Al Qaeda Three Myths

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-04-28-guantnamo-files-undo-the-alqaeda-myth-machine/

Guantánamo files undo the al-Qaeda myth machine

JASON BURKE - Apr 28 2011 10:01

Hidden deep in the leaked Guantánamo files is a small but important trove of information, too historical and too technical to have commanded much space in newspapers keener on hyperventilating about "nuclear al-Qaeda hellstorms" this week. Each of the 700-plus files includes a short biography of its subject. These cover his "prior history" and "recruitment and travel" to wherever he became fully engaged with violent extremism and, with brutal if unintended efficiency, demolish three of the most persistent myths about al-Qaeda.

The first is that the organisation is composed of men the CIA trained to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan who then turned on their mentors. In fact among the bona fide al-Qaeda operatives detained in Guantánamo Bay there are very few who are actually veterans of the fighting in the 1980s, and none of these were involved with groups that received any substantial technical or financial assistance from the US, even indirectly via Pakistan.

The second is that an "international brigade" of Islamist extremists was responsible for the Soviet defeat. The records make it clear that their combat contribution was negligible.

The third myth is that most of those currently waging "jihad" against the Crusader-Zionist alliance or the "hypocrite, apostate regimes" of the Muslim world were actively recruited by al-Qaeda and brought, brainwashed, to Afghanistan to fight or be trained. The descriptions of almost all those in Guantánamo genuinely associated with al-Qaeda shows that in fact they spent much time and money overcoming many difficulties to find a way to reach al-Qaeda. They were not dumb or vulnerable youths "groomed" to be suicide bombers; they were highly motivated, often educated and intelligent, men.

Such details are easy to dismiss as irrelevant to the threat posed by Islamist militancy today. But they are not. For one of the elements marking the evolution of the discussion and analysis of the phenomenon that al-Qaeda constitutes is the extraordinary degree to which it has been informed by myths.

There have been various waves of mythmaking about al-Qaeda. The first wave came in the late 1990s, when the group gained international notoriety with attacks on US embassies in East Africa and a warship off the Yemen.

'Blowback' from Afghan war
It was then that the idea that al-Qaeda was "blowback" from the Afghan war became conventional wisdom. After 9/11 came a new, massive surge of fearful fantasy. There was the normal derogatory propaganda expected in wartime -- that Bin Laden has deformed genitals or partied wildly with prostitutes – which gained no real purchase. A more pernicious myth was the idea that al-Qaeda was a "tentacular organisation" with sleeper cells across the world waiting for the moment to strike with weapons of mass destruction. This minimised the role that both ideology and a variety of historical factors (ranging from demographics in the Islamic world to a discourse that stressed the "humiliation" of Muslims by the west) had played in the success of the group.

The emphasis on the agency of Bin Laden and his entourage discouraged interest in the broader causes of terrorism and thus made the fundamental strategic errors made by US and other policymakers in the early part of the last decade much more likely to happen.

Many myths were deliberately generated by governments. In 2002 and 2003, repressive and dictatorial regimes around the world scrabbled to uncover or rebrand local militant movements with long histories as al-Qaeda offshoots. New Delhi claimed that Bin Laden, a 6ft 4in Arab and one of the most recognisable fugitives for centuries, had hidden in Kashmir, a smallish part of India crawling with 500 000 soldiers and police.

The Russians claimed the Chechen conflict was not about centuries of territorial wars in the Caucasus but about "global jihad". The discovery of a local branch of al-Qaeda guaranteed major financial, diplomatic and military pay-offs from Washington -- or at the very least a blind eye turned to domestic repression. So the Macedonians rounded up some Shi'te Pakistani immigrants, clothed them in combat outfits and shot the "al-Qaeda operatives" dead.

Finally, there were the most egregious examples of mythmaking: the spurious connection of al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and the non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Myth machine
Most of the documents in the Guantánamo files date from 2003 to 2005, and reflect the concerns of the time. The assessments of each detainee reveal a particular focus on the threat of a mass casualty attack involving chemical and biological weapons.

For those who remember the headlines announcing al-Qaeda plans to smear ricin, a poison, along parts of the London underground nine years ago, the stories this week announcing the existence of an al-Qaeda nuclear device hidden in Europe, or that London is a "hub" for al-Qaeda activity, seem from a distant era when every reported scare provoked panic. Indeed, many of this week's scare stories, based on the "confessions" of tortured Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, were leaked at the time, and now appear to have been made up or even the product of al-Qaeda's own myth machine. Now, thankfully, the public is better informed and less prone to being scared. Given that terrorists' primary aim is to terrorise, this is to be welcomed.

The events of this spring have shown that Bin Laden and his cronies are definitively drifting to the geographic, political, cultural and ideological margins of the Islamic world. Their attempt to radicalise and mobilise hundreds of millions of people has failed. Crowds shouting slogans of democracy, not of violence, have succeeded in forcing the departure of two dictators and shaken several more. The Arab spring started with a public self-immolation, an act of spectacular violence which impressed because it harmed no other and was thus a clear repudiation of the suicide attacks of the last decade. The few statements from al-Qaeda's leadership or affiliate groups have sounded tired and irrelevant.

