Coptic Christian Gets Asylum in Canada, Sues Kuwait for Human Rights Violations

by: Rami Dabbas

img_4534
Hani Morris with CPC MP Garnett Genuis

 

After Canada had accepted his Asylum for Protection  as a refugee from Kuwait, Hani Morris an Egyptian Coptic Christian filed a lawsuit against Kuwait and more specifically against two major institutions there, Al Mulla Motors and United Ahli bank in Kuwait. The case was accepted by the Canadian Court.

Although the case is not directed against the State of Kuwait specifically, it is exposing corruption in state institutions, how justice is undermined in Kuwait, how to win the violation of the rights and dignity of foreign workers and how corruption and nepotism are exploited in Kuwaiti state institutions. The Ambassador of Kuwait to  Canada is Mr. Abdul Hamid Al-Failakawi .
This is a story of the mistreatment and torture of  an Egyptian family that was deprived of its dignity of being an Egyptian family firstly and a secondly for being a  Christian.

Hani Morris  traveled from Eygpt to work in Kuwait in 1995 and worked there until he married  in 2001. He fell in  love with  the State of Kuwait and its  people and brought his wife to live with him there. His wife gave birth to their first child Hanin in 2002 and his second child in 2007. For Hani and his family,  Kuwait was for them as  second homeland, but as the  chosen homeland and the two children loved the Kuwait they where they were born and grew up.

Mr Morris started a job as an auto valuer at Badr Al Mulla Company  in 2006. His issues  started in January 2009, when one of the company’s clients, Ayad Fahim, an Egyptian citizen, filed a fraud case against the company. Hani Morris was taken to a  Police station in Kuwait City. Before he went to testify in the case, they called Hani’s manager, Naziza Abu Assi who asked Hani  to testify falsely and deny what happened to the client but Hani refused to falsely testify .

Mr Morris lost his job because he refused to falsely testify . He went to the owners of the company  Anwar Mulla and Abdullah Mulla to see if they would support his testimony of  truth, but they refused to help.  Instead, they told him he must obey his manager but when Hani refused to falsely testify,  he lost his job permanently .

After the company fired him from his job, they committed a felony crime against Mr Morris for being  absence from work despite the fact that he was never absent.

Mr Morris filed a complaint of perjury against the Company.  He was surprised that the prosecutor  committed another  crime against him by refusing to look into the case.

Mr Morris then filed a complaint against the prosecutor’s decision to the court, but his complaint application  was also rejected. Not surprisingly, the head of the court is a relative  to the owners of the Al Mulla Motors company.

Mr Morris filed to preserve his labor rights in the company. The company  and told him that he has no rights in the company and they were backed up by the Kuwaiti government .

The complaint in the case of perjury against him  remained  in the courts for three years until the government of Kuwait finally reminded Mr Morris that he was an Egyptian and a Christian. They put him in jail after they forged a crime against him .

“Muhammad Abd al-Wala” an employee in the same company told Mr Morris “we will get rid from all Christian people like you”.  They even seized Mr Morris’ Car and took all his money before they threw him in Jail .

What a travesty of justice committed by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Justice.

Mr Morris was able to obtain asylum and come to Canada on 30 August 2017 and now lives with his family in Canada. After being persecuted in Kuwait, he filed a lawsuit against Badr Al Mulla, Anwar Al Mulla and Ahli United Bank accusing them of causing persecution during his stay in Kuwait from 2009 to 2017.

Mr Morris and his family have received  threats to their lives in Canada after Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram published the case. The threats even came to  the Canadian lawyer and journalist in Al-Ahram who published the case.

The threats come from various telephone numbers, including a Kuwaiti number and other countries. The threats stated that Hani, his family, his lawyer and the journalist that published the story will all be killed  for the publication and for the lawsuit against the corruption of Anwar al-Mulla, Hamad al-Marzouq, Sami Thabit and the various state agencies in Kuwait state.

Hani Morris’s lawyer contacted the Canadian police, who released a statement.

The Canadian Al-Ahram correspondent appealed to the Canadian intelligence service to take the threats seriously and provide protection to Canadian citizens. It is known that Kuwait is a rich country that can implement action on its own  threats.

