America's Islamist Fifth Column

By Deborah Weiss
Published by the American Security Council Foundation

The Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist organization which originated in Egypt, has tentacles that reach around the globe. Its agenda is to establish worldwide sharia (Islamic) law. Because its tactics are largely non-violent and incremental, it operates under the radar and often goes unnoticed. Its plans are long term, but its adherents are patient. And make no mistake about it, it’s making inroads.


Now, evidence has surfaced demonstrating that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is at the nucleus of Muslim Brotherhood front activity in the United States. A recently published book titled, “Muslim Mafia”, written by former investigator and counterterrorism expert David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry (author of “Infiltration”,) reveals the shocking details of the undercover operation conducted by Gaubatz’s son.



After having assumed the role of an Islamic convert and winning the confidence of CAIR’s leadership, twenty-nine year old Chris Gaubatz aka David Marshall attained an internship at CAIR’s national headquarters where he gained access to private meetings and top secret records. He was assigned to shred boxes of documents, but instead brought them home for further examination. There, he discovered persuasive evidence that CAIR, ISNA and NAIT are part of the Muslim Brotherhood network.



Drawn from thousands of memos, emails and faxes, Muslim Mafia demonstrates that CAIR:



• supports organizations with terrorist ties (indeed the Justice Department designated CAIR, ISNA and NAIT as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, where several defendants were found guilty of funneling money to Hamas);

• overtly claims to cooperate with the FBI, but covertly advises Muslims to remain silent when questioned, thus obstructing investigations;

• builds unilateral “bridges” to law enforcement, the interfaith community and political circles in order to obtain information and cement relationships to provide itself with credence and possibly shield itself from investigation;

• is funded by foreign donors; and

• lobbies congress in possible violation to its IRS tax-exempt status and other US laws.



CAIR’s goals are:



• to support Palestinian terrorists;

• to eliminate aid to Israel;

• to abolish restrictions on immigration from high-risk Muslim countries;

• to desensitize Americans to creeping sharia;

• to dismantle America’s counterterrorism tools; and

• to infiltrate America’s government, corporate, media and academic institutions to gradually Islamize America.



In pursuit of these goals, CAIR’s primary arsenal is deceit. Though it purports to be mainstream, in reality, CAIR is a Muslim extremist organization. Abusing America’s freedom of religion and non-disclosure laws inherent in its non-profit status, CAIR conceals its donor base and operates to influence American policy by targeting key congressional committees including the Judiciary Committee, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Intelligence Committee.



Taking advantage of America’s tolerant and trusting nature, CAIR uses public relations, propaganda and lies to convince the FBI, law enforcement and the public that it is nothing more than a well-meaning American-Muslim civil rights organization. Yet, Muslim Mafia tells a different story. It provides examples of how CAIR applies the tactics of pressure, persuasion, false claims of discrimination, economic boycotts and veiled threats to attain sway.



Unfortunately, political correctness has formed an unholy alliance with Islamism. Consequently, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies hired CAIR on the tax-payers’ dime to provide “sensitivity training” to its agents. There, agents learned how to handle terrorism suspects in a non-offensive manner. Instead of investigating organizations with terrorist ties, government and interfaith outreach efforts to CAIR and its affiliates had the effect of legitimizing America’s sworn enemies. Further, some FBI field agents protested that higher ups provided CAIR with advance notice of FBI raids to Islamist organizations, rendering the raids useless.



Fortunately, the FBI recently cut ties with CAIR. Additionally, the book Muslim Mafia has inspired some Congressmen to demand an investigation of CAIR. This is a commendable first step, but much more needs to be done. The FBI still collaborates with ISNA. Other law enforcement agencies still work with CAIR. Moreover, several congressmen accept campaign donations from CAIR leaders, speak at CAIR banquets, and work with CAIR on legislative initiatives.