One reason for the group's current weakness is the gradual unpicking of the myths that contributed to the fear al-Qaeda once inspired and the aura it had for the alienated and the angry of the Islamic world. Happily, it is unlikely those myths can be rebuilt. - guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2011

Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address: http://mg.co.za/article/2011-04-28-guantnamo-files-undo-the-alqaeda-myth-machine

What may go right in the Middle East

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576234601480205330.html


Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
See a sample reprint in PDF format.Order a reprint of this article now

THE WEEKEND INTERVIEWAPRIL 2, 2011
'The Tyrannies Are Doomed'
The West's leading scholar of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, sees cause for optimism in the limited-government traditions of Arab and Muslim culture. But he says the U.S. should not push for quick, Western-style elections.
By BARI WEISS

Princeton, N.J.

'What Went Wrong?" That was the explosive title of a December 2001 book by historian Bernard Lewis about the decline of the Muslim world. Already at the printer when 9/11 struck, the book rocketed the professor to widespread public attention, and its central question gripped Americans for a decade.

Now, all of a sudden, there's a new question on American minds: What Might Go Right?

To find out, I made a pilgrimage to the professor's bungalow in Princeton, N.J., where he's lived since 1974 when he joined Princeton's faculty from London's School of Oriental and African Studies.

Two months shy of his 95th birthday, Mr. Lewis has been writing history books since before World War II. By 1950, he was already a leading scholar of the Arab world, and after 9/11, the vice president and the Pentagon's top brass summoned him to Washington for his wisdom.

"I think that the tyrannies are doomed," Mr. Lewis says as we sit by the windows in his library, teeming with thousands of books in the dozen or so languages he's mastered. "The real question is what will come instead."

For Americans who have watched protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Bahrain and now Syria stand up against their regimes, it has been difficult not to be intoxicated by this revolutionary moment. Mr. Lewis is "delighted" by the popular movements and believes that the U.S. should do all it can to bolster them. But he cautions strongly against insisting on Western-style elections in Muslim lands.

"We have a much better chance of establishing—I hesitate to use the word democracy—but some sort of open, tolerant society, if it's done within their systems, according to their traditions. Why should we expect them to adopt a Western system? And why should we expect it to work?" he asks.

Mr. Lewis brings up Germany circa 1918. "After World War I, the victorious Allies tried to impose the parliamentary system on Germany, where they had a rather different political tradition. And the result was that Hitler came to power. Hitler came to power by the manipulation of free and fair elections," recounts Mr. Lewis, who fought the Nazis in the British Army. For a more recent example, consider the 2006 electorial triumph of Hamas in Gaza.

Elections, he argues, should be the culmination—not the beginning—of a gradual political process. Thus "to lay the stress all the time on elections, parliamentary Western-style elections, is a dangerous delusion."

Not because Muslims' cultural DNA is predisposed against it—quite the contrary. "The whole Islamic tradition is very clearly against autocratic and irresponsible rule," says Mr. Lewis. "There is a very strong tradition—both historical and legal, both practical and theoretical—of limited, controlled government."

But Western-style elections have had mixed success even in the West. "Even in France, where they claim to have invented freedom, they're on their fifth republic and who knows how many more there will be before they get settled down," Mr. Lewis laughs. "I don't think we can assume that the Anglo-American system of democracy is a sort of world rule, a world ideal," he says. Instead, Muslims should be "allowed—and indeed helped and encouraged—to develop their own ways of doing things."

In other words: To figure out how to build freer, better societies, Muslims need not look across the ocean. They need only look back into their own history.

Mr. Lewis points me to a letter written by France's ambassador in Istanbul shortly before the French revolution. The French government was frustrated by how long the ambassador was taking to move ahead with some negotiations. So he pushed back: "Here, it is not like it is in France, where the king is sole master and does as he pleases. Here, the sultan has to consult."

In Middle Eastern history "consultation is the magic word. It occurs again and again in classical Islamic texts. It goes back to the time of the Prophet himself," says Mr. Lewis.

What it meant practically was that political leaders had to cut deals with various others—the leaders of the merchant guild, the craft guild, the scribes, the land owners and the like. Each guild chose its own leaders from within. "The rulers," says Mr. Lewis, "even the great Ottoman sultans, had to consult with these different groups in order to get things done."

It's not that Ottoman-era societies were models of Madisonian political wisdom. But power was shared such that rulers at the top were checked, so the Arab and Muslim communities of the vast Ottoman Empire came to include certain practices and expectations of limited government.


Terry Shoffner
Americans often think of limited government in terms of "freedom," but Mr. Lewis says that word doesn't have a precise equivalent in Arabic. "Liberty, freedom, it means not being a slave. . . . Freedom was a legal term and a social term—it was not a political term. And it was not used as a metaphor for political status," he says. The closest Arabic word to our concept of liberty is "justice," or 'adl. "In the Muslim tradition, justice is the standard" of good government. (Yet judging from the crowds gathered at Syria's central Umayyad mosque last week chanting "Freedom, freedom!," the word, if not our precise meaning, has certainly caught on.)