The Canadian editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram, said that he wouldn’t be surprised that such threats could be related to  al-Qaeda . He added that he would meet with a senior official from the Canadian Foreign Ministry to address the Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry in this regard and that if the Trudeau   government did not act, he would bring the matter to the Canadian Parliament through the  Conservative Party. The fact is that the liberal party refused to help Mr Morris and Al Ahram newspaper, however, the Conservative party decided to help through the parliamentary
former Kuwaiti MP Faisal Al-Duwaisan, who acknowledged the threats which both Hani and Al Ahram newspaper received and for the persecution which happened to Hani from 2009-2017. It’s an absolute proof of the injustice  the Egyptian Coptic family suffered in Kuwait.and the State of Kuwait is responsible for that. Their state institutions need to be cleansed from the corruption, racism and discrimination in the  state institutions , which is against the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by Kuwait since it’s inclusion in the United Nations ..

The case is still in the courts.

Original report in Arabic Here

References:

Iran and Isis/AlQaeda ties

by: Rami Dabbas

hez

 

As is known, Isis originated with Osama bin laden and his Islamic Jihad, but many overlook the importance of another player in the equation, Iran. Over the past 20 years, Iranian intelligence has provided financial, material, technological and other support to al Qaeda in Iraq.

After the announcement of the organization of the Islamic state, they claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks.  Western intelligence services doubled efforts to detect the cells of the European Islamic jihad and at the same time increased air strikes against Isis in Iraq and Syria. No one expected them to be able to carry out the biggest terrorist attack in Europe since the train bombings in Madrid in 2004.

There was a sign that Europe was facing a terrorist expansion in their countries. The indication came from those who carried off the Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abu Oud, who boasted about the attack in an interview with the French-language magazine Dabeq. He  easily escaped the Belgian authorities and moved freely between Syria and Europe.

The question raised by Abu Oud’s boast is how he succeeded in moving from a small group of Islamist Mujahideen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan to the most powerful terrorist organization in the world.

Even though Isis originated with Osama bin laden and his Islamic Jihad, many overlooked the importance of another player in the equation, Iran.  This may seem surprising given Iran’s involvement in a regional war against Isis, but Iranian intelligence, described by the Pentagon as “one of the biggest and most dynamic intelligence agencies in the Middle East,” has provided financial, material, technological and other support to al Qaeda in Iraq over the past 20 years. Imad Mughniyeh, who led an extensive network of Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas and several small terrorist groups in five continents, was responsible for the affair.

In his book “The Secret War with Iran,” Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman notes that the Syrian regime pledged during the 1982 summer meeting in Damascus to give full support to Iran’s efforts to establish Hezbollah. In exchange for oil, the Syrian regime agreed to the entry of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards into Lebanon and oversee the construction of an Iranian-backed armed group. The first to be recruited into the force was Imad Mughniyeh, whose beginnings are tied to Force 17 of the PLO.

It was not long before Mughniyah began planning several operations, including the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut in April 1983. According to former CIA officer Robert Baer, ​​this was the deadliest attack on a US diplomatic mission since the United States was founded.

The period until the end of the 1980s saw numerous operations and attacks that were planned. When the Iran-Iraq war ended, the Iranian regime saw its end as an opportunity to expand in the Arab region. Imad Mughniyeh worked with the newly established Quds Force, whose mission was to export the Islamic revolution worldwide. Because of Mughniyeh’s success in raising Hezbollah to the ranks of other major players in Lebanon, he was an important element in fulfilling the Quds Force’s task of forming armed groups around the world.

Mughniyeh soon established a vast network of elements associated with the Quds Force in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe.

In the meantime, Sudan became the second regime to declare itself Islamic after the coup of Omar Hassan al-Bashir in 1989. Among the jihadi organizations hosted by the al-Bashir regime is the Egyptian “Jihad” organization led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of the pillars of al-Qaeda. Zawahri traveled to Tehran in 1991 to seek help in overthrowing the Egyptian regime. Mughniyah went to Sudan to help al-Zawahri in the framework of an agreement he reached with the Iranians. Tehran offered to fund the Egyptian jihad and provide training camps for its operatives in Iran and Lebanon. After Osama bin Laden moved to Sudan, he met Mughniyah,  the leader of al Qaeda, who knew his role in Lebanon and his planned attacks there. Bin Laden hoped his organization would achieve similar results around the world.

Bin Laden could not have carried out attacks in the West without Mughniyah’s help. Because of their confluence, Mughniyah offered bin Laden training of his cadres in Hezbollah camps in the Bekaa, Lebanon between 1993 and 1996. Some of bin Laden’s men were sent to Iran, where they were trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and supplied with explosives and weapons for bin Laden’s subsequent operations. The common denominator between bin Laden and the Iranian regime was their hostility to Saudi Arabia.

Mughniyah gave his help to Zawahri and bin Laden in the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad in late 1995 that killed 17 people. When the Sudanese regime ousted bin Laden under pressure from the West, he moved with his cadres to Afghanistan with Mughniyah’s help. Over the next two years, al-Qaeda cadres received extensive training in preparation for what bin Laden called “global jihad.” In the last months of 1997, bin Laden told the Iranians that they should reconsider their foreign policy and join his campaign against the United States and its allies.

Mughniyah continued to train al-Qaeda cells during the early years of the 21st century as the official policy adopted by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on the relationship with al-Qaeda was crystallized in a highly classified document prepared by Iranian intelligence in May 2001. The document stressed the importance of joint strategic objectives Between Al-Qaeda and the Iranian regime in the “battle against global arrogance led by the United States and Israel.” The Middle East magazine The Tower quoted the secret document as saying it was crucial to understanding Mughniyeh’s relationship with 2001 9/11 attacks in United States.

The investigation committee found Mughniyeh and his top aides accompanied eight of the 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks when they left Saudi Arabia for Tehran through Beirut in late 2000. Ramzi bin al-Shaibah, the link between the al Qaeda leadership and the hijackers, received a visa from the Iranian embassy in Berlin in late 2000. He spent the greater part of 2001 in Tehran.

After the attacks, Mughniyeh took over the travel of al-Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Iran to protect them from the US invasion on October 7, 2001. In addition to housing Ayman al-Zawahri and al-Qaeda’s military wing Saif al-Adl in Iran, Mughniyah took measures to host many members of the bin Laden family. Mughniyah also used his global network to turn most al Qaeda assets across Africa into gold and diamonds in the months following the September 11 attacks.

By 2002, Mughniyeh was supporting Shiite and Sunni armed groups throughout the Middle East under the guidance of the Iranian regime. He was a mediator between the Iranian regime on the one hand and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories on the other.

In the summer of 2006, Mughniyah attended a series of meetings with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Tehran. By July of that year, three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped in the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah on the border with the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. Mugniyah’s relations with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the timing of the incidents indicate a degree of cooperation. From the tactical point of view, the two incidents dragged the Israeli army into military action on two fronts.

In February 2008, Mughniyeh was killed in a mysterious explosion following a series of meetings with intelligence officials of the Syrian regime in the region of Kafr Sousse in Damascus. The body responsible for his assassination has been unknown for years. In January, the Washington Post published an investigation into his death that was the result of a joint operation between the CIA and Mossad.

In the wake of the killing of Mughniyeh, many of those trained by him became senior leaders of the Hamas and Jihad movements in the Palestinian territories. In Lebanon his disciples became the architects of Hezbollah’s strategy in Syria. In Iraq, the Shiite militias under his supervision have become the tombstone of democracy.

In the meantime, the Sunni militias that Mughniyah helped and embraced have turned into a global terrorist threat called the Islamic State Organization. Mughniyah’s cells in Europe were sending al Qaeda jihadists from Europe to Iraq and Afghanistan during the first decade of the 21st century. The same networks continued to enable foreign fighters to travel to Iraq through Syria. These jihadists returned to Europe to carry out terrorist attacks such as the Paris attacks and then the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine.

Analysts say finding solutions to this threat should not be confined to the southern suburb of Paris or the poor suburb of Molenbeek in Brussels, but should extend to Hezbollah’s relationship to West African diamond trade, drug trafficking networks in Latin America and many black markets in Southeast Asia.

References:

http://www.thetower.org/article/iran-is-more-deeply-tied-to-isis-than-you-think/

Ilhan Omar and the Muslim Brotherhood

by: Rami Dabbas

SaveTheDate_Twitter_HP

It’s very interesting  the amount of sympathy, support and interest shown by members of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in various countries of the world toward the American of Somali origin Congresswoman  Ilhan Omar.  This  calls to attention the possibility of a relationship between them. What drives them to sympathize with Ilhan Omar is a similar ideology, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide do indeed sympathize with her.

As soon as she won  a seat in the Congress with the support of the Democrat party which allied with the Muslim Brotherhood movement in USA and the Qatari regime which  sponsors international terrorism, the first act of resistance was a verbal attack on  President Trump and all countries and organizations which are  against  the Muslim Brotherhood. Slowly, Omar revealed her positions in support of radical and anti-Semitic ideologies, and gained clear support from the regional states supporting terrorism, until she became agent of these organizations within the US Congress.

The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated to the defense of Ilhan Omar.  It’s been found that the Muslim brotherhood  in America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe all support Ilhan Omar and her  positions which include supporting countries that sponsor terrorism and her vocal opposition to President Trump.  Ilhan Omar is, in my opinion,  a threat to  US national security.  The appointment of any Islamist to  decision-making seats in USA and any country in the west, people like Ilhan omar,  is a threat to the national security in the West. Ihan Omar and others like her are loyal to the Koran and not to the state. They are practicing” Taqyia “to achieve their own goals. Rashida Tlaib is another pro Palestinian congresswoman  who supports the one-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  This would mean an the end of the Jewish state. Before Ilhan Omar was elected, she had begun to erase the history of the American Jewish experience. Ilhan Omar supports, in one way or another, the terrorist organizations of Hamas and Hezbollah, which indirectly supports Iran and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, which is also a terrorist organization.

References:

1.https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/30/ilh
2.https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Ilhan-Omar-calls-for-release-of-Egyptian-prisoner-with-terrorist-ties-586456
3.https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Laurie-Cardoza-Moore-claims-Ilhan-Omar-may-have-ties-to-Muslim-Brotherhood-582728
4.http://www.akhbar-alkhaleej.com/news/article/1155115

Potential Israeli-Iranian War in the Middle East

by: Rami Dabbas

11-22

If Iran uses its forces and fighters (which  include Afghani and Pakistani forces) to launch an attack near the Israeli-Syrian border, it is possible that a war between Tel Aviv and Tehran could to occur sooner rather than later.

The number of non-Iranian mercenaries are very large. The number of Afghanis ranges between fifteen and twenty thousand fighters. Pakistani fighters between five and ten thousand fighters, in addition to thousands of Iraqis and Syrians. The number of fighters in the Iran Revolutionary Guard, which is considered a terrorist group,  has between eight and ten thousand fighters, in addition to five or six thousand soldiers in the Iranian regular army, according to estimates of 2016.

In view of what has happened in 2018, the direct conflict between Israel and Iran is not only looming but it is already happening, and began with the penetration of an Iranian drone aircraft into Israeli airspace, and the  dropping of Syrian artillery on an Israeli  F-16 fighter after it launched  attacks on Syrian and Iranian positions on the border between the two countries.

Iran hosts Al Qaeda terrorists in Tehran and also funds them. This is nothing new for a country which is considered as the main supporter for terrorism worldwide. Even the 9/11 attacks were facilitated by the planning of Iran in cooperation with Al-Qaeda terrorists.

We have to be careful about the  increase of Iran’s influence in Syria and its military expansion on the border between the two countries. This could sooner or later cause a major conflict between the Israelis and Iranians.

In addition to the above mentioned concerns,  tensions are due to other factors as well: the efforts of Hezbollah and Syria – with the help of Iran – to produce high-precision missiles in Lebanon and Syria that could paralyze Israel’s vital infrastructure and make life intolerable, and Iran’s efforts to turn Syria into a starting point for operations against Israel and a platform to highlight the power of the Levant on the other. But as Iran pursues an anti-status agenda that has often caused a conflict with Israel and the United States, it has shown that it is seeking to avoid conventional wars and the heavy losses of its forces. Instead, it relies on the implementation of proxy operations, terrorism and influential but non-lethal activities. However, they are also willing to venture into high-risk activities involving potential escalation.

US President Donald Trump has taken an anti-Iranian position since he ran for president and vowed to end the nuclear deal reached by the Obama administration with the Islamic Republic. Trump accused Tehran of destabilizing the region shortly after he took office  and stressed the need to impose further sanctions on it’s nuclear and ballistic programs.

Israel is not the only country threatened by Iran, but Iran’s ballistic program may enable it to target other areas in the region, noting that Tehran now has the largest reservoir of ballistic missiles in the Middle East.

If war happens, it will involve Israel and the Arab states (mainly Saudi Arabia , UAE, Egypt and Jordan) against Iran to fight the Iranian threat and its expansion while the Iranian proxies –terrorist militias- and Hezbollah will side with Iran.

Islamization of Europe and the European Caliphate

by: Rami Dabbas

c63ba04b54ed79cb120ea6a6478c6ee3--hijab-abaya-muslim-women

 

In the 20th century, the World’s population increased four times and exceeded 6.5 billion people. the demographic change in the  recent decades has seen a rapid growth in the number of Muslims. Since 1990, the number of Muslims in the world has increased from 880 million to 1 billion people. Islam became the fastest growing world religion in terms of the number of adherents, and according to current forecasts, by 2030 there will be at least two billion Muslims on earth out of a total population of 8 billion.