Sadly, CAIR and its Muslim Brotherhood sister organizations are having an impact. For example, Alamoudi, once head of the Muslim American Society, started the Muslim Chaplain program at the Pentagon, all-the-while raising money for Al-Qaeda. Though Alamoudi now sits in jail, the program he commenced, which provides the Pentagon’s seal of approval to radical imams continues to this day.



Radicals have also been successful in pushing to have terrorists tried in civilian courts rather than military tribunals (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), strong-arming corporations to remove from the market products that have allegedly offensive designs (Nike, Burger King, and others), and penalizing those in the media who are critical of radical Islam (Michael Graham WMAL was fired, and CAIR is suing Michael Savage). These are just a few examples of the myriad of successes enjoyed by non-violent Islamist organizations.



The next targets are the Treasury Department and Wall Street, where Islamists are advocating sharia-compliant financing. Sharia compliant instruments are prohibited from dealing with alcohol, pork and any business dealings with Israel. Disputes are resolved by sheiks who are expert in sharia law, rather than by the SEC. If successful, sharia compliant financing will result in the creation of a parallel financial system that lacks government accountability and contradicts American values. Worse, sharia compliant financing requires that a portion of earnings are donated to “Islamic charities” many of which are questionable. Despite this, the Treasury Department offered its first course titled “Islamic Banking 101” earlier this year.



Eight years after September 11, 2001, Americans and those they elected are still largely uninformed or misinformed as to the nature of her enemy in the War on Terror. We are fighting those who adhere to an ideology that is intolerant and anathema to freedom. Terrorism is not the cause of the problem; it is merely a symptom. The media, government officials, the intelligence community and the public had better wake up from their slumber before it is too late. It would behoove politicians of all stripes to set aside political correctness and learn the enemy’s playbook instead of refusing to read it. It is imperative to understand our enemy’s ideological and theological motivations if we are to successfully achieve a strategy to defeat him. Once we have a proper understanding of the threat and put ourselves on proper war footing, we can prevent tragedies such as the murders at Fort Hood and Binghamton University. We will understand the perils of trying the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court and refrain from making such grave errors. It is not un-American to protect ourselves from supremacist totalitarian ideologies, even when they cloak themselves in the name of religion. On the contrary, countering the efforts of CAIR and its Muslim Brotherhood network is the only way America can ultimately secure her freedom. Buy Muslim Mafia and become informed. You won’t regret it. America’s freedom and national security are at stake.

Read more ...

A Demand for Respect

A demand for 'Respect'
Islamic Conference fosters drive for Shariah
Article originally published in The Washington Times
October 30, 2009
By Deborah Weiss

The secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) recently delivered a little-reported speech at the United States Institute of Peace. In it he demanded that the United States give the Muslim world "respect." But precisely what does he mean by that?


The OIC comprises 57 states with Muslim majorities, and is expected to expand to 60 states. It is the second-largest nongovernmental organization, surpassed only by the United Nations. It is without exception the most powerful Muslim organization in the world, often voting as a bloc on international issues.

In his claim to power, Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Insanoglu enjoys expansive authority to speak on behalf of the OIC, conferred to him by the OIC charter. He boasts of speaking as the voice of the Muslim world, representing 1.5 billion Muslims. "We have an edge on all Islamic movements, and enjoy respect from all of them" he noted.

Indeed, according to Mr. Insanoglu, the push for Shariah (Islamic) courts was a movement nobody paid much attention to originally. It was he who brought those pushing for this change into the fold, and now they are making great strides. Proud to credit himself with this accomplishment, Mr. Insanoglu boasted that Sheikh Sharif, the former head of the Shariah courts movement, is now president of Somalia and is supported by both the OIC and the United States.

In a mild-mannered voice, Mr. Insanoglu observed that we are moving toward a global world order. He believes a shift in power is inevitable within 10 years.