The traditional consultation process was a main casualty of modernization, which helps explain modernization's dubious reputation in parts of the Arab and Muslim world. "Modernization . . . enormously increased the power of the state," Mr. Lewis says. "And it tended to undermine, or even destroy, those various intermediate powers which had previously limited the power of the state." This was enabled by the cunning of the Mubaraks and the Assads, paired with "modern communication, modern weapons and the modern apparatus of surveillance and repression." The result: These autocrats amassed "greater power than even the mightiest of the sultans ever had."

So can today's Middle East recover this tradition and adapt it appropriately? He reminds me that he is a historian: Predictions are not his forte. But the reluctant sage offers some thoughts.

First, Tunisia has real potential for democracy, largely because of the role of women there. "Tunisia, as far as I know, is the only Muslim country that has compulsory education for girls from the beginning right through. And in which women are to be found in all the professions," says Mr. Lewis.

"My own feeling is that the greatest defect of Islam and the main reason they fell behind the West is the treatment of women," he says. He makes the powerful point that repressive homes pave the way for repressive governments. "Think of a child that grows up in a Muslim household where the mother has no rights, where she is downtrodden and subservient. That's preparation for a life of despotism and subservience. It prepares the way for an authoritarian society," he says.

Egypt is a more complicated case, Mr. Lewis says. Already the young, liberal protesters who led the revolution in Tahrir Square are being pushed aside by the military-Muslim Brotherhood complex. Hasty elections, which could come as soon as September, might sweep the Muslim Brotherhood into power. That would be "a very dangerous situation," he warns. "We should have no illusions about the Muslim Brotherhood, who they are and what they want."

And yet Western commentators seem determined to harbor such illusions. Take their treatment of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. The highly popular, charismatic cleric has said that Hitler "managed to put [the Jews] in their place" and that the Holocaust "was divine punishment for them."

Yet following a sermon Sheikh Qaradawi delivered to more than a million in Cairo following Mubarak's ouster, New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick wrote that the cleric "struck themes of democracy and pluralism, long hallmarks of his writing and preaching." Mr. Kirkpatrick added: "Scholars who have studied his work say Sheik Qaradawi has long argued that Islamic law supports the idea of a pluralistic, multiparty, civil democracy."

Professor Lewis has been here before. As the Iranian revolution was beginning in the late 1970s, the name of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was starting to appear in the Western press. "I was at Princeton and I must confess I never heard of Khomeini. Who had? So I did what one normally does in this world of mine: I went to the university library and looked up Khomeini and, sure enough, it was there."

'It" was a short book called "Islamic Government"—now known as Khomeini's Mein Kampf—available in Persian and Arabic. Mr. Lewis checked out both copies and began reading. "It became perfectly clear who he was and what his aims were. And that all of this talk at the time about [him] being a step forward and a move toward greater freedom was absolute nonsense," recalls Mr. Lewis.

"I tried to bring this to the attention of people here. The New York Times wouldn't touch it. They said 'We don't think this would interest our readers.' But we got the Washington Post to publish an article quoting this. And they were immediately summoned by the CIA," he says. "Eventually the message got through—thanks to Khomeini."

Now, thanks to Tehran's enduring Khomeinism, the regime is unpopular and under threat. "There is strong opposition to the regime—two oppositions—the opposition within the regime and the opposition against the regime. And I think that sooner or later the regime in Iran will be overthrown and something more open, more democratic, will emerge," Mr. Lewis says. "Most Iranian patriots are against the regime. They feel it is defaming and dishonoring their country. And they're right of course."

Iranians' disdain for the ruling mullahs is the reason Mr. Lewis thinks the U.S. shouldn't take military action there. "It would give the regime a gift that they don't at present enjoy—namely Iranian patriotism," he warns.

By his lights, the correct policy is to elevate the democratic Green movement, and to distinguish the regime from the people. "When President Obama assumed office, he sent a message of greeting to the regime. That is polite and courteous," Mr. Lewis deadpans, "but it would have been much better to send a message to the people of Iran."

Let's hope the Green movement is effective. Because—and this may be hard to square with his policy prescription—Mr. Lewis doesn't think that Iran can be contained if it does go nuclear.

"During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear weapons but both knew that the other was very unlikely to use them. Because of what was known at the time as MAD—mutually assured destruction. MAD meant that each side knew that if it used a nuclear weapon the other would retaliate and both sides would be devastated. And that's why the whole time during the Cold War, even at the worst times, there was not much danger of anyone using a nuclear weapon," says Mr. Lewis.

But the mullahs "are religious fanatics with an apocalyptic mindset. In Islam, as in Christianity and Judaism, there is an end-of-times scenario—and they think it's beginning or has already begun." So "mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent—it's an inducement."

Another key variable in the regional dynamic is Turkey, Mr. Lewis's particular expertise. He was the first Westerner granted access to the Ottoman archives in Istanbul in 1950. Recent developments there alarm him. "In Turkey, the movement is getting more and more toward re-Islamization. The government has that as its intention—and it has been taking over, very skillfully, one part after another of Turkish society. The economy, the business community, the academic community, the media. And now they're taking over the judiciary, which in the past has been the stronghold of the republican regime." Ten years from now, Mr. Lewis thinks, Turkey and Iran could switch places.

So even as he watches young Middle Eastern activists rise up against the tyrannies that have oppressed them, he keeps a wary eye on the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. It is particularly challenging because it has "no political center, no ethnic identity. . . . It's both Arab and Persian and Turkish and everything else. It is religiously defined. And it can command support among people of every nationality once they are convinced. That marks the important difference," he says.

"I think the struggle will continue until they either obtain their objective or renounce it," Mr. Lewis says. "At the moment, both seem equally improbable."

Ms. Weiss is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com

Egyptian convert from Islam to Christianity flees Syria, seeks asylum in France

Egyptian convert from Islam to Christianity flees Syria, seeks asylum in France
How odd. Islamic scholars such as Salam al-Marayati, M. Cherif Bassiouni, and Ali Eteraz assure us that Islam has no death penalty for apostasy, despite Muhammad's words, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." Misunderstanders of this Islamic tolerance of apostasy appear to be so numerous that Maher El-Gohary is seeking asylum in France, as he is not safe in Egypt or Syria.

"Egyptian Convert Flees Potential Dangers in Syria," from Compass Direct News, April 21:

ISTANBUL, April 21 (CDN) — A father and daughter who fled Egypt to Syria after spending two and a half years in hiding for becoming Christians have arrived in France and yesterday applied for asylum there, human rights advocates said.
Maher Ahmad El-Mo’otahssem Bellah El-Gohary, 58, had become the target of Islamic ill will in Egypt after he tried to change the religious affiliation on his national identification card from Muslim to Christian. He and his daughter, 17-year-old Dina Mo’otahssem, arrived in Paris from Syria on March 30 after having fled to Damascus on Feb. 22 in the wake of the revolution in Egypt that deposed then-President Hosni Mubarak.

The Jan. 25-Feb. 11 protests in Egypt also weakened the Ministry of the Interior, an agency that had harassed El-Gohary and prevented him from leaving the country.

El-Gohary had fled to Syria because it was both the fastest and the easiest way to get out of Egypt, but he said he also feared Islamic opposition to converts in Syria and growing political unrest in Damascus.

“When we got to the French embassy in Syria, we were so scared because of what was happening in Syria at the time,” he said....

Posted by Robert on April 22, 2011 6:54 AM | 15 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Egypt in Flux: A young pacifist versus the Egyptian army

Egypt in Flux: A young pacifist versus the Egyptian army

By OREN KESSLER

04/22/2011
Branded a traitor and Zionist, Maikel Nabil Sanad, a pro-Israel blogger, was sentenced to three years in jail by Egypt’s ruling military council.


Hopes that post-Hosni Mubarak Egypt would be a beacon of free speech suffered a blow last week when the country’s ruling military council sentenced a well-known blogger to three years in prison. Maikel Nabil Sanad is many things that set him apart in his native country: an atheist of Coptic origin, a pacifist, and – in a country where “normalization” is often a dirty word – unabashedly pro- Israel.

Detained March 30, Sanad was given a quick show trial without his lawyers present and convicted of “insulting the military establishment” and “spreading false information.” The information he posted on his blog – on the army’s use of violence against protesters and its torture of detainees – had already been widely publicized by human rights groups like Amnesty International.

Sanad is a 25-year-old unemployed veterinarian from Asyut, a Nile-side city in Egypt’s interior near Gamal Abdel Nasser’s home village. Sanad’s blog, “Son of Ra,” can be viewed in English, Arabic and Hebrew (the last of which the blogger was studying prior to his incarceration). Reader comments in English and Hebrew gush with appreciation for the blogger’s liberal, conciliatory ideals. Those in Arabic are almost uniformly pejorative.

IN OCTOBER, Sanad announced he would refuse to serve his mandatory military service.

“Recruitment goes against my conscience,” he wrote. “I don’t want to point a weapon at a young Israeli, recruited into obligatory service, defending his state’s right to exist. I think obligatory service is a form of slavery, and I have worked for years for my freedom.”

The next week he gave an interview to the Ynet news site on how he came to be, in his own words, Egypt’s “only” pro-Israel activist.

“From a young age I read a lot about the Israeli-Arab conflict. I understood the Arab media hid facts that support Israel,” he said. “I tried to contact Israeli activists and started asking them questions, such as, ‘Is it true that Israel is a militaristic state?’ or, ‘Is it true that Israel wants to expand and reach the Nile?’... Many Arabs living in Israel told me how they are really treated and how much they prefer living in Israel above any Arab state.”

He added that “if the Palestinians had a democratic leadership, everything would be solved. Take the war on Gaza for example – Hamas started it. They refused to hold elections in Gaza and took control of the regime. They planned a dictatorial and fundamentalist regime. They refused to speak to Israel, fired rockets at it and caused it to defend itself.”

The interview set off a flurry of criticism in Egypt, with mainstream and Islamist media outlets decrying Sanad as a traitor, a heretic and a Zionist.

Worst of all, the presumptuous Copt had dared defame the military in which he refused to serve. For years, the blogger had maintained that Egypt’s real problems lay not only with Mubarak, but the army establishment from which he and presidents before him had sprung. The army, he wrote prophetically at the start of anti-government protests, would be just as brutal as Mubarak in cracking down on dissent.