Currently, Islam is already the second largest religion in terms  of followers (after Christianity). More than two thirds of Muslims live in Asia, where they constitute over 20% of the population, and almost 30% in Africa (half of the continent’s population). Muslim communities exist in more than 120 countries of the world, in 35 of them they constitute over 80% of the population (most of them are in the countries of North Africa and West Asia). The largest absolute Muslim communities reside in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Sociologists predict that by 2025 in the US, the Islamic community will become the second largest after Christians, overtaking the Jewish one.

Especially rapidly increasing is the number of Muslims in Europe. The largest Muslim community is in France: from 5 to 7 million (up to 10% of the total population), Islam became the second largest religion in the country after Catholicism. Numerous communities of followers of Islam were formed in Germany (4 million), Great Britain (1.7 million), Italy and Holland (1 million each). Significant Muslim communities are scattered throughout all Western European countries.

It should be noted that no one knows the real number of Muslims in Western Europe, since along with the legal immigrants and their descendants, there are many millions of illegal immigrants who are absent in official statistics. According to various estimates, between 15 and 24 million Muslims now live in Western Europe. Demographers predict that by 2025  the number of Muslims in Europe will double due to the high birth rate and mass immigration from North Africa and the Middle East.

Islam came to Western Europe just a few decades ago. Until the end of the 1940s, there were very few Muslims. (most in France – 120 thousand in the mid-1920s). The first mass migration was associated with the war in Algeria (1954-1962). After the forced consent of France to the declaration of independence of this North African states, hundreds of thousands of local Muslims took advantage of the opportunity to move to their former metropolis.

As a result of mass migrations from developing countries, the level of ethnic and denominational fragmentation of the population of those European states that were quite homogeneous a few decades ago is constantly increasing. It is fundamentally important that, unlike in past years, a significant part of Muslim migrants and their descendants now do not show a desire to integrate into a new environment for themselves.

The former European model of building a single civic nation within the framework of a national state (like the “melting pot” in the USA) in modern conditions ceases to work. Consequences of this are the concepts of building multicultural, multi-religious, and more recently, multilingual communities within individual states of Western Europe. For adherents of liberalism, these concepts seem to be a logical development of democracy, where minority rights are guaranteed and protected by the state. At the same time, no distinction is made between the “old” and the “new” population: their rights to an original existence are equally protected by a democratic state.

Muslim areas and suburbs appeared in Paris, Berlin, London and many other major European cities. Most modern French Muslims are descendants of the Arab Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco). In Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Denmark, the Muslim community is mainly represented by descendants of Turkish immigrants. British Muslims – most descendants of immigrants from British India (Pakistan and Bangladesh).

The increase in the number of European Muslims is promoted by the high fertility rate encouraged by state social programs. In Muslim families, the average number of children is usually not less than four. Large Muslim families contrasts with the small families and the crisis of traditional family values ​​among the indigenous Europeans. The most important democratic achievement of modern Western civilization proclaimed freedom of homosexual relations, and in a number of countries (Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain and Switzerland, as well as a number of US states) same-sex marriages were legally allowed.

Along with the increase in the number of sexual minorities, the reduction of the indigenous (atheistic or nominally Christian) population of Western Europe is promoted by the conscious rejection of the birth of children, as many Europeans believe that children will interfere with their careers or simply interfere with their usual and comfortable life. Families that have one child, rarely decide on the birth of the second. For simple reproduction of the population, the average birth rate should be 2.1 children. But women in Western Europe, on average, give birth to only 1.4 children. And in the conditions of a progressive decline in the indigenous population of Europe, Muslims successfully fill the demographic vacuum that has formed.

This plays into the feminist propaganda, which asserts that children prevent women from occupying a worthy place in society. The rejection of traditional family values ​​and the moral crisis of society contribute to the growth of the popularity of Islam, even among the indigenous people of Europe. In France, the number of white French Muslims already exceeds 50 thousand, and this far exceeds, for example, the number of Russian Muslims in Russia.

For several decades, the difficulties of a demographic and economic nature have forced the EU countries to legalize and even promote immigration from Muslim countries. European politicians considered it indecent even to ask the question, is modern Europe and Islam compatible in principle? Both did not preached the ideas of tolerance and multiculturalism as for Islam for example unlike what Islam Claims, incompatible with the views of Samuel Huntington, who in his sensational book “The Clash of Civilizations” claimed that Europe and Islam are two antipodes, two initially hostile antagonistic civilizations. On the contrary, the prevailing view was that the integration of the Muslim diaspora into European society would contribute to the rapprochement of Christian and Islamic civilizations.

The rationale for such optimistic ideas were examples when yesterday’s illiterate migrant workers or their descendants successfully fit into European reality, made a successful career, and even became members of the European Parliament. But widely propagated examples of this kind were sporadic; they did not reflect the real picture and only disoriented society, and indeed the political elite of Western Europe.