He asserted that the "root causes" of the conflict between the United States and the Muslim world are threefold. First, the Muslim world is disenchanted with America because of its support for Israel and because of Israel's "apartheid" policies and the resulting "indignities" Palestinians must endure. Second, when the United States withdrew from Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left, Muslims felt abandoned. Third, Muslims opposed the war in Iraq, and are angry because of subsequent Iraqi deaths and the abuse of Abu Ghraib prisoners.

Clearly laying out the "preconditions" for good U.S.-Muslim relations, Mr. Insanoglu demanded that these three "problems" be addressed "properly." Additionally, America must stop "infringing on the activities of the Muslim world" and change its mindset to stop perceiving Islam negatively. After all, the OIC can be a threat to the United States or a conciliatory force. The choice is in America's hands.

Mr. Insanoglu insisted that America and the OIC have more "mutual interests" than not. To demonstrate this point, he noted OIC's collaboration with the United States to combat malaria in Africa, and its interest in alleviating poverty and homelessness in indigenous lands.

Mr. Insanoglu is optimistic about improving OIC-U.S. relations. It was step in the right direction when President Bush proclaimed his respect for the Muslim faith and apologized for any bias against Muslims. It further helped that he appointed an envoy to the Muslim world. After all, the OIC welcomes any envoy - so long as he is Muslim - and has the ear of the president.

Now that President Obama sits in office, the OIC is especially hopeful. "The Cairo speech was historical, and addressed the Muslim world for the first time in a positive way." Mr. Insanoglu applauded Mr. Obama's good intentions. He hopes the intentions transform into policies, which will then lead to programs, making "the president's and the Muslim world's dream a reality." He looks forward to a new partnership with America and believes Mr. Obama's Cairo speech echoed the same sentiment.

A specific dream that Mr. Insanoglu says he shares with the president is that of a nuclear-free world. He emphasized that there should be "only one yardstick" in coping with problem countries that refuse to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.

Israel should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, while other countries are requested to forgo theirs. If Iran has nuclear weapons, it should be honest about it.

But, Mr. Insanoglu was quick to add that "we shouldn't repeat the same type of mistake that we made with Iraq," when reports of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be erroneous. We must act slowly and cautiously with regard to Iran. In fact, the head of Iran's nuclear program is "a very intelligent, decent guy." Mr. Insanoglu knows this because the program head was formerly the secretary's assistant general of science and technology at the OIC for four years.

During the question-and-answer period, Mr. Insanoglu was challenged regarding the OIC's track record and positions on human rights and free speech. He argued that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which restricted human rights to conform with Shariah law (in effect negating these rights), was "a long time ago." He suggested the audience review the OIC's new charter and its 10-year plan.

I did just that. Though the language has changed, the goals are similar. The OIC's documents indicate that it seeks increased power, Islamist supremacy, the denigration of Israel, restrictions on free speech, and the whitewashing of any connection of Islam to terrorism. The "joint efforts" are to boost the Muslim world only. There is no hint that the OIC intends to treat Christians and Jews who are persecuted by Muslims, as sudden equals.

The burden of attaining a "positive relationship" rests entirely in the hands of Western dhimmis who naively think capitulation will make their enemies like them more. And that, dear friends, constitutes the "respect" that the OIC demands.

Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a columnist for FrontPage Magazine and American Thinker. She also gives speeches and seminars on the legal instruments used by radicals to stifle free speech. To schedule a seminar, contact info@Vigilancenow.org

Read more ...

CAIR Stoops To Yet Another Low

CAIR is using the Fort Hood massacre to promote a fundraiser. Excerpt from the CAIR letter below the fold, from this source:

We need financial help to meet these crises and push back against those who seek to score political points off the Muslim community in the wake of the Fort Hood tragedy.

Also note this paragraph:

Our tone and immediate response is paying off. Major media acknowledged the strong statement that American Muslims issued condemning the Fort Hood attack. On CNN, Anderson Cooper reported that CAIR “reacted to the shooting spree, condemning the attack in the strongest terms possible.” ON MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews noted that CAIR was “quick to condemn the massacre.”

The letter is signed by Nihad Awad, CAIR's National Executive Director.

