Doc's Talk: Bin Bayyah Statements Underscore Support for Terrorism

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Bin Bayyah Statements Underscore Support for Terrorism

John Rossomando
IPT News

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4082/bin-bayyah-statements-underscore-support-for

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has uncovered evidence that radical Muslim cleric Sheik Abdullah Bin Bayyah, who met with top White House officials last month, personally urged Muslim nations to aid the Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza militarily.

"Muslim rulers are required to rescue their fellow Muslims in many ways, through financial, military and diplomatic support. Everything should be done to stop this terrible, ongoing massacre in Gaza," Bin Bayyah wrote in April. The posting was removed following the release of IPT's June 26 report about Bin Bayyah's White House visit. "I also call upon our Palestinian brothers to unite all resistance movements in the same name and under the same banner. And it is the duty of all Arabs to help them in the name of Islam, logic, pan-Arabism and humanity."
The comment lines up with the position of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), headed by Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi. Bin Bayyah has been its vice president for 9 years. The group notably issued a December 2012 communiqué praising Hamas's "strategic victory … in the dignified Gaza" and calling for Israel's destruction.

Bin Bayyah notably declared that Palestinian terrorists have the right to all "kinds of resistance, including the use of weapons."

The sheikh issued a fatwa on January 19, 2012 stating that Muslims could satisfy their zakat obligations by giving their money to "fighters in the cause of Allah" (those undertaking a military jihad) to "buy weapons."
"He ... avoids any specifics at all, giving the reader the room to use his opinion to finance causes like Hamas, Hizballah, or other radical Islamists," Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said.
Islamic charities such as the Holy Land Foundation and others have notably been convicted of laundering zakat donations to fund Hamas or other terror groups.
Bin Bayyah also condemned the linking of Islamic charities with terrorism, calling it "sham propaganda."
White House officials justified meeting with him on June 13 because he denounced al-Qaida in 2010 and because of work he did with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. After the IPT reported on his visit, a spokesperson told The Daily Caller that the White House invited him to tackle "a wide range of issues including poverty, global health efforts and Bin Bayyah's efforts to counter the al Qaeda narrative."
"Bin Bayyah may be anti-Al Qaida because he is against the targeting of what he defines as civilians. He simply detests 'freelance jihadists' or 'jihadi-anarchists' preferring more ordered Islamist statists within his Salafi circles," Jasser said. "These quotes [about Palestinian terrorists] in essence reveal that he may disagree with the means and authority Al-Qaida may use but in fact the ends of a global neo-Caliphate and Islamist hegemony he clearly promotes.
"Here, he clearly endorses the adoption of all militant causes initiated by what he deems to be legitimate Islamist grievance movements from across the world."
The White House did not respond to repeated IPT requests for comment.
Additionally, the administration has not addressed any questions related to Bin Bayyah's support for Hamas. It has also been silent about criticism of its reaching out to the IUMS in the light of the group's calls for Israel's destruction, and its 2004 call for the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq. Qaradawi, the IUMS's founder, is considered so radical he has been barred from entering the United States.
Hosting Bin Bayyah in the White House was a mistake, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the IPT.
"The Obama administration sends a strong message whenever they accept or facilitate meetings with foreign leaders or officials," McCaul said in an emailed statement. "The administration's narrative of the terror threat decreasing does not mirror the reality that al Qaeda and Islamist extremism is still a growing threat to the homeland, and the actions of officials in the White House should reflect that reality."
Inviting Bin Bayyah to the White House reveals an ideologically-motivated "tone deafness to what constitutes a radical," Jasser said.
Although Bin Bayyah has stated his opposition to Al-Qaida's tactics for creating a global Caliphate, his writings show that he supports the idea of Muslims being united under a single flag defended by a single army.
"[T]he basic principle is that the [Muslim people] ought to be under one banner and one ruler. This is the basic principle prescribed by Islam. But the status quo shows that the ummah has been disunited for a long time, its enemies have grown significantly, and its magnificence has declined," Bin Bayyah wrote in a January 2012 fatwa on his website. "The ummah should have one army to protect it. It needs no foreign armies or interference in any form."
Bin Bayyah suggests that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) gives hope for pan-Islamic unity and a united federation. He blames a "fierce campaign launched by the enemies of the ummah" through colonialism, efforts to spread democracy and "regaining Jerusalem through crusade" efforts for lack of Muslim unity. The OIC Charter guarantees the Palestinians' right to replace Israel with a state of their own that has Jerusalem as its capital.
"Bin Bayyah here obviously reveals that he not only believes in the dominance of the Islamic state but he thus through citizenship links every Muslim's faith practice to the military obligations of jihad which scholars like him determine," Jasser said. "Where does he differ from Sheik Awlaki? It is not clear. We are to assume that 'scholars' like him will not take Muslims across the planet into a collective war without 'just cause' to 'rescue their fellow Muslims,' 'under one banner' and thus 'unite all resistance movements."
Connecting Islam with terrorism involves a "deliberate negligence of the objective facts," which stems from "ignorance," according to Bin Bayyah.
If freedom and democracy on the Middle East was on the White House's agenda when officials met with the cleric, then the administration should take a closer look at his writings, which show that he considers the Western approach to freedom and democracy un-Islamic.
Bin Bayyah's view of democracy and free speech is scarcely any different from that shown by the recently deposed Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt that cracked down on dissidents claiming they had insulted Islam.
In Bin Bayyah's view, free speech is subject to the limitations imposed by Islamic sharia law – particularly when it comes to speech and "harmful values in the society."
And he seemed to criticize the United States in an essay last year when he wrote that "the most boastful countries in terms of democracy are the most aggressive and corrupt countries in the world."
Bin Bayyah likely approved of the Brotherhood's March arrest of comedian Bassem Youssef for "insulting Islam." "Basically, it is definitely prohibited to criticize, mock at, or deride of the right religion and whoever does this bears enormous sin," Bin Bayyah told the London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper in January 2012.
Bin Bayyah rationalizes Palestinian terrorism, criticizes democracy, and supports blasphemy laws and other restrictions on free speech and other basic freedoms. But the White House appears unwilling to criticize or isolate those views. Instead, it ignored his call for Muslim rulers to give military assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups and opened the White House doors to Bin Bayyah and defended his invitation because he said bad things about al-Qaida.

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