It is characteristic that, unlike the first wave of immigrants, the rejection of the surrounding reality among Muslims of the second and third generation constantly increased and acquired more and more radical forms. Already in the second half of the 1990s, young Muslims in Europe began to become increasingly intolerant of such European values ​​as sexual equality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, ensuring the rights of sexual minorities, etc. In schools that were attended by young Muslims, it became increasingly difficult to teach certain subjects. Over the years, in many schools it has become impossible to teach the history of the Holocaust, the theory of the origin of life, the development of species and humanity, as well as a number of other subjects that seemed completely unacceptable for young Muslims and their parents.

Gradually, in schools with Muslim students, sexual segregation was established: the boys sat down in one part of the class, and the girls – in the other, in hospitals the refusals of treatment by a male doctor or a man – by women became more frequent. Only ten years ago, only old women wore Muslim headscarves. Now they are worn by half of the female Muslim population of France, and in some municipalities of France this figure reaches 80%. Hijabs are increasingly common in other European countries.

Young Muslims in Europe no longer limit themselves to living under the laws of the land. In most cases, Muslim girls and women were not free to choose: many were forced to wear hijabs under the pressure of relatives or the community. According to special studies conducted by the French authorities, in some European cities, a Muslim girl who refuses to wear a headscarf “risks exposure to insults, physical aggression, sexual abuse and even collective rape.” In France, such acts of aggression against dissenters within the Muslim community occur regularly. The growth of Islamic fundamentalism among European Muslims created favorable conditions for the politicization of Islam in Europe.

Until the late 1990s Islamist political parties did not exist in Europe. Now they have appeared in France and Belgium. While these parties are not numerous and are not represented in parliament,  they already have their first successes: in Belgium in May 2003, “Parti de la Citoyennete et Prosperite” (PCP, Citizenship and Prosperity Party), which preaches radical Islam, gained more than 8 thousand votes in the Brussels elections.

Over the past four years, hundreds of acts of aggression by Muslim youth have been witnessed  in European cities, and the number of anti-Semitic demonstrations is constantly growing. According to sociologists, European Muslims do not show tolerance for their fellow citizens in precisely those countries that are most tolerant.

As shown by a sociological study conducted by the pew Washington Research Center in 13 western states, in the UK, while there is the most tolerant attitude of indigenous people towards Muslim immigrants in Europe, there is the most open dislike of Muslims towards Europeans.

In most countries, suspicion and contempt for each other, Muslims and non-Muslims are mostly mutual. But in the UK there is a huge gap in this regard. 63% of Britons treat Muslims positively, this figure has only slightly decreased since 2004 due to explosions in the London Underground. In France, such an attitude can be seen among approximately 60% of citizens, while in the USA, Germany and Spain this figure does not exceed 29%.

Only a third of Britons consider Muslims as cruel and hostile, whereas in Spain about 60% of indigenous people hold this opinion, in Germany – 52%, in the US – 45%, in France – 41%. At the same time, it is in Great Britain that the most negative attitude of local Muslims towards European values ​​is noted in the West. Most of the representatives of the British Ummah consider the people of the Western world to be selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. In the rest of the countries, the majority of Muslims share the respect for Europeans towards women, but in the UK, less than half of Muslim citizens agree with this.

In the UK, only 32% of Muslims are tolerant towards the Jewish community, whereas, for example, in France this figure is 71%. Finally, it is British Muslims who less than others believe in the possibility of their existence in Western society while maintaining the traditional way of life and adherence to conservative values.

At the same time, citizens of Great Britain showed the greatest sympathy, in contrast to other states, for Muslims in the context of a “caricature” scandal. Only 9% of the British respondents believe that the conflicts between Islam and the West that arose on this ground were the result of “Muslim intolerance towards Western freedom”, but about three-quarters of the respondents blamed “disrespect of the West towards Muslims” The same is believed in Muslim countries. 55% of Americans and 2/3 of Germans and French believe that relations between people of the West and Muslims in general leave much to be desired. Some optimism can be had only by the fact that, as studies have shown, in the Muslim communities of Europe,  Muslim attitude to the Europeans are still better than in Muslim countries.

At the beginning of the third millennium, European Muslims became an active political force. In the spring and summer of 2001, mass rallies were held by British Muslims in the factory cities of central England. In 2002, during the parliamentary elections in France, mass demonstrations of French Muslims greatly paralyzed the activity of right-wing Populist National Front. European Muslims in many respects contributed to the development by Europe of an independent position on the issue of the war in Iraq in 2003. In the winter of 2003/2004. large-scale actions of European Muslims were held, which were directed against the ban by the French Ministry of Education on wearing the hijab in schools. In European cities, mass marches are constantly taking place in support of the Palestinian people, against the policies of the United States and Israel.

Some Islamic leaders demanded autonomy for European Muslims. Thus, the director of the Muslim Institute Kaleem Siddiqi (one of the leaders of Islamic radicals in the UK) in his “Muslim manifesto” demanded that British Muslims be given the status of an “autonomous community”.

Europe has become an arena for the activities of Islamic terrorists who organized the bombings in Madrid and London, as well as the murder of the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. At the same time, terrorism is generated not only by internal causes, but also by the processes that occur within the Muslim communities of Europe. Many Muslims who participated in the terrorist attack on the USA on September 11, 2001, were Muslims from European countries. Their worldview was shaped in Europe, where favorable conditions were established for the dissemination of the ideas of radical Islam, which rejects liberal and democratic values.

The majority of those who committed the terrorist attacks on March 11, 2004 in Madrid were also young Muslims belonging to the second or third generation of immigrants. They were not associated with foreign terrorist organizations, although they claimed to be al Qaeda followers. The group included residents of Madrid and full-fledged citizens of Spain (mostly of Moroccan origin), who were inspired by the ideas of jihad, influenced by the information they gathered on the Internet on radical Islamic websites. The same picture was observed in the UK, where the London attacks of July 7, 2005 were also carried out by young Muslims – full-fledged British citizens.

Islam has become a major factor in European public life. Without taking this factor into account, no serious forecast of the future development of Europe, or of the entire modern world, is possible. A significant part of the Muslims of Europe did not integrate into European reality and consciously refuses to accept the Western European way of life, morality and values. Refusing European identity, they make a choice in favor of “pure” Islam in its Arabian variety and feel themselves primarily as part of the global Muslim community.

The current demographic situation strengthens Muslims in the belief that sooner or later Western Europe will become part of the Islamic world. Among them there is the conviction that the womb of a Muslim woman has become the most effective means of Islamizing Europe and the whole world. Some analysts claim that in the very near future, France will become the first Islamic country in Western Europe, from which Islam will begin its triumphal march through the rest of the continent.

European states have achieved great and unconditional success in defending the democratic rights and freedoms of their citizens. This fully applies to the rights of minorities living in them: religious, ethnic, sexual. The result of this liberal policy was the growing ethno-confessional fragmentation of Europe. But after all, such ethno-confessional fragmentation has always been one of the main features of developing countries. In most of them, such a mosaic caused a heightened conflict in society. The internal political instability caused by it still remains the most important cause of socio-economic stagnation, even social degradation, which are observed in many developing countries.

An increasing number of Muslims prefer to live within their own community, solely by their own laws, and not even speak the languages ​​of their countries of residence. It is precisely this behavior of Muslims that is fundamentally different from the behavior of other minorities (Chinese, Indian, Eastern European, etc.), who, while preserving their cultural traditions and identity, still strive to adapt and integrate into the society where they now live.

Obviously, the more numerous the Islamic segments that are not integrated into the local society, the higher the potential for conflict of the society and the more favorable the ground appears for the activities of radical Islamist groups.

It must be emphasized that Islam, like any other religion, does not in itself pose a threat to the world and society. The threat arises only when Islam ceases to be a religion and begins to be used as a political ideology that is designed to seize power in individual countries, regions or on a planetary scale by the name of creating the future World Caliphate.

In the conditions of the development of a special policy towards Muslims built on the liberal values ​​of European society, their very isolation from the number of other minorities seems to be an absolutely unacceptable violation of democracy. The persistent desire to ignore the specifics of Muslim problems led to the fact that such extremists as Egyptian Abu Hamza, without any problems, received British citizenship and for many years lived quietly in the UK, engaging in terrorist activities.

For European liberalism, it would be unthinkable to enact legislation similar to, for example, the recently adopted Australian decree on Arab-Muslim immigrants, from which “the government feels threatened by terrorist attacks.” This decree states that “Muslims who want to live in Australia under Sharia law will have to leave this country.” In Europe, the statements that Islam is a threat to society entail accusations of racism and prosecution.

Catholic priest pere Samuel, popular in Belgium, the rector of the church of St. Anthony of Padua in Charleroi, was accused by the authorities of racism for pointing out the threat of Islamic expansion in Europe in his sermon. “There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim,” said this priest, who was born in the family of Syrian Christians in Turkish Kurdistan. In his speech on local television, he called every Muslim child born in Europe “a time bomb for children of European culture who will soon become a minority here.”