Read the entire letter HERE. Be sure to check out the postscript.

May CAIR's resources be strained to the breaking point.

Read more ...

Obama's Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam

Obama’s Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam – by Deborah Weiss
Published by FrontPage Magazine, Oct 16th, 2009

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote.


Earlier this year, when the United States sought a seat on the HRC, it was a controversial decision. Many who found the HRC neither credible nor useful, opposed the move. Yet, others were more optimistic that America could change the HRC from within. Perhaps the U.S. could spur debate stemming from its opposition to China, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia on critical human rights votes.

Little evidence suggests that Americans on either side of the aisle contemplated the US entering the ring and supporting the opposition’s anti-freedom measures. Yet now, the current administration has done worse: it’s leading the charge.

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation. Second, it recognizes the media’s “moral and social responsibilities” and the “importance” that its potential voluntary code of conduct could play in combating intolerance.

This resolution appears to stem from, and constitute a step toward, the Organization of Islamic Conference’s resolution to “combat defamation of religions”. The OIC’s resolution would ban outright the “defaming” of religions, speech critical of religion (even if accurate), and open discussion about any negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs (such as Sharia law).

Though both resolutions mention “religions” generally, the context and references of the resolutions make them almost certain to apply only or disproportionately to Islam. Indeed, the defamation of religions resolution singles out treatment of Islam. Yet not surprisingly, the OIC has blatantly refused to curtail hate speech against Jews or Israel.

Further, it is the nature of religion to include a component of exclusivity, thus making it impossible to express one’s theology accurately without making “defamatory” remarks against another theology. For example, merely preaching that Jesus is the son of God can be viewed as an inflammatory remark and an affront to Islam. Additionally, the wording of this resolution makes its violation subjectively determined and comes dangerously close to outlawing certain emotions, such as hostility toward Islam or Muslims.

Critically important is the resolution’s attempt to internationalize norms on speech, potentially usurping fundamental constitutional rights. Strict constructionists of the US constitution view the constitution as “the supreme law of the land” (as the constitution expressly states), whereas those who view the constitution as “a living, breathing document” might not. But even under a strict construction, when the US signs a treaty, the treaty becomes binding on the US. Though this UN resolution does not constitute a treaty, it is fair to presume that because it is a US-led initiative, the US should be bound by it.

Also problematic is the resolution’s attempt to make the restriction of free speech a human right. In fact, it is free speech that constitutes a human right and not its restriction. Ideologies, ideas and religions do not, and should not be afforded “human rights”. They should be fair game for criticism, analysis, open debate and discussion. Religions and ideologies cannot be “defamed”. Once ideologies are afforded protection from criticism, it is in direct contradiction to individual human rights. Moreover, some of the language in the resolution is vague and open to interpretation. Given the parties on the HRC who adopted it, a broad construction of speech restrictions is likely.

It is no accident that countries which have no freedom of expression show support for this resolution. For example, Ambassador Hisham Badr from Egypt, in discussing his satisfaction with the resolution, stated that “freedom of expression…..has sometimes been misused.” He went on to imply that media which fails to comply with limitations on free speech are unethical.

Pakistan Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the OIC, confirmed that the resolution allows free speech to be trumped by the suppression of that which “defames” religion or expresses a negative stereotype of religion. He asserted that freedom of expression is important but this right carries “duties and responsibilities”, including the need to fight hate speech. He articulated the view that defamation of religion and negative stereotyping are forms of religious hatred. He made clear that in the OIC’s interpretation, such negativity applies not just to individuals, but to religions and belief systems, proclaiming that this constitutes a human rights violation.

Jean-Baptiste Mettei from France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, appears to be in denial about the meaning and impact of this resolution. While prefacing his remarks with praise for the resolution, the French Ambassador then declared that human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems. The EU summarily rejected the concept of defamation of religion, and expressly denounced the notion that the media has a moral and social responsibility to curtail speech. He argued that states should not interfere with the work of journalists, and acknowledged their right to editorial independence. As such, the EU could not support the restrictions on journalistic speech embodied in the resolution.

