Doc's Talk: Why Did U.S. Government Honor Mosque Associated with The Number-One Anti-American Terrorist?

Friday, December 03, 2010

Why Did U.S. Government Honor Mosque Associated with The Number-One Anti-American Terrorist?

Barry Rubin

Almost a decade after the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government seem unable to tell the differences between moderate and radical Muslims, much less understand that it should support the former against the latter group. So when the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom visits a mosque, you just know this nice gesture will be directed toward…a very extremist mosque with close ties to the number-one terrorist targeting America right now.
uch was the visit of Ambassador Louis B. Susman to the East London Mosque on November 29, as—in the words of the mosque’s press release--“part of President Obama's outreach program to Muslim communities.” Susman expressed “great admiration” for the mosque, invited young members to apply for free trips to the United States through the embassy, and told the mosque’s leaders:

"I go away from each of these meetings of dialogue, learning something new every time."

Unfortunately, there is quite a lot that Susman didn’t learn about the mosque, all publicly available facts one would have thought might have led the State Department to choose someplace else. Indeed, the visit came right in the middle of a controversy about the mosque's support for Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born, Yemen-based al-Qaida leader who is currently the number-one terrorist attacking the United States.

The East London Mosque is dominated by the Jammat-e-Islami, a small Bengladesh-based party dedicated to turning that country into a radical Islamist state. This group's leaders are being prosecuted for war crimes against that country's people during its independence war and the movement follows the teachings of Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, South Asia's most prominent radical Islamist ideologue.

The mosque’s leader is Muhammad Abdul Bari, a Jammat-e-Islami supporter. Until June, he was also secretary- general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the main Muslim group advising the British government--until last year. Under Bari's leadership, the MBC used its influence toward such goals as: making blasphemy against Islam a crime, opposing efforts to rescue women from forced marriages, and ending government bans on radical preachers entering the country. Bari also supported the “Stop the Political Terror Campaign” opposing Muslim cooperation with the British police to find terrorists.

In 2009, when Bari was MCB leader, the British government cut links with his group after discovering that the top Muslim official in the civil service had signed a statement supporting the killing of British soldiers and the MCB refused to distance itself from his action.

The mosque's leadership comes from the Islamic Forum Europe, a group founded by Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, who the British media and human rights' groups in the country have accused of genocide in Bangladesh.

One mosque trustee is Azad Ali, who called for killing British soldiers. Among his writings is the following:

"We are the Resistance. The Zionist terrorist state of Israel had only one aim, to destroy all semblance of resistance. We have yet to hear any condemnation from our government." He criticized Foreign Secretary David Miliband for condemning Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar's statement that Israeli Jewish children are "legitimate targets."

The Times of London reported in October 2007 about the extremist books available in the mosque’s bookshop.

One of the mosque's frequent guest speakers has been Abdulrahman al-Sudais, who back in Saudi Arabia gives sermons describing Jews as the descendants of pigs and monkeys while comparing Hindus to excrement. He also said U.S. soldiers in Iraq should convert to Islam or die.

Most recently, the mosque has been in trouble over its long association with Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaida preacher most involved in recent terrorist attacks against the United States, including the Fort Hood and Christmas "underpants bomber" attacks. The Times Square bomber cited him as an inspiration for his own attack on America.

The mosque leadership has defended Awlaki despite the fact that he was on the U.S. terror watch list as early as 2002. In November 2008, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security Charles Allen called Awlaki, “Spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers,” an “al-Qaeda supporter” and “an example of al-Qaeda's reach into the [U.S.] homeland.”

Yet it was to the mosque whose current leadership has been so friendly toward this man that the U.S. ambassador was sent to visit and praise.

On November 5, 2008, the same month Allen was condemning Awlaki, Azad Ali, also the Islamic Forum of Europe’s community affairs co-ordinator, described Awlaki as, “One of my favourite speakers and scholars….He has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing."

One of the people he explained things to is Roshonara Choudhry who found him so endearing that she attempted to murder a Labor Party member of parliament as a terrorist act.

The British blog, Harry’s Place, has provided a detailed, documented analysis showing how the mosque lied to downplay its links with Awlaki. And here's Andrew Gilligan's article in The Telegraph, published on November 2, about a month before Susman's visit. The headline: "East London Mosque: the terrorist connection and the lies." Does the U.S. embassy read The Telegraph?

In January 2009, Awlaki gave a talk to the mosque by video. Although told about Awlaki’s radicalism the mosque ignored this warning.

The British newspaper Telegraph reported that the event’s advertising material:

“Appears to be a clear reference to the [September 11] attacks on New York, and features meteors raining down on Manhattan, setting fire to the city and shattering the Statue of Liberty."

Another scheduled speaker at the event was Khalid Yasin, who according to the Telegraph “has described the beliefs of Christians and Jews as ‘filth.’”

Here's the lead piece in the Sun from today, December 2. It shows a picture of Muslim demonstrators on Armistice Day last month, a demonstration that outraged Britain on the day when its soldiers are memorialized. The signs read things like, "British soldiers burn in Hell."

By the way, this same group burned an American flag in front of the U.S. embassy in London to celebrate the anniversary of the September 11 attack. How did these people get to be so extremist?

Well, the Sun tells us about one of them, a 16-year-old teenager, and explains: "Chillingly, he was just 14 when he was radicalized at the notorious East London Mosque."

So this is the mosque honored by the U.S. ambassador, representing President Barack Obama: closely associated with an anti-American terrorist; hosting programs promoting hatred of Jews and celebrating the September 11 attacks; opposing Muslim cooperation with counterterrorist police efforts; trying to stop efforts to help young women intimidated into unwanted marriages; opposing barring radical hate preachers from propagandizing; having Hamas supporters on its board; and other such things.

None of this information was hard to find. And there's a lot more. It wasn't hard for U.S. officials to know all these things before sending the ambassador there.

"What is so disappointing," says a British expert on Islam, "is that there are so many other, better, mosques to visit in London. But they are continually let down by our political leaders who gravitate towards the centers of extremism."

Why does the U.S. government honor an institution that opposes U.S. policies and is very close to America's enemies? Guess they can't tell the difference.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk