Egyptian TV: Is Obama Trying To Destroy America?

Actually, between the Iran deal, his decisions regarding our military, and his latest claim that climate change is our greatest national security threat, asking where Obama is trying to destroy America is not at all an unreasonable question. Unfortunately, you won't find this panel appearing in our MSM.



The clip is a translation provided by MEMRI.org.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Iraqi MP Calls For Iraq To Be An Ally Of The West

Memri has the translation and video of an Al-Salam TV interview of Iraqi parlimentarian Mithal al-Alousi. I do not know much about Mr. Alousi, but if he is indicative of his brethern in the Iraqi Parliament, then it is good news. He is very clear eyed about the threat posed to Iraq by its expansionist neighbors - and in particular, Iran. He also calls for Iraq to have strong ties to the West.
_____________________________________________________

This from Memri:

Mithal Al-Alousi: "Some people want to keep Iraq weak. They do not want Iraq to have powerful friends. They do not want Iraq to have room to operate on the international level. They do not want Iraq to receive economic support, or to be able to operate through international banks. They don't want Iraq to be able to send its sons to international universities - that new generation that will return with knowledge, and bring prosperity to our society. They do not want this for Iraq.

"Kuwait wants the great Iraq to have the same power as 'beautiful' Kuwait - I don't want to call it a 'beggar' country today... They want the Iraqi army to be less powerful than a military brigade, so they can always overcome it. Iran does not want Iraq to have any [regional] standing. It says that the Arab Gulf is Persian. Even in sports - if the term 'pan-Arab games' is used, Iran objects and withdraws from the games. Iran has clear national expansionist ambitions. Iran's expansion can only be at the expense of Iraq. Iraq must fade away so they can control it.

Our neighbor Turkey - that Muslim neighbor, which is now ruled by an Islamic party and not by the army - cuts off the water supply to the Iraqis, knowing this spells drought for the fields, and harms the Iraqi citizens and their economy. The king of Saudi Arabia is the Guardian of the Two Holy Places, in Mecca and Al-Madina, but this does not prevent some [Saudis] from sponsoring terrorists, killers, and criminals. The Syrian regime, which heralds pan-Arabism, does not dare to fire a single bullet in the Golan Heights, or even mention the word 'Golan,' yet it has the audacity to kill Iraqis. . . ."

"If we do not have international commitments and agreements, with which we can force the international community and that strong country, America, to defend the Iraqi borders and sovereignty - who will defend Iraq's borders in the east, the west, or even Basra?

. . . "The Arab regimes want to replace the Palestinian-Israeli problem, which has lasted for the past 60 years, with the problem of Iraq... They want a victim, and Iraq is that victim.

. . . "I want a strategic agreement [with the U.S.], which would guarantee the building of an army, as well as Iraqi universities, which would guarantee that American universities be open to Iraqis, and which would guarantee financial ties between Iraqi and American banks. . . .

"By Allah, we will build a strong Iraq, which will be an ally of the West. Let Iran and all those foolish Arab countries listen carefully. Iraq will be the ally of the West, and will progress more than the Emirates and Singapore, and all the rest will come looking for work in Iraq."

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Islam and the Infidel

As one Egyptian cleric stated a few days ago, Islam is suffering a "crisis of interpretation." The orthodox interpretation of Salafi Islam that is being exported with billions of Saudi petrodollars is radical Islam. I have hope that Islam will evolve beyond the Salafi interpretation, but that will come from the grass roots of Islam. It will not originate from the orthodox clerics produced by Saudi colleges, nor will it arise out of the Saudi funded academics who occupy seats in the majority of our universities, nor will it arise from the Saudi funded NGO's such as CAIR, who exist to protect Salafi Islam from criticism. The following debate that aired on Kuwati TV and translated by MEMRI is indicative of the problem:

In a television debate on apostasy in Islam, which aired on Al-Risala TV on November 5, 2007, Kuwaiti TV host Sheikh Tareq Al-Sweidan, Egyptian cleric Gamal 'Allam, and Egyptian scholar Gamal Al-Bana, and audience members discussed whether a Muslim is free to convert to another religion, the consequences of such a conversion, and who falls into the category of "infidel." The following are excerpts from the debate.

"Does a Muslim Have the Liberty to Change his Religion?"

Kuwait TV Host Sheikh Tareq Al-Sweidan: "We have a question for the viewers at home, not in the studio, and they can respond with a text message. What is the best way to deal with apostates who converted from Islam? You have three possible responses. The first is through dialogue only. The second option is killing them, and the third option is to leave it up to the legal system. Enter your votes, send in your answers, and the results will appear on the screen. As for the young people with us in the studio, you can participate in a survey on which we will base our discussion with our guests. You've heard one opinion, and my question is very simple: Does a Muslim have the liberty to change his religion or not? Does a Muslim have the liberty to change his religion?"

[...]

Al-Sweidan: "If a person converted out of conviction, should he be declared an infidel?"

Abir, Young Woman in Audience: "First, he should be allowed to repent. We should explain his error to him, and if he is adamant on rejecting this and insists on his interpretation, he should be allowed to repent and have the opportunity to..."

Al-Sweidan: "And afterwards, he should be pronounced an infidel?"

Abir: "I believe he should be."

Al-Sweidan: "Thank you, Abir. Let's move to Fatima. What's your opinion?"

Fatima, Woman in Audience: "In my opinion, he should be declared an infidel. Why is there a problem with declaring people to be infidels?"

Al-Sweidan: "I'm not saying there is, I'm just asking a question."

Fatima: "He should be declared an infidel. The Koran divided people into Muslims, infidels, and the People of the Book. So there is a group of people who should be declared infidels."

[...]

Egyptian Cleric Gamal 'Allam: "With regard to matters of faith, the Sunni scholars have agreed that some acts lead to the excommunication of a person. If a person commits any of these acts, he is considered an infidel. The first case is denying something that is irrefutably part of Islam."

[...]

Gamal 'Allam: "Another case is when a person forbids something that is irrefutably permitted. If Allah permitted something, and along comes somebody and forbids it..."

Al-Sweidan: "For example, some Muslim countries forbid polygamy."

Gamal 'Allam: "Someone who forbids polygamy is an infidel who should be excommunicated, because he is defying Allah in his right to forbid and permit."

[...]

Gamal 'Allam: "Whoever rules according to a law other than the law sent down by Allah, and who does so out of full awareness and conviction..."

[...]

Gamal 'Allam: "If he believes that his law is equal to the law of Allah, he is comparing Allah to human beings, and thus, he is an infidel. If he believes his law to be better than the law of Allah, then he prefers the creature over its Creator, and thus, he is an infidel."

Gamal 'Allam: "Anybody who calls people to worship him..."

Al-Sweidan: "Obviously, like Pharaoh."

Gamal 'Allam: "Yes, anyone who called upon people...or who claimed he was the son of God, or that he..."

Al-Sweidan: "This is obvious."

[...]

Gamal 'Allam: "One is considered an infidel if one curses Allah, His messenger, or the Koran, or who mocks the Prophet's family."

[...]

Gamal 'Allam: "Whoever mocks Muslim men or women because of their religion...I don't mean a person who has a dispute with someone, and says to him: You mock me as a Muslim, you are an infidel. I mean a person who mocks or curses a Muslim because he prays..."

Al-Sweidan: "In other words, he mocks the religion."

Gamal 'Allam: "He mocks one of the religious rites. For example, a person who mocks a woman for wearing the veil..."

[...]

Egyptian Scholar Gamal Al-Bana: "Whoever says 'There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah' is a Muslim. End of discussion. It is not our place to delve into the details of his belief. In addition, heresy and faith are, first of all, up to Allah, and secondly, they are personal issues."

[...]

Al-Sweidan: "Before the break, I asked our audience for their views on this important issue. Does a Muslim have the liberty or the right to change his religion? The results are as follows: 24% said: 'Yes, he has the right to change his religion.' 76% of the people said: 'No.' Let's hear some opinions and then I will return to our guests."

[...]

Young man in audience: "Sir, if you become an apostate, your punishment is death. There is a great problem that most of us, 70% of us, are Muslims because they were born to Muslim fathers and mothers. Before a person converts to Islam, he has the liberty to choose, but remember that if you want to convert from Islam, you will be punished by death. So you have the liberty to choose, but on the condition..."

Al-Sweidan: "That's not liberty."

Young man: "It has conditions..."

Al-Sweidan: "What you are saying is: You have the right to become an apostate, but I will kill you."

Young man: "That's right. I won't tell him not to."

Al-Sweidan: "What can be worse than being killed?"

Young man: "That's why he will not become an apostate."

[...]

Al-Sweidan: "I'd like to give the floor to Dr. Gamal again. 76% of the young people here believe that a Muslim does not have the right to change his religion. How do you respond to that?"

Gamal Al-Bana: "That is very saddening. This result indicates a lack of knowledge regarding the essence of Islam, which is faith and liberty. If belief is not based on awareness and conviction, it is worthless. As the Koran says: 'If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed.' In other words, every Muslim has the right to change his religion as much as he likes, and nobody is allowed to stand in his way, because this is a question of freedom of conscience, and it is forbidden to intervene in matters of people's conscience. Talk to him, persuade him, hold a dialogue with him, but do not force him. You presented three options: Dialogue, killing, or the legal system. What do the legal system or killing have to do with people's conscience?"

[...]

Gamal Al-Bana: "That is very sad. Most of you are young and do not believe in freedom."

Gamal 'Allam: "I’d like to salute our young men and women for their natural and healthy belief and for their religious zeal. At the same time, it was sad to hear Mr. Gamal Al-Bana calling for 'freedom of thought,' but let me make a correction - what he is calling for is 'freedom of heresy' in Muslim countries."

Gamal Al-Bana: "Let him who want believe, and let him who want reject."

[...]

Al-Sweidan: "If a person wants to go to hell, who are we to say 'no'?"

Gamal 'Allam: "Let him go to hell."

[...]


"Islam... is the Only Reasonable and Convincing Religion"

Gamal 'Allam: "Islam is the only religion that begins with the imperative 'Read.' It is the only reasonable and convincing religion."

Al-Sweidan: "But what if a person is not convinced?"

Gamal 'Allam: "Then there is something wrong in his head."

Al-Sweidan: "That's what you think, but isn't he entitled to have something wrong in his head?"

Gamal 'Allam: "Anybody who is insane should go to a mental asylum, or else if he is insane, his head should be removed so that it does not contaminate the heads of others."

[...]

Al-Sweidan: "We all agree that whoever violates the law must be punished. Nobody is disputing that. We are talking about a matter relating to one's belief, not about violation of the law."

Gamal 'Allam: "If this belief pertains to that person only, there would be no problem. The problem is that he is harming me, you, and Muslim society..."

Al-Sweidan: "No, if he wants to become an infidel, he is free to go to hell. This does not harm me in any way. Take, for example, Salman Rushdie, who became an apostate. Good riddance. He did not affect me in any way."

[...]

Gamal Al-Bana: "I believe that the freedom of thought and belief is absolute, because this freedom of thought leads to freedom of political opposition, which established democracy and got rid of kings and tyranny. It also led to freedom of the sciences, which has led progress, and freedom of justice, which led to fair treatment for laborers and women. Freedom of thought is indivisible, and the most important element of freedom is one's belief, because it has to do with one's conscience. Therefore, it cannot be restricted in any way."

You can view this clip on MEMRI TV

Read More...

Summary only...

Secular Author Debates Merits of Islam on al Jazeera

This is a must-read transcript from MEMRI involving a debate between secular Syrian author Nidhal Na'isa and Egyptian cleric. Mr. Na'isa is eloquent in his damning of Islamism and the evils that Islam has visited on the Middle East:

Interviewer: . . . Despite the Western, economic, political, cultural, media, and social invasion of the region, the Arab individual's hatred of the foreign platforms only grows, and his adherence to the Islamic platform increases. You have the results before you: About 90 percent of the voters reject the modernizing, secular, Western platforms - call them what you will. How do you respond to this?"
. . .
Nidhal Na'isa: "As you know, these voters are a bunch of people misled and numbed by the proselytizing, generalized, deceptive, romanticized discourse, which promises them black-eyed virgins and boys in Paradise, and such things. This discourse merely postpones the resolution of their problems - instead of resolving them today, let's resolve them in a billion years. This is escapism into the future. That's one thing. If those voters had managed to get a job and a visa to America, none of them would have voted, and nobody would have watched your show. You would be fired from Al-Jazeera and would be left jobless.

"Secondly, these votes reflect disgust for the totalitarian regimes. Like the hijab and all this Islamization, we are talking about disgust with the totalitarian regimes that have denied these people the good life. They are not voting this way out of love for these platforms... "

Interviewer: "They're not voting this way out of love for the Islamic platforms?"

Nidhal Na'isa: "The platforms are Islamist, not Islamic. We must draw a distinction between Islam and the Islamists. There are Islamists, who use Islam for their political designs, and there is Islam. We respect Islam in the religious, spiritual, and ideological sense. But those peddlers of Islam, who accuse others of heresy, are the ones we must confront. They mislead these wretched people and make fools of them, by the deceptive proselytizing discourse.

. . . "Ever since these Bedouins invaded and colonized these countries, these countries have lived in a cycle of subjugation, oppression, and torture. These countries live under the burden of totalitarianism, backwardness, and ideological and social decay. 'From Tangier to Jakarta' - that is the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Al-Tahrir Party. From Tangier to Jakarta, all you see is poverty, totalitarianism, and decay..."

. . . "This platform has been failing for 1,400 years, and now they say to you: 'We will revive this platform.' Brother, if this platform was politically successful, we would welcome it, and would hope that people live a life of happiness. But this platform has brought nothing but wars and conflicts. People from the same country have become enemies because of these platforms, these lies, this animosity, this sectarianism, and this tribal fanaticism, which was revived by those Bedouins who invaded and colonized these countries.

"Egypt, Iraq, and Syria have been centers of civilization since the dawn of history. They gave rise to civilization. Every day the sun rose, civilization shone on them. But when those Bedouins went in, they destroyed these countries, which have never recovered since. Since those Bedouins entered these countries, they have never recovered. They have become decaying countries, suffering from poverty, misery, and tyranny."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "First of all, who are these Bedouins to whom you refer?'

Nidhal Na'isa: "The Bedouins who invaded these countries."

. . . Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "Who were they exactly? Do you mean the Bedouins of Najd in modern times?"

Nidhal Na'isa: "In modern times and in ancient times."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "What do you mean?"

Nidhal Na'isa: "In modern times, they have invaded these countries, armed with petrodollars and Wahabism..."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: "The Bedouins who conquered these countries, according to you..."

Nidhal Na'isa: "They invaded them by means of the sword..."

Ibrahim Al-Khoulib: . . . Western civilization is not really a civilization, brother."

Nidhal Na'isa: "Western civilization is not really a civilization?" . . . "How did you come here from Egypt in two hours? On camels, it used to take you over six months to make a pilgrimage." . . .

Read the entire transcript.

Read More...

Summary only...