Born to Jihad

As Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari huddled with President Barack Hussein Obama at the White House last week, Taliban jihadis extended their inexorable advance into Pakistani territory. General David Petraeus was quoted as warning that Pakistan could be mere weeks from falling to their onslaught.

What nobody seems willing to say out loud, however, is that Pakistan was created to be an Islamic state governed by Shari’a and dedicated to the objectives of jihad. Its 20-year quest for the first Islamic bomb ended in success largely because the U.S. and rest of the Western world allowed it to happen. Three decades of American administrations enabled Pakistan to arm itself, train thousands of youngsters to terrorism, and then export those weapons, jihadis, and ideology to its neighbors. That the forces of Islamic jihad should now be mounting what may be a final assault for domination of the nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Pakistan should surprise no one.

Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, the 20th century founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami (the Islamic Congregation), urged his followers to “seize power by the use of all available means and equipment” in order to establish Islamic rule and instill an “Islamic way of life and morality” — in other words, impose Shari’a on Pakistan. Neither did Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Father of modern-day Pakistan, leave any doubt about what was intended when he addressed the All-India Muslim League in 1946: “If we fail to realise our duty today, you will be reduced to the status of Sudras (low castes) and Islam will be vanquished from India. I shall never allow Muslims to be slaves of Hindus.”Born the following year in a bloodbath of religious hatred, Pakistan has always been ruled by its army and intelligence service, which enjoyed the virtually automatic support of its ally in Washington for the next 60 years even as they increasingly identified with hardline Islamists. Today, that army and its Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are so thoroughly infused with jihadist sympathies that their will to win against Muslim co-religionists is in serious question. The U.S. seemed not to notice when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto made Islam the state religion of Pakistan in 1973 or when his successor General Zia ul-Haq Islamicized Pakistani courts and the economy, turned Pakistani madrassas into jihad factories, and demoted women to second-class status. Neither did the Pentagon pay the slightest attention when Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote “The Qur’anic Concept of War” in 1979, revealing Pakistan’s unswerving dedication to the doctrinal aspects of Qur’anic warfare (jihad). Malik stated unequivocally, “Jihad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the object of policy. It aims at attaining the overall mission assigned to the Islamic state…” Gen. Zia ul-Haq wrote the forward to Malik’s book — which to this day is virtually unknown at U.S. national war colleges. Because the U.S. needed Pakistan to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, our government turned a blind eye not only to Zia’s Islamicization of Pakistani society, but also to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. As meticulously documented in the 2007 book, “Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons”, three decades of American presidents ignored, destroyed, and misrepresented to Congress and the American people the evidence provided by U.S. and other Western intelligence services about the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Pakistan’s nuclear intentions and developing capabilities were known and understood by every president from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush as was the fact that Pakistan’s military-dominated governments were deeply involved in AQ Khan’s activities. Then-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto herself acceded to AQ Khan’s request to travel to North Korea in December 1995. There she took delivery of a bagful of computer disks and other materials containing the blueprints for the advanced ballistic missiles Pakistan needed for its nuclear weapons delivery system. Husain Haqqani, the current Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S., reportedly met Bhutto at the Islamabad airport upon her return and later described his horror at the realization that what she had brought back was a direct delivery from Pyongyang to the Pakistani military. After a decade of disastrous disinterest, 9/11 renewed U.S. attention to Pakistan, but the ISI’s continuing deep involvement with its creation, the Afghan Taliban, was somehow overlooked. Confident of ISI support and drawing on an apparently endless supply of Pakistani madrassa graduates, the Taliban methodically established an intelligence, support, and training network throughout Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) and beyond. Despite the veneer of its Westernized elite, Pakistan is home to millions of Muslims who know exactly what liberal democracy is and firmly reject it. It’s these decades of failure to deal with an ostensible ally that proliferated both jihad and centrifuges that have brought us to today’s panic over the Taliban’s 2009 blitzkrieg through the SWAT Valley. Failure to absorb the lessons of Malik’s “Quranic Concept of War” and ignorance of Islamic history are the only possible explanations for any expectations that the Taliban would abide by the Malakand Accord, the agreement reached in February 2009 between the jihadis and the Pakistani government that ceded the SWAT Valley to Shari’a. Now observers are trying to come to grips with the possibility that the center of gravity for the international jihad, this nuclear-armed country of 170 million people that harbors al-Qa’eda and Taliban leaders, provides safe havens for terrorist training camps, and runs operations centers for jihadist attacks across the globe, could soon become the nucleus of a new Caliphate. This bad dream becomes a real nightmare when a nuclear Iran run by jihadi-minded mullahs is factored in. Usama bin-Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their al-Qa’eda cohorts are in Iran and Pakistan because they feel safe there. They didn’t bring the ideology of Islamic Jihad with them — the ideology welcomed them. It’s not likely that the Taliban will long be halted by Pakistan’s half-hearted counteroffensive. It is the nature and the imperative of jihad to expand “till Allah’s word is supreme” (Q 8:39) or until it is halted by force. U.S. aid to Pakistan this year is no more likely to result in a redeployment of Pakistan’s military away from the Indian border or a housecleaning at the ISI than the billions already spent were. While Ralph Peters’ recent call to “Dump Pakistan” is probably unrealistic, his bottom line to “Let India deal with Pakistan” does not make sense. Much more sense than continuing to aid and abet the forces of terror by writing blank checks to a regime with no accountability, whose real interests are antithetical to America’s own.

Ms. Lopez is the Vice President of the Intelligence Summit and a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies.

Advertisements

Michael Savage named alongside hate preachers and a member of Hamas.

Jacqui Smith’s latest disaster: Banned U.S. shock jock never even tried to visit Britain – now he’s suing

A U.S. ‘shock jock’ DJ named among 16 extremists and fanatics banned from the UK has said he will sue Jacqui Smith for defamation.

Michael Savage, who has up to 10 million listeners, branded Home Secretary Jacqui Smith a ‘lunatic’ and a ‘witch’ after being named alongside hate preachers and a member of Hamas.

Last night lawyers suggested he had a strong case as he had not advocated violence, unlike others on the list. It was thought he could claim up to £200,000 in damages.

The presenter is furious at being put on the list of 22 hardliners banned from entering the UK because the Home Office claims they have fostered extremism or hatred.

He says he had not been planning to travel to Britain anyway and has now called on his millions of listeners to boycott the country.

michel-savage

Mr Savage added: ‘It’s interesting to me that here I am a talk show host, who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values – borders, language, culture – who is now on a list banned in England.

‘What does that say about the government of England? It says more about them than it says about me.’

The list has turned into another humiliating gaffe for the Home Secretary after officials were forced to admit not all the fanatics, like Mr Savage, wanted to come to the UK.

It has emerged their names were placed on it simply on the off-chance they may decide to visit.

At least two – teenage skinheads Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky – have no chance of boarding a plane to Britain since they are currently serving ten years in a Russian jail for leading a gang which committed 20 racially-motivated murders.

Challenged to say how many on the banned list had been planning to visit Britain, a Home Office spokesman said today: ‘I do not have that information.’

Mr Savage declared: ‘I have been banned from Great Britain. I had not planned on going there, I had not been there in over 25 years.

‘When I woke up this morning I just thought I could not be true. The point is that today it is me, tomorrow it will be somebody else.’

Using his show The Savage Nation, which is broadcast on more than 350 U.S. radio stations, to attack the ban, he called Miss Smith a ‘witch’.

‘For her to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in league with mass murderers who kill Jews on buses, is defamation,’ he claimed.

‘I thought this was a joke or a mistake. How could they put Michael Savage in the same league with mass murderers when I have never avowed violence? As a result of this, I am going to sue.’

He added: ‘When has this witch heard my show, since it’s not syndicated in England?

‘Thank God we broke away from that cowardly country.’

‘That is exactly the kind of speech the founders of our country meant to protect with the First Amendment.

‘And it should send a cold chill through the heart of any man who loves freedom when he asks himself, “whose ideas and speech will be banned by government next”.’

Jameel Jaffer, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the move showed countries were prepared to ‘use their borders as a weapon of censorship’.

‘While some of these people may express views that others find disagreeable, often the cure is worse than the disease,’ said Mr Jaffer. ‘It also deprives the citizens of that country of their ability to hear dissenting views.’

MIKE SAVAGE: ‘You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi.’
He has called the Koran ‘a book of hate’ and added that some Muslims, at least, ‘need deportation’.

ON ISLAM

Women should not allowed to come out of their house for any reason other than to perform Haj: Sharia gem

Sufi Muhammad an expert in Sharia (the oppressive Islamic law) says

* Women can only come out of their houses to perform Haj

* Democracy, communism, socialism, fascism are un-Islamic systems of governance
* Says jihad is only obligatory when infidels seek to eliminate Sharia

It is un-Islamic for anyone to be photographed, Prominent Islamic party in Pakistan, Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) chief Sufi Muhammad has said.

Talking to a private TV channel, he said

 

On the status of women in a Taliban-run society, he said women were not allowed to come out of their house for any reason other than to perform Haj. That they should be covered head to toe and never show their face or any body part ever in their lifetime.

women-in-islam

And any duplicated image of a person, whether a “still picture or video” was un-Islamic. Referring to the various systems of governance, he said democracy, communism, socialism and fascism were all un-Islamic. He also said there was no need for a constitution in the country in the presence of the Quran and Sunnah, adding these were the “biggest laws” available to humanity. Focusing on democracy, he said it was un-Islamic, as infidels invented it. “I would not offer prayer behind anyone who would seek to justify democracy,” he said.

Sufi Muhammad said the Sharia system of governance not currently in force anywhere in the world, not even Saudi Arabia or Iran. “Only the Taliban had enforced Sharia when they were in power in Afghanistan,” he added. He said he had gone to Afghanistan to conduct jihad, and not to cater to Mullah Omar or Osama Bin Laden. “Jihad was obligatory at the time because the US wanted to end Sharia in Afghanistan,” he added. He said Muslims could not wage jihad until the enforcement of Sharia, adding jihad becomes obligatory on Muslims only after infidels attempt to eliminate the Sharia system of governance.

Islamic Taliban Demolish Sikh Homes over Refusal to Pay Jizya

Islamic Taliban militants have demolished 11 homes of members of the minority Sikh community in Pakistan’s troubled Aurakzai tribal region after they failed to pay ‘jiziya’ or a tax levied on non-Muslims.
 

 


Amid reports of demolition of homes of Sikhs in parts of Pakistan, India on Friday said it had taken up the matter of treatment of minorities in that country with the government in Islamabad.

“On seeing reports about Sikh families in Pakistan being driven out of their homes and being subject to ‘jiziya’ and other such impositions, the Government of India has taken up with Pakistan the question of treatment of minorities with the government of Pakistan,” Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash said.

According to reports, Islamic Taliban militants have demolished 11 homes of members of the minority Sikh community in Pakistan’s troubled Aurakzai tribal region after they failed to pay ‘jiziya’ or a tax levied on non-Muslims.

The Islamic militants acted after a deadline set by them for payment of ‘jiziya’ by the Sikhs expired on April 29, The Sikhs had discussed the possibility of leaving the area at a meeting of the community but were unable to reach a decision.

Though the Sikhs have been living in Aurakzai Agency for centuries, the Islamic  Taliban asked them earlier this month to pay Rs 50 million a year as jiziya.

The Islamic militants claimed this was being done as Sharia or Islamic law had been enforced in the area and all non-Muslims have to pay “protection money”.

Torture memo release for Muslim appeasing has put US in danger

President Obama visited the CIA headquarters yesterday to placate officials dismayed by his decision to release top secret “torture” memos, a move that has provoked accusations that he is willing to compromise America’s safety out of political correctness.

Mr Obama’s first visit to the CIA, to boost morale there and shore up his own reputation, came as his decision to release the memos detailing brutal interrogation sessions of terror suspects continued to attract criticism.

There were claims from inside the agency’s ranks that the move had undermined its ability to extract vital intelligence from America’s enemies, and could even blow the cover of some secret operatives.

Michael Hayden, who ran the CIA under President Bush, said before Mr Obama’s visit that the release of the memos had compromised the CIA’s intelligence gathering work and, in effect, aided America’s enemies.

Mr Obama sought to assure CIA staff that they still had his support and that he was prepared to draw a line under the agency’s dubious recent practices.

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he said. “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we have made some mistakes — that’s how we learn.

“But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.”

The meetings between President Obama and the agency’s leadership and staff in Langley, Virginia, were also overshadowed by the revelation, contained in the Bush-era memos, that the CIA had used waterboarding techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 terror attacks, 183 times in March 2003. It suggested that the use of the technique, which simulates drowning, was far more extensive than previously admitted.

Another terror suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

A former CIA officer claimed in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah was subjected to the technique — which Mr Obama says constitutes torture and has outlawed — for 35 seconds.

In the memos legal officials of the Bush Administration argued that harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, slapping and sleep deprivation did not amount to torture.

Mr Obama reiterated yesterday that he had no intention of seeking the prosecution of any CIA employees involved in waterboarding or of any Bush Administration officials who authorised and justified the policy.

He also acknowledged how the release of the memos had upset many in the CIA. “I know the last few days have been difficult,” Mr Obama told CIA staff.

He said that he had ordered the publication of the classified documents because of a freedom of information lawsuit that would have been difficult to defend.

“I have fought to protect the integrity of classified information in the past and I will do so in the future.”

However, former leaders of the agency were furious, arguing that harsh interrogation techniques had disrupted plots and saved American lives. Apart from Mr Hayden, three other former CIA directors, and Leon Panetta, the present head of CIA, opposed the release of the memos.

Mr Hayden warned that making the documents public would make it harder to get useful information from suspected terrorists in the future.

“I think that teaching our enemies our outer limits, by taking techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult in a whole host of circumstances . . . for CIA officers to defend the nation.”

Seeking to justify “ harsh interrogation” Mr Hayden denied claims that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah had produced no useful information. “The critical information we got from Abu Zubaydah came after we began the . . . enhanced interrogation techniques,” he said. “The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer — it really did work.”

Mr Hayden added that the publication of the memos had damaged the morale of CIA operatives. “Officers are saying, ‘Will this happen to me in five years because of the things I’m doing now?’.

“The basic foundation of the legitimacy of the agency’s action has shifted from some durability of law to a product of the American political process. That puts the agency in a horrible position. There will be more revelations. There will be more commissions. There will be more investigations. And this to an agency . . . that is at war and is on the front lines of defending America.

“The really dangerous effect of this is that you will have the agency officers stepping back from the kinds of things that the nation expects them to do. You’re going to have this agency on the front line of defending you in this current war playing back from the line.”

His comments were echoed by Charles Grassley, a Republican senator. “You don’t tell your enemy what you know or what you’re going to do. This allows our enemies to be properly informed and prepared to be prisoners of the US,” Mr Grassley said.

Mr Obama had argued that such harsh techniques sullied the reputation of the US abroad and served as a recruiting tool for terrorists. He said that the release of the memos was to show transparency and to close a dark chapter in US history.

Mr Obama told the CIA employees, who met him in a secure auditorium, that they had to perform their work ethically because they were guarding America against attacks from “people who have no scruples”.

He said that he understood that intelligence officials sometimes felt as if they were operating with one hand tied behind their backs. “You don’t get credit when things go good, but you sure get some blame when things don’t. I believe our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values, including the rule of law. I know I can count on you to do exactly that.”

Tim Reid for Times

Freedom of Speech in Islam

The term ‘Human Rights’ is used by many, also by Muslims. But it doesn’t necessarily imply that the users of the term mean the same thing. This is important to note as we discuss freedom of speech and religion. There are two major global entities with their respective declarations on human rights: The United Nations (UN) and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

United Nations was founded after the 2nd World War. The UN declaration on human rights is based on Judeo-Christian ethics and was established in 1948. OIC was founded in 1969, has 57 member states and represents every fifth person on the globe. OIC has developed and adopted its own declaration on human rights, partly in opposition the UN version, stating that Islamic human rights are different. These Muslim countries have signed up to the UN declaration but pay little attention to it in practice, and adhere rather to the Islamic version, called the Cairo Declaration.

The Cairo Declaration states that all 57 Muslim countries should abide by the declaration. But it further clarifies that the declaration applies to the “ummah”, i.e. all Muslims all over the world, even in non-Muslim countries. This is noteworthy and remarkable. It is the norm of international treaties and conventions that nations sign up and commit themselves to abide by them. But the Cairo Declaration indirectly nullifies national borders and laws by asserting that the sharia based interpretation of human rights applies to all Muslims regardless of citizenship and country of residence. That means that Islamic laws (and the Cairo Declaration) supersede national laws, in every case and in every place.

The declaration states again and again – in the preamble, in various articles and in the conclusion – that everything is subject to sharia and should be interpreted in light of the Koran and Islamic law. Thus it may mention freedom and rights, but they are restricted according to the Koran and Islamic law.

Article 10 in the Cairo Declaration deals with religious freedom and asserts that there mustn’t be any compulsion in religion – but of course subject to Sharia. But it is a well known fact that those who leave Islam are at risk and quite a few are punished, even by death. Article 18 in the UN Declaration deals with religious freedom and has three main components: The right to have, express and change your faith. But in countries where Islam has a major influence there are definite limitations regarding expressing your beliefs and changing your religion; the latter especially for Muslims. In general Christians are allowed to convert to Islam, but it is illegal and dangerous for a Muslim to leave Islam.

This is what the Cairo Declaration says about freedom of speech: “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shariah.”  Thus freedom of speech is interpreted and limited by sharia.