In the past, when the US addressed international speech norms, it went out of its way to ensure that treaties by which it was bound would not restrict free speech or undermine America’s first amendment protections. But now, change has come.

Arguably relinquishing one of America’s most fundamental freedoms, Obama is once again bowing down to the Muslim world. The interim ranking US diplomat, Douglas Griffiths explained, “[T]his initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” However, to the OIC, “respect” means the silencing of offensive speech against Islam.

With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and freelance writer. She gives speeches on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech on behalf of www.Vigilancenow.org

Read more ...

American Paul Williams' Rights Threatened in Canada

If you've read about my legal case, you'll know that I have recently suffered through a frivilous lawsuit brought by several Dallas-area Islamist groups. They attempted to harm me financially, while trying to remove my rights to free speech, free assembly and free press -- basically all of the main freedoms we cherish as Americans.

My friend Paul Williams is going through something similar in Canada. Please read about his case below and help him in whatever way you can.

Joe Kaufman

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tracy Hood - No Compromise News

"AMERICAN JOURNALIST STRIPPED OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS"

Next week, investigative journalist and author Dr. Paul L. Williams will be tried in a foreign court for his investigative work on reports of al Qaeda terrorists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

But he broke no American statute and his alleged violation of Canadian law took place not in Canada, but at his home in Pennsylvania.

Williams got into a legal jam with the Canadians while discussing his book The Dunces of Doomsday on the nationally syndicated “Coast-to-Coast AM” radio program with George Noory.

To make matters more bizarre, Williams had been advised by the Ontario Provincial Police to issue warnings to his fellow Americans about terrorist activity at the Canadian university that placed the lives of countless millions of Americans in jeopardy.

The case is significant since it represents the first time an American journalist is being forced to submit to Canadian law.

Williams has been stripped of his Constitutional rights and forced to deplete his financial savings to pay for his Canadian lawyers.

“The matter would have gone away if I simply signed an apology,” Williams said, “but what kind of journalist would I be if I apologized for telling the truth?”
He estimates that the cost of the lawsuit already has topped $500,000.
Williams visited McMaster University in May, 2006 to verify accounts by Janice Kephardt of the 9/11 Commission, journalists Bill Gertz and Scott Wheeler of “The Washington Times,” former federal prosecutor John Loftus, and others, that the liberal Canadian university had harbored leading al Qaeda operatives, including Adnan el-Shukrijumah, Jaber A. Elbaneh, Abderraouf Jdey, and Amer el-Maati.

The same sources testified that when the al Qaeda operatives left McMaster, “over 80 kilograms” (180 pounds) of nuclear material was reported missing.

During his visit to McMaster, Williams says that he discovered an over-abundance of professors from terror-sponsoring countries within the university’s department of engineering.

In the Division of Earthquake Engineering, he says, 9 out of 10 faculty members were from the Universities of Cairo and Alexandria. Similarly, Williams maintains the three McMaster officials, who head the College of Engineering and supervise the work at the reactor, all hailed from the University of Cairo.

Jane Corbin of the BBC has reported that the engineering department at the University of Cairo remains under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Williams says that he and several of his associates, including a licensed private investigator, met with officials from the Ontario Provincial Police, who confirmed that McMaster has been under scrutiny for a long time; that many of the students have ties to radical Islam and terrorist organizations; and that Islamic members of the faculty have conducted clandestine meetings at an off-campus address in Hamilton.

The officials in question - - Detective Constables Dennis Bryson and Tim Trombley - - were not available for comment.

Williams insists that the problem at McMaster was evidenced by the fact that several of the terrorists who were taken into custody in the plot to kill the Canadian Prime Minister and to blow up Parliament were students at the school.

Supporting Williams’s contentions, Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, has testified on tape that Anas el-Liby, a founder of al Qaeda, attended McMaster and managed, along with other al Qaeda operatives, to steal 80 kilos of nuclear material from the poorly guarded facilities at the school.

Jayne Johnson, a spokesperson for McMaster, declined to comment on whether el Shukrijumah and other al Qaeda operatives were ever students at the school. She maintained that such information was confidential.

Peter Downward, the attorney representing the University says, "We regard Mr. Williams' allegations about McMaster as being on a par with UFO reports and JFK conspiracy theories. The notion that because there are people on faculty from Egypt that McMaster is then a haven for terrorism is not only logically offensive, it smacks of racism.”

McMaster may get away with dismissing findings of lawyers, investigators from the 9-11 Commission, and international journalists as racist, logically offensive, and looney.

However, the predominance of Muslims from terror sponsoring countries at McMaster and the lack of security at the reactor has been verified by independent sources, including Sean Michaels of GlobalTV-CA.
Moreover, Ontario police officials have labeled the campus “a hive of jihadi activity.”

In Canada, any person offended by a statement can file a lawsuit, and it remains up to the respondent to prove his innocence.

Read more ...

Executing Virgins, Iran Style

By: Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, August 10, 2009



Despite the fact that Iran’s penal code prohibits the execution of virgins, Iran executes more juveniles than any other country in the world. The executions are conducted through hangings, stonings, and other barbaric measures consistent with Sharia law. Since the age of personal responsibility in Iran is 13 for boys and 9 for girls, surely many of those sentenced to death are virgins. How does the government get around this? On the condition of anonymity, a Basiji guard recently spoke out to explain how Iran executes virgins.


The Basiji is a volunteer paramilitary force founded by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Known as the people’s militia, it is subordinate to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and remains very loyal to Khomeini’s successor, the Supreme Leader Khamenei.



Explaining how he became a member of the Basiji, the guard stated that his father was a martyr in the Iran-Iraq war. At age 16, his mother took him to the Basijis and pleaded with them to accept him so he’d have a better life. They agreed.



The guard became a well-regarded member of the force. His superiors were so impressed with him that they gave him the “honor” of temporarily marrying young girls prior to their executions. The girls are forced into marriage with a prison guard, and then raped on their wedding night before being killed the next morning.

The girls always fight back when their marriage is to be “consummated”, so sometimes the guards put sleeping pills into the girls’ food. When the rapes were over, the guard would hear the girls crying and screaming. He remembered one girl who clawed her own face and neck, resulting in deep scratches all over. Though the non-consensual weddings are considered legal, the guard admitted that the girls were more afraid of their wedding nights than of their pending deaths. “By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.”



In Sharia law, certain crimes are punishable by death. According to Amnesty International, the Ayatollah, who followed strict Sharia law, had twenty thousand girls and women executed in the first three years of his rule. Though Islam does not prohibit the execution of virgins, it does teach that virgins go to Paradise after death. Many Islamic clerics, not satisfied with merely cutting short the lives of young girls, also wanted to ensure that the girls would suffer an eternity in hell. Therefore, Iran made it illegal to execute virgins, but created a legal loophole by ordering guards to “marry” and rape their prisoners. Authorities in many other Islamic countries also order their guards to systematically rape female prisoners. In Iran, the crimes of homosexuality, fornication, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking are among those deemed capital offenses. Often fornication charges are leveled even when the accused is raped. The victim is rarely able to “prove” her innocence due to a lack of due process and the fact that the testimony of females is worth one half that of a man’s.



The Basiji guard spoke after recently being released from prison by Iranian authorities. He had been jailed for the crime of releasing a 13 year old boy and a 15 year old girl after they were arrested for protesting the Presidential election results in June. Many other police and members of security forces have also been arrested for showing leniency to protestors or for releasing them from custody without authorization from higher-ups. The guard released the two teens because they looked so young and he knew what was going to happen to them. He believes it was primarily the release of the girl that got him into trouble. However, while in prison he was treated well and spent most of his time praying and thinking about his wife and children.



Ironically, it is no longer the Presidential election results that Iranians are protesting, but the kind of brutality and inhumanity that the Basiji guard himself perpetrated through his “temporary” marriages. Iranians are tired of living under the oppression of an Islamic theocracy. Protestors are willing to risk imprisonment, bodily injury and their lives for the cause of freedom. Many of them are under age 18.



As of July 30, 2009, dozens of protestors have been killed and hundreds more have been arrested. While in jail, they may have their fingernails ripped off, be forced to lick dirty toilet bowls or be beaten to death. Numerous Islamic clerics are formally demanding the death penalty for protest leaders.



Though Iran publicly condemns the execution of minors, it justifies the execution of its own youth by defining minors to be those under age 13 if male and under age 9 if female. Alternatively, sometimes Iran holds minors in prison until the age of 18 before executing them. Prior to the riots, 140 girls remained on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. This number is twice what it was in 2007. Since the demonstrations began, the current number of juveniles on death row is impossible to ascertain.



Iran accounts for two thirds of the world’s child executions, earning them worldwide condemnation. However, international criticism has not resulted in sufficient pressure to stop Iran’s practice of raping and executing minors. Let’s hope that the demonstrations will succeed at putting an end to this savage practice and other human rights violations put in place by Iran’s religious mullahs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss, Esq. lobbies for Vigilance, Inc. and is a freelance writer.

Read more ...

Afghan Idol

By: Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, July 24, 2009


After 30 years of civil war, foreign invasion, and Taliban rule, Afghans finally have the opportunity to vote in free elections. They have learned to campaign, solicit votes, and support candidates of varying ethnicities. Even women are part of the process. It is likely the most democratic, egalitarian process Afghans have witnessed in decades. Am I referring to the Presidential elections? No. It’s Afghan Star, the new TV show modeled after American Idol. The show is popular, controversial, and it’s paving the way for true political reform in Afghanistan.



Though traditionally Afghanistan had music as part of its culture, in recent decades music was heavily censored. During Taliban rule from 1996-2001, music, dance, television and films were outlawed altogether in accordance with Islamic Sharia law. Anyone caught engaging in these crimes was subject to harsh penalties including death.


After Operation Enduring Freedom toppled the Taliban, these activities became legal. In 2005, shortly after the new parliament was in place, Afghan Star emerged. However, music and dance are still shunned by Islamic fundamentalists and the more conservative Muslim community. Those who enter Afghan Star’s singing contest are, in effect, making a bold political statement and risking their own lives.



In Afghanistan, equality is still a radical concept. Despite this, Afghan Star places no age, gender, or ethnic restrictions on its participants. Last year, approximately 2000 people auditioned for the show, including three women. Two of them were among the top ten finalists, showing great strides for women who, under Taliban rule, were not allowed out of the house unless in a burqa and accompanied by a close male relative.



The show is produced by Tolo TV, the country’s first commercial station, and it is broadcast to fourteen cities nationwide. Because not every Afghan household has a TV, large crowds gather together on Friday nights at restaurants and friends’ homes to watch the contest. It is the most popular show in Afghanistan, and dominates the airwaves for six months of the year.



The film follows the lives of the top four contestants as they compete for the Afghan Star title and $5000 (a small fortune by Afghan standards). This no-frills version of American Idol takes place against the backdrop of a visibly war-torn and poverty-stricken country. The documentary does an excellent job of portraying Afghanistan’s politics, religion, culture, ethnic conflicts, and artistic struggles through the eyes of each singer’s personal experience. It brings Afghanistan’s triumphs and conflicts to life, making them a reality. Indeed, it was filmed amidst bombings and earthquakes, business as usual in Afghanistan. Though the film won two awards at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, it is banned in Afghanistan because it interviewed women on screen.



The final four contestants were Satara, Lima, Rafi and Hamid. Satara, the most rebellious character in the film, is a 21-year-old girl from Kabul, Afghanistan’s most progressive city. Her family hails from Herat, a conservative area on the outskirts of Afghanistan. Growing up she took singing lessons in secret, with her family’s moral support. Singing gives Satara a sense of freedom. Music fills her with happiness which propels her to dance ever so slightly onstage. She allows her hijab to slip, uncovering her hair. She has gone too far and is voted off the show. Almost everyone disapproves of her actions including other contestants. Viewers call her “loose”, “a whore”, and “immoral”. Some believe she deserves to die.



Lima, the last remaining woman, is relatively conservative. Asked if she would consider dancing on the show, she declares “never.” Not even if she were offered thousands of dollars. Not even is she was guaranteed to win. Lima comes from Kandahar, the bedrock of Islamic fundamentalism, where the mere fact that a woman is on TV is considered quite politically charged. Nevertheless, she has the support of most of her Pashtun community and many women admire her for her courage and confidence, talent aside. Lima came in third place.



The two finalists, Rafi and Hamid originate from different ethnicities, Tajik and Hazara, respectively. Though they view themselves as singers, in reality the contestants are politicians of a sort, trying to achieve national unity through music. They are encouraging people to compete in song rather than in war. The two travel throughout the country, putting up posters and yelling through megaphones, asking for votes. As in the US, votes are placed through cell phone text messages. The advance of technology is sharply contrasted with Afghanistan’s seventh century mores when teen girls dressed in full burqas catch a glimpse of the stars and start shooting snapshots of them with their cell phones.



Many in Afghanistan believe that music is a universal language. The older generation recalls a time when music was part of Afghan culture and is eager to restore it. The younger generation sees music as a vehicle for personal expression and freedom. Others, who have suffered the death of a loved one in war, welcome song as a healing agent. It soothes the pain, and facilitates recovery from the grieving process, bringing a sense of peace. Many of the children love to sing, explaining that there is no joy without music.



Yet, the religious elements of Afghanistan remain steadfast and are not without sway. Though it didn’t come to fruition, midway through the show the Taliban threatened to shut down the transmission towers, which would have rendered people unable to text in their votes and would have caused the show’s demise. Additionally, prior to the finale, the Islamic Council issued a strong statement to President Karzai condemning the immorality of Afghan Star and other TV shows that fail to comply with Sharia law. When the show was over, the Council was successful in passing a resolution making it illegal to dance on TV.



All the contestants were subjected to death threats at the show’s close. Those who resided in Taliban controlled localities were at the gravest risk. When the show ended, Satar, the girl who danced, was evicted from her apartment by a disapproving landlord. She had no choice but to return to her parents’ conservative hometown, with all its consequences. Fortunately, she eventually made her way back to Kabul and is currently recording an album. Lima, despite the fact that she refused to dance, received significant death threats and was forced into exile. She currently lives in hiding in Pakistan.



Daoud Siddiqi, Afghan Star’s show host, known as the Ryan Seacrest of Afghanistan, made the mistake of announcing on film that “the Taliban is finished.” They proved him wrong by making him one of their prime targets. Daoud recently was granted political asylum to the United States.



Despite the challenges, Rafi and Hamid are going on tour, trying to pave the way for greater tolerance and national solidarity. Rafi insists that he does not represent only his ethnicity, but represents all Afghans.



Clearly, Afghanistan has a long way to go in securing the exercise its newfound freedoms. Still, the mere fact that singing is legal and that the show is permitted to air demonstrates the country’s progress. Eleven million people voted in Afghan Star’s finale. That is one third of Afghanistan’s population. For many, it was the first time they voted or the first time they supported someone of a different ethnicity.



Presidential elections are scheduled in Afghanistan for August 20, 2009. Let us hope that the freedom, egalitarianism, and message of tolerance that permeated the democratic process on Afghan Star, paves the way for similar campaigns in Afghanistan’s national politics. Many Afghans believe it will.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss, Esq. lobbies for Vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more ...