On February 4, Sanad posted a video clip to his blog pleading with Israelis to support the movement to oust Mubarak – a long-time ally of Jerusalem. “I’m calling for solidarity from my Israeli friends with the Egyptian revolution. I believe that democracy and human rights and women’s rights are basic Israeli values,” he said.

Mubarak, he said, was never a real friend to Israel, encouraging anti- Semitic incitement in schools and the media that raised young Egyptians to hate the Jewish state. “This is a chance to end the cold peace between the two states and to bring an era of real peace,” he said.

RANDA EL TAHAWY, an Egyptian journalist and blogger who focuses on women’s issues, said Sanad’s arrest set a dangerous precedent.

“This is an attempt to violate freedom of speech,” she said by phone from Cairo. “It’s very sad because it feels like we didn’t achieve anything when we tried to overthrow the previous regime that was always putting constraints on our freedom. It’s a step backward from what we’re trying to achieve, and that’s freedom and democracy.”

Tahawy is the cousin of Mona Eltahawy, a prominent New York-based Egyptian columnist and blogger. A former Reuters correspondent, Eltahawy was the first Egyptian to live and to work for a Western news agency in Israel, and now writes in a number of international news outlets including The Jerusalem Report. Like Sanad, Eltahawy supports normalizing Egypt’s ties with Israel. Her younger cousin is more conflicted.

Tahawy, 23, visited Eilat for several days nine years ago with an Egyptian friend whose father was stationed at the consulate in the city. She recalled the visit fondly.

“The people were just like us. They were very friendly, even if one or two people were reluctant [to talk] because I’m Egyptian,” she said. “I know a lot of people who would really frown upon the fact that I’ve been to Israel, but I really don’t think it’s a problem. We criticize Israel, we say it’s our enemy, we say we want to help Palestine, but we don’t really know anything about Israel.”

Her visit to the country seems to have opened her eyes to Israelis, if not Israel itself.

“When you grow up in Egypt, you grow up to feel that Israel is the enemy. But it’s wrong to say that – a lot of Israelis do oppose [the government’s] policies and aren’t against the Palestinians,” she said, before adding, “Sixty years of occupation – it’s just a tragedy and an injustice for the Palestinian people... If the [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] were resolved and all of the Palestinians’ demands were met, I think we’d be less reluctant to open our doors to Israel. But at the same time I don’t think you can erase history.”

She continued, “We can’t say Israel will just disappear.

Israel is a fact, whether I see [its founding] as something that was illegitimate or unfair or unjust, that’s not the issue now, because it’s there. The issue now is to ensure that the Palestinians have their rights and that their demands are met and that they have a home.”

Tahawy’s willingness to visit Israel and consider its people on an individual basis sets her at odds with the vast majority of Egyptians – from intellectuals to fellahin (peasants) – for whom normalization with the Jewish state is all but unthinkable.

ON MARCH 25, three days before his arrest, Sanad wrote a blog post entitled “On Which Side is Israel standing?” “I declared that I want to visit Israel (for two weeks), to build bridges with Israeli activists,” he wrote. “For the last four months, Israeli officials are refusing to give me a visa to Israel. More than 10 activists in Israel is trying to get me one, and all of them failed... Israel wouldn’t refuse to give Mubarak a visa. So, the lesson which Israel wants me to learn, that I have to be an enemy of Israel to be welcomed.”

Sanad’s supporters say his pro-Israel sentiments made him an easy target.

“Contrary to what most people think, that Maikel’s imprisonment has nothing to do with his last article about Israel, I think that it was a great excuse for his imprisonment,” a friend who blogs under the name Kefaya Punk wrote in an email.

“It is becoming strikingly clear that our militarist leaders don’t want any normalization or peace activism with Israel.”

David Keyes, executive director of Advancing Human Rights and cofounder of CyberDissidents.

org, said Sanad “represents a small but growing part of the blogging community – pro-secular, pro-Western and even pro-Israel. He has more than 1,500 followers on Twitter and was active in the protests in Tahrir Square. He is attractive to many because he is utterly fearless: a staunch liberal in a deeply conservative society and a fierce critic of the military, an institution not known for its openness to alternative views.”

Sanad’s videotaped plea now seems prescient.

“I’m going now to join my friends in Tahrir Square. I don’t know if I’ll return home again,” he said. “It’s my duty to call for change and to demonstrate. I’m calling for solidarity from all our democratic friends all over the world, and especially our Israeli neighbors and friends. Goodbye.”

Iranian Regime Is not Able to Stop Conversion to Christianity

QUOTE: And Moslehi has admitted in public that he has failed to "crush" what he calls "attempts by Cross-Worshippers" to convert a growing number of Iranians to Christianity. He says the converts even include theology students from the Shi'ite "holy" city of Qom.


Christian missionaries of various denominations, collectively known as Tabshiris or "bearers of the good news," are active throughout the country. According to Moslehi, these missionaries are exploiting the growing disaffection for Islam in Iran.



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/thugs_vs_thug_UUrQ5LDqUY5H8UsFpm7sSK

President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast on Easter

President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast

The President's comments at the National Prayer Brakfast did not get much coverage, perhaps because they were about religion. I have written on omission of religious coverage in the past). Yet, I thought these words were particularly newsworthy (but, again, received little coverage).

Here is what the President said:

We all live in the hustle and bustle of our work. And everybody in this room has weighty responsibilities, from leading churches and denominations, to helping to administer important government programs, to shaping our culture in various ways. And I admit that my plate has been full as well. (Laughter.) The inbox keeps on accumulating. (Laughter.)

But then comes Holy Week. The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples' feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross.

And we're reminded that in that moment, he took on the sins of the world -- past, present and future -- and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection.

In the words of the book Isaiah: 'But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.'

This magnificent grace, this expansive grace, this 'Amazing Grace' calls me to reflect. And it calls me to pray. It calls me to ask God for forgiveness for the times that I've not shown grace to others, those times that I've fallen short. It calls me to praise God for the gift of our son -- his Son and our Savior.

Chuck Colson on The Offense of the Cross

Chuck Colson

The Offense of the Cross

A Disturbing Precedent in Italy

April 20, 2011

Last month, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italian public schools have the right to display crucifixes.

The case has been widely viewed as a crucial one. As Roger Kiska of the Alliance Defense Fund put it, "A loss in this case would have meant, in essence, that it would be illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights to have religious symbols in any institution anywhere in Europe."

Before you start celebrating, though, you ought to know that this may be a very mixed blessing. When you take a close look at the court's reasoning, it becomes clear that there are some disturbing implications to this ruling.

In the New York Times, Professor Stanley Fish, a liberal relativist, writes that the court based its decision largely on the idea that "the crucifix is really not a religious symbol." Fish justifiably asks, "Who knew?"

Who, indeed?

It seems the courtdecided that the crucifix is now an "identity-linked," "historical and cultural" symbol -- a symbol that stands for "the liberty and freedom of every person, the declaration of the right of man, and ultimately the modern secular state."

In other words, it stands for pretty much anything but the death of Christ for the redemption of fallen mankind.

For the Christian, that poses a real dilema: If the crucifix is to be stripped of its meaning like this, is it worth displaying in schools, or anywhere at all?

If "the offense of the cross," as Paul put it, is gone, what's the point?

And that's not all. The court went on to state, "In Christianity even the faith in an omniscient god is secondary in relation to charity," which makes the cross an inclusive symbol.

Even Stanley Fish, who's writing from a liberal, secular perspective, is driven to wonder about all this. "What we have here," he says, "is a union of bad argument and bad theology. As a Christian virtue, charity presupposes the God it is said by the majority [of the court] to transcend...Generous though it may be in many respects, Christianity is hard-edged at its doctrinal center and that center is what the crucifix speaks."

Fish may not be a Christian, but I think he's pretty much nailed it. Ironically, I think he might just understand it better than many in Italy, where the practice of the Christian faith has been steadily eroding for many years.

Christians believe that everyone is welcome at the foot of the cross -- but we also believe with German martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer that "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die."

That's why Stanley Fish is right in saying that a crucifix can never be what the court called "an essentially passive symbol."

On that point, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Religious symbols matter because they convey meaning, and that's why we Christians support the right to display them. Without that meaning, without Christ's death and resurrection, the cross doesn't matter -- and neither does our faith.

This is the liberal cause: strip all sacred symbols and words of their meaning.

The real lesson here is that before we take up the fight for the cross, we had better be sure we understand what it is we're fighting for.

Easter Prayer

Dear Heavenly Father,

As Easter Sunday approaches, let us take time to remember the events that took place leading up to this day so many years ago. We must not forget the anguish and pain that Jesus openly endured and welcomed, so that we may all be saved from eternal condemnation. Then three days later he rose from the dead, just as it was promised. His self-less act allows us to live knowing that we have received His promise of eternal life.

Dear Lord, this Easter please help us fully believe without any doubt. In the glorious Alleluias ringing out across the land, fill us with Your joy, O Risen Lord! Fill us with the certain hope that Jesus has overcome all evil, all sorrow, and all death. Let us bring the light and joy of our Risen Savior to the whole world!

Lord Jesus, You are the Lamb who laid down his life for us. You alone are our Victorious Redeemer!

Alleluia! He is risen as He said! If we have died with him,
then we shall also live with him.
2 Timothy 2:11


On behalf of Salam family we wish you a Blessed Easter!

Gifts made to CLMMA are Poblo- Chicago are tax-deductibl and could be mailed to the address below.
In God's Peace
Reaching Out and Reaching In By Reaching Up
Hesham Shehab
Pastor, Salam Arabic Fellowship
Missionary, POBLO- Chicago
21w500 Butterfield Rd
Lombard, IL 60148

Iran: Dog Ownership to Be Outlawed Under Lawmakers' Plan

Iran: Dog Ownership to Be Outlawed Under Lawmakers' Plan

Time.com


By AZADEH MOAVENI – Tue Apr 19, 2011

For much of the past decade, the Iranian government has tolerated what it considers a particularly depraved and un-Islamic vice: the keeping of pet dogs.

During periodic crackdowns, police have confiscated dogs from their owners right off the street; and state media has lectured Iranians on the diseases spread by canines.

The cleric Gholamreza Hassani, from the city of Urmia, has been satirized for his sermons railing against "short-legged" and "holdable" dogs. But as with the policing of many other practices (like imbibing alcoholic drinks) that are deemed impure by the mullahs but perfectly fine to many Iranians, the state has eventually relaxed and let dog lovers be.

Those days of tacit acceptance may soon be over, however.

Lawmakers in Tehran have recently proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership, formally enshrining its punishment within the country's Islamic penal code.

The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West."

The proposed legislation for the first time outlines specific punishments for "the walking and keeping" of "impure and dangerous animals," a definition that could feasibly include cats but for the time being seems targeted at dogs.

The law would see the offending animal confiscated, the leveling of a $100-to-$500 fine on the owner, but leaves the fate of confiscated dogs uncertain.

"Considering the several thousand dogs [that are kept] in Tehran alone, the problem arises as to what is going to happen to these animals," Hooman Malekpour, a veterinarian in Tehran, said to the BBC's Persian service.

If passed, the law would ultimately energize police and volunteer militias to enforce the ban systematically.

In past years, animal-rights activists in Iran have persuasively argued that sporadic campaigns against dog ownership are politically motivated and unlawful, since the prohibition surfaces in neither the country's civil laws nor its Islamic criminal codes.

But if Iran's laws were silent for decades on the question of dogs, that is because the animals - in the capacity of pet - were as irrelevant to daily life as dinosaurs.

Islam, by custom, considers dogs najes, or unclean, and for the past century cultural mores kept dog ownership down to minuscule numbers.

In rural areas, dogs have traditionally aided shepherds and farmers, but as Iranians got urbanized in the past century, their dogs did not come along.

In cities, aristocrats kept dogs for hunting and French-speaking dowagers kept lap dogs for company, but the vast majority of traditional Iranians, following the advice of the clergy, were leery of dogs and considered them best avoided.

That has changed in the past 15 years with the rise of an urban middle class plugged into and eager to mimic Western culture.

Satellite television and Western movies opened up a world where happy children frolicked with dogs in parks and affluent families treated them like adorable children. These days, lap dogs rival designer sunglasses as the upper-middle-class Iranian's accessory of choice.

"Global norms and values capture the heart of people all around the world, and Iran is no exception," says Omid Memarian, a prominent Iranian journalist specializing in human rights. "This is very frightening for Iranian officials, who find themselves in a cultural war with the West and see what they're offering as an 'Islamic lifestyle' failing measurably."

The widening acceptability of dog ownership, and its popularity among a specific slice of Iran's population - young, urban, educated and frustrated with the Islamic government - partly explains why dogs are now generating more official hostility.

In 2007, two years into the tenure of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, security forces targeted dog owners alongside a crackdown on women's attire and men's "Westernized" hairstyles. In the regime's eyes, owning a dog had become on par with wearing capri pants or sporting a mullet - a rebellious act.

The government's tolerance for this low-level lifestyle dissidence fizzled after Ahmadinejad's contested electoral victory in 2009, which sparked massive demonstrations and the most serious challenge to Islamic rule since the 1979 revolution.

In the aftermath of that upheaval, the state has moved to tighten its control over a wide range of Iranians' private activities, from establishing NGOs to accessing the Internet, to individual lifestyle decisions, according to Hadi Ghaemi, the director for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.

"No doubt such attempts are motivated by a desire to squash acts of criticism and protests, even if through symbolic individual decisions that simply don't conform to officially sanctioned lifestyles," Ghaemi says.

The criminalizing of dogs, in this context, helps the government address the legal gray areas concerning lifestyle behavior. When authorities found it difficult to police what it termed Westernized hairstyles worn by young men, it solved the problem last year by releasing a poster of specifically banned styles.

For many young people, these measures are a firm reminder that the government will brook no disobedience, whether it be chanting antigovernment slogans in the streets or sporting excessively long sideburns.

Dog owners in Iran, like much of the population, are mostly preoccupied these days with inflation, joblessness and the parlous state of the country's economy. But they will soon need to consider whether keeping their shih tzu or poodle is worth the added worry.

Their dogs may face the same fate as the hundreds of street dogs that the government regularly sweeps from the streets of Tehran.

"Many in Tehran and other big cities find the killing of street dogs offensive and cruel," says Memarian. "It's like the Iranian people and officials live in two different worlds."

Prison Epistles; An Afghan Christian's Testimony to the World during Nine Months of Imprisonment

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Prison Epistles; An Afghan Christian's Testimony to the World during Nine Months of Imprisonment

He was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity

By Aidan Clay

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN (ANS) -- "When they asked the question, 'Are you ready to become Muslim?' I refused it. They said that they cannot defend me in court because my fault is this: I have believed in God almighty and His only Son."


Said Musa
Said Musa wrote these words after being refused a lawyer on January 25, 2011.

Throughout his imprisonment and under constant threat of execution, Said's letters - written in a jail chamber and smuggled out of Kabul's prisons - boldly testify to his faith in the God who overcomes darkness and offers hope to the destitute and weary.

Refusing to die in secret, Said crafted his own defense in epistles inscribed in broken but legible English. As in the days of Paul, Said wrote so that the church - upon hearing of the perseverance of the saints - might be encouraged and led to prayer.

Taking up his cross

A fifteen year employee with the Red Cross treating victims of landmines, Said was known as a compassionate care-taker. Said himself is an amputee with prosthesis on his left leg - the result of a mine explosion 23 years ago when serving as a young officer in the Afghan Army. As a Red Cross employee, Said offered therapy to handicapped children and was greatly respected by the community. "He took care with compassion and great professionalism of the amputee or handicap children we used to bring him," said a westerner in Kabul.

Said was also known throughout the community as a Christian. A former Muslim, Said's curiosity about Christianity was aroused during the Afghan civil war when his neighbor's house was bombed. Two foreign women helped dig through the rubble when nobody else would. They managed to find one person still alive.

"Many tried to hide, but the women didn't," Said told the Associated Press. Said later found that the women were Christians, which prompted him to learn more about the faith. Eventually, a Christian convert from Iran led Said to Christ. Christianity was by no means the easy path to take, but Said knew that to follow Christ meant taking up the cross of Christ's sufferings (Luke 9:23).

Said's arrest came in late-May of last year after footage of Afghans being baptized was broadcast on national television and led to protests throughout the country. So enraged were some Islamic fundamentalist groups that a parliamentarian called for Afghan Christians to be executed. The national church in Kabul immediately fled the city. Said, however, was unable to escape. After having lunch with patients, Said was unexpectedly rounded-up by security officers working with the Ministry of Interior. Said's arrest was the first in what became a nationwide crackdown against Christians.

Christian world takes notice

International Christian Concern (ICC) visited Afghanistan just weeks following Said's arrest. After month of advocacy and awareness, the Christian world took notice. John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis and Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Southern California were among other pastors who campaigned for Said's release through social media like Twitter and Facebook. Churches throughout Europe and North America made the cause their own by standing together, united in prayer, calling for Said's freedom.

"It's a sympathetic case," said Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom. "Here he is, himself an amputee who lost a leg, working with amputees for Red Cross. He has six children. One is handicapped. He's an appealing figure."

It was difficult not to take notice of Said. His humility, gentleness of spirit, and love for his people touched even the most anti-Christian critics. Secular media was also intrigued and could find no fault in him. Said's plight hit the New York Times, the Sunday Times of London, and other major news outlets, and Said soon gained international notoriety.


Said Musa working with the Red Cross in Kabul treating victims of land mines
It was through Said's letters, however, that he became a symbol of Christian suffering to the world. "Prisoners in jail did many bad behaviors with me about my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. They did sexual things with me; beat me by wood, my hands, my legs. Nobody let me for sleep night and day. Every person spat on me and beat me. Please Pray and immediately help with me and rescue me from this jail. Otherwise they will kill me."

Said's letters expressed a broken heart crying for relief in a very real and terrifying way. But, Said's fear of death was soon overcome by a joyful and fervent desire to serve his Lord and his people. "Every day and night I pray and cry, 'O Lord, I want to display your name in Afghanistan,'" Said wrote on December 1. "I want to build up your church, for this is my purpose. I have in my heart a fire of Good News. It should be announced to the people. It's our mission in the world."

Said was exactly where God wanted him to be during his nine long months of imprisonment. In one of Said's most encouraging letters, dated December 16, 2010, he spoke of sharing the Gospel with a member of the Taliban in his prison cell.

"I want to tell you. A person who's accused of murder, he's sleeping in front of me in the corridor of jail," Said wrote. "He's a hundred percent extremist and has discrimination with my religion. He's a Talib person. One night he wants to suicide himself. I prayed for him more and more. I told him, 'Please be patient. Please believe in Jesus Christ, he's the only person to forgive you and save you and release you from this jail.'

The first time he began screaming and insulting me. He told me, 'You're not clean, you're not a Muslim.' But I told him, 'Oh my friend and brother, please think about my word.' Then I prayed for him since the middle of the night. He woke up from sleep. He came near my bed and sat and told me. 'Please forgive me brother. You're really true person. I have seen wonderful dreams. A very light person spoke with me. He was an amazing person. I fell down on my knees and to the ground. He told me, "Please believe in your friend Said Musa. I am Lord Jesus Christ. I forgive you now. I couldn't speak at that moment and was shaking from fear and then I woke up." He told me, 'Now I have believe in Jesus Christ.''"

In prison and in freedom, God has lifted Said up to minister to his people and be voice for Christian freedoms like no other Afghan has been able to accomplish in recent memory. Yet, humbly, Said knows little about his influence. Seeking God's protection and strength, and appealing to the church for help, Said signed his letter, "Your destitute brother in the world."

Said Musa has now been freed and has been safely transported out of Afghanistan, but what a legacy he has left behind him.

ICC (www.persecution.org) is a Washington-DC based human rights organization that exists to help persecuted Christians worldwide. ICC provides Awareness, Advocacy, and Assistance to the worldwide persecuted Church. For additional information or for an interview, contact ICC at 800-422-5441.