Many surveys measuring various freedoms shows – again and again – that citizens in Muslim countries suffer oppression. They lack basic human rights and freedoms when it comes to politics, media, religion, gender equality, and so forth. One may speak of human rights, but Islamic versions of the same lead to the opposite, as a result of the supremacy of sharia law in Muslim faith and practice globally. This also includes freedom of speech and religion. Thus we need to be aware of similar or same terms that may be filled with different contents. 

Mats.Tunehag

There is nothing called the ‘moderate Taliban’: MJ Akbar

If necessity is the mother of invention then politics is often the father. Barack Obama has invented a phrase that did not exist on January 20, the day he became president. Anxious to win a war through the treasury rather than the Pentagon, he has discovered something called the “moderate Taliban” in Afghanistan. Joe Biden, his vice president, has found the mathematical coordinates of this oxymoron: only 5% of the Taliban are “extremists”.

Welcome to Obama’s first big mistake.

The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not simply against some bearded men and beardless boys who have been turned into suicide missionaries. The critical conflict is against the ideology of a chauvinistic theocracy that seeks to remould the Muslim world into a regressive region from which it can assault every aspect of modernity, whether that be in political space or the social sphere.

Washington has a single dimension definition of “moderate”: anyone who stops an active, immediate war against the US is a “moderate”. Let me introduce him to a couple of “moderate Taliban”. They are now world famous, having been on every national and international news channel these past few days, stars of a video clip from Swat. Two of them had pinned down a 17-year-old girl called Chand Bibi, while a third, his face shrouded, lashed her with a whip 37 times on suspicion of being seen with a man who was not her father or brother.

Obama should record the screams of Chand Bibi and play them to his daughters as the “moderate” music to which he wants to dance in his Afghan war.

These Taliban are “moderate” by the norms of the Obama Doctrine: they have come to a deal with America through Islamabad. Pakistani troops are not engaged in their medieval haven, nor are American Drones bombing their homes. All that remains, one presumes, is that they are placed on the Pentagon payroll as insurance of their ceasefire.

Perhaps, in their desperate search for moderation, Obama and Islamabad will promote the denial being manipulated into public discourse. The unbearable Swat-lashing video is now described as fake. It would be nice to know the names of the actors who played such a convincing part in the filming of this ‘fake’. Chand Bibi has “denied” any such incident. Sure: but was any doctor sent to check the scars?

Such compromise with ‘moderation’ has also taken place next door, in Afghanistan, under the watchful eye of American ally Hamid Karzai. He has just signed a family law bill which compels Afghan women to take permission from their husbands before going to a doctor, seeking education, or getting a job. The husband has become complete master of the bedroom. Custody of children can only go to fathers or grandfathers; women have no rights. A member of Afghanistan’s upper house, Senator Humaira Namati, has called this law “worse than during the Taliban (government). Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam”. It makes no difference to the Taliban, of course, that the Quran expressly forbids Muslim men from forcing decisions on their wives “against their will”. Karzai’s justification is the usual one: politics. He wanted the support of theocrats in the election scheduled for August this year. Under pressure, there is talk of a review but no one is sure what that means.

If it’s democracy, it must be “moderate”, right?

One can understand a post-Iraq America’s reluctance towards wars that seem straight out of Kipling. But we in the region have to live with the political consequences of superpower intervention, and the casual legitimacy that Obama is offering to a destructive ideology will create blowback that spreads far beyond the geography of “Afpak”.

Benazir Bhutto and the ISI did not create the Taliban in the winter of 1994 for war against America. Its purpose was to defeat fractious Afghan warlords, and establish a totalitarian regime that would equate Afghanistan’s strategic interests to Pakistan’s. The ISI conceived an “Afpak” long before the idea reached the outer rim of Washington’s thinking. Pakistan worked assiduously to widen the Taliban’s legitimacy and would have drawn America into the fold through the oil-pipeline siren song if Osama bin Laden had not blown every plan apart. In some essentials, things have not changed. Pakistan’s interests still lie in a pro-Islamabad Taliban regime in Kabul. The “moderation” theory is a ploy to provide war-weary America with an exit point. India’s anxieties will be offered a smile in public and a shrug in private.

History is uncomfortable with neat closures. Neither the Taliban nor Pakistan are what they were in 1994: the former
is much stronger, the latter substantially weaker. The fall of Kabul to the Taliban this time could be a curtain raiser to the siege of Islamabad.

There is nothing called a moderate lash, or backlash, President Obama.