Spain in 1492, Arabs in 1948); both experienced a flood of wealth (New
World gold and petrodollars); and both failed to parlay that wealth into a
thriving culture that made life better for its people.

In a recent article, Jeffrey Goldberg tried to acknowledge the problem
of antisemitic sentiments pervading the Arab Spring, all the while preserving
the belief that “the people of the Middle East are finally awakening to
the promise of liberty.” But the two are intimately related. Indeed, Judeophobia
is not the problem, but the symptom.

It’s the conspiracy thinking that blames everything on the other—Muslims
attack Copts? It’s the Jews. Arab Spring turning into Islamist Winter?
It’s the Jews. If you’re the BBC, it’s the Jews, aka “outside forces.” How
can one possibly inaugurate, foster, and sustain a democratic culture of freedom,
one that, in words of Isaiah Berlin, considers it “shameful not to grant
to others the freedom one wants to exercise oneself,” without an ability to
self-criticize?

Antisemitism is everyone’s problem—my daughter’s friend, Ambassador
Gutman, and the Muslims. The sooner well-meaning progressives stop
feeding their antisemitic vulnerabilities and begin critical thinking, the
sooner we will see a real Arab Spring—one in which all people can rejoice.

Iranian general urges Afghanistan to fight U.S.

Mullah’s are starting to really push their luck…

(AP)  TEHRAN: A senior Iranian military commander urged Afghans on Saturday to use force to kick American troops out of their country, hinting that “new resistance groups” could launch attacks on U.S. interests in Afghanistan.

Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, a senior figure in the powerful Revolutionary Guard and the deputy head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there are indications that Afghans will “soon open new fronts” against “the obsolete, worn-out American empire.”

The U.S. has accused Iran’s Revolutionary Guard of supplying powerful roadside bombs to militants in Afghanistan fighting NATO forces. Iran has denied that it is supplying arms to fighters in Afghanistan.

Anti-U.S. sentiments have grown in Afghanistan after the killing of 16 civilians, including nine children, allegedly by a U.S. soldier in southern Kandahar province, as well the accidental burning of Quran holy books by American troops. The U.S. soldier has been identified as Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, 38.

“Based on the existing indications, new fronts will soon be opened against invaders in order to ground the obsolete, worn-out American empire,” Jazayeri said. “Creation of resistance groups and hitting American interests are among measures that can be taken.”

He did not elaborate. The comments by Jazayeri were posted Saturday on the Guard’s website, sepahnews.com. It is the strongest comments ever by an Iranian official against American troops in Afghanistan.

“The Americans must know that the Afghan nation … is tired of the illegitimate presence of invaders … and deserve to use force and offensive operations to kick invading enemies from their soil,” he said.

Jazayeri said Afghans should make their territory unsafe for American troops.

“The United States should not be immune from the biting attacks for insulting Quran and massacring the innocent Afghan and Pakistani people. American troops must experience the bitter taste of revenge so that they won’t feel security in any part of the region,” he said.

The U.S. and Tehran are at odds over Iran’s controversial nuclear program, and some analysts fear that Iran will respond with proxy forces if the confrontation becomes violent.

Deep in the heart… of Saudi Arabia

From the kings of conspiracy theories and all things Wabbism comes.. The veiled Zionist plot BY DR. SADAKA YAHYA FADHEL writing for The Saudi Gazette.. This should be good…

Israel is planning to trigger a war in the region and has been encouraging the world to take action purportedly to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has made vicious statements full of lies as part of this veiled plan.

Israel plans nuclear strike
He said Iran has nuclear weapons that pose a danger to the world order, overlooking the fact that Israel has 300 nuclear weapons aimed at Arab and non-Arab cities which can be launched with the press of a button. Israel uses its huge nuclear weaponry to intimidate and blackmail the whole region.
Much of the world is against any state developing or maintaining nuclear arms even for self-defense. Much of the Arab world is against Iran developing nuclear weapons, because of its repugnant policy of seeking hegemony, if not direct control, of the region.
Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs, has said on several occasions that the region should be free of nuclear arms or any weapons of mass destruction. Prince Turki Al-Faisal has made a similar call. Their calls include Israel, which is hostile to the Arab world. The Zionist country has a long history of committing crimes against Arabs, particularly in Palestine.
The Israeli foreign minister’s statement that world stability is threatened by Tehran is a smokescreen to blur the fact that it also possesses nuclear weapons and that it has been behaving as if it is not bound by international laws.
It is obvious that the Zionists are preparing for a new war in the Middle East. Israel and its allies, which want to control the region, pretend to abhor nuclear weapons, although they themselves have nuclear arms in their arsenals. After destroying many Arab countries, they are apparently nurturing dreams of dividing the region into parts to be able to control it more easily.
Israeli leaders claim that their country’s security is threatened, but it is Israel itself which poses a threat to regional security. Former US president Jimmy Carter told the Arabic daily “Al-Sharq Al-Awsat” on January 27, 2012 that Israel did not have to worry about Iran developing nuclear arms because Israel had 300 nuclear warheads.
The crimes committed by the Zionists and their false claims and accusations will serve as the catalyst for their downfall. There will be a day when there is retribution for their distortion of facts and oppression of the Arab people.

(Dr. Sadaka Y. Fadhel is a Member of the Shoura Council and Professor of Political Science) __  ya dont say…