It is noteworthy that the initiators of the prosecution of pere Samuel were not Islamic organizations, but the Belgian government human rights organization Center for Equal Opportunities and Resistance to Racism, which qualified his statements as “incitement to racial hatred” and even recommended that Father Samuel be detained until a court verdict was rendered.

Will the growth of the Muslim population lead to the Islamization of Europe? Many radical Islamic leaders no longer doubt this. As one of them said after the death of Pope John Paul II, “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and winner after he was twice expelled from the continent.” After that, “only one choice will be presented to Christians – to accept Islam or pay jizya (i.e., a tax levied on non-Muslims for the right to reside in an Islamic country).

European politicians may continue to pretend that Muslims are no different from other minorities. But further mechanical following along the path of liberalism cannot solve the problem, the existence of which is obvious. It leads only to the further isolation of local Muslims, the growth of the influence of radical political Islam in their midst, which may soon become a real threat to domestic political stability and the very existence of modern European civilization. And the longer the local authorities turn a blind eye to the Islamic problem, the more difficult it will be to find adequate methods for the solution.

The future prospects of Europe will primarily depend on whether European states are able to develop an adequate policy in relation to the growing and less and less integrated society of Muslim communities. Such a policy should not only guarantee all rights, preserve the religious and cultural identity of European Muslims, but also harmonize their relations with society and ensure the integration of Muslims into modern European civilization.

If a still prosperous Europe does not find an adequate way out of this difficult situation, then its development can be reversed and take the path of degradation. In this case, it is not at all the current developing countries that will catch up with the developed ones, but, on the contrary, Europe will be at the level of developing states. At present, such a development is still not fatally inevitable, and one would like to hope that Europe (like all humanity) will not be discarded during the darkest Middle Ages and religious wars.

Saving Freedom of Expression

by: Tahir Gora

 

hqdefault

Freedom of Expression is at the very heart of Western political values including Canadian and American values. It’s a fundamental part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These constitutional structures allow Canadians and Americans to practice their religions freely as well as they guarantee an individual the freedom to sever ties with his previous beliefs  if she/he chooses to.

But the proponents and opponents of freedom of speech are caught up in unpleasant if not ugly back and forth arguments in the wake of the ‘Islamophobia’ uproar.

We are witnessing a chain of incidences linked with reactions following 9/11. The biggest reactions worldwide were denial of terrorism and conspiracy theories, particularly by Muslim communities. Those reactions by the majority communities in the west further compounded and complicated the situation as the ‘silent’ majority of Muslims chose to remain silent and did not condemn terrorism fueled by Islamic supremacy ideas.

In contrast, many radical Imams and their Islamic centres based in the West continued to demonize the western world and kept praying and chanting for the destruction of the West.

That scenario created a general suspicion about Islam and Muslims in the eyes of fellow citizens, what Muslims started to call it ‘Islamophobia’.

The Canadian Liberal Government put forward a motion, M103 against Islamophobia. The term Islamophobia gained worldwide approval, particularly after the New Zealand Mosques attacks.

Most Islamic organizations started pushing forcefully to equate Islamophobia with Anti-Semitism. They are asking western governments to introduce legislation against Islamophobia the way laws are in place against Anti-Semitism.

But there is a huge difference between laws against Anti-Semitism and the so-called Islamophobia.

Legislation against Anti-Semitism includes curbing denial of holocaust and institutional and constitutional hatred against Jews.

But there is no institutional and constitutional hatred towards Muslims.

Laws against Anti-Semitism don’t include criticism towards Judaism or any religion, but Islamic groups are asking for barriers against attempts to criticize Islamic theology under the proposed anti-Islamophobic legislation.

So in context of this debate, a large number of Muslim activists are emerging worldwide to lobby for anti-Islamophobic laws. Western activists are also showing up to resist such moves.

Meanwhile, Islamic extremist related terrorism is still on the prowl from China to Africa and from Middle East to Europe and North America.

A recent attack on New Zealand Mosques sparked a debate worldwide to denounce White Supremacy.

Some even asked to condemn waves of white nationalism, white populism or white right wing ideologies. However, equating white supremacy with Western nationalism would be like questioning Chinese, Japanese, Russian or Indian nationalism.

While living in an age of reactionary ideas, people from opposite camps need to sit for a candid dialogue for their own introspection so that the world might avoid huge collateral damage.

Instead of naming and accusing each other with hollow and shallow political sloganeering, it’s important to engage ourselves in honest intellectual dialogue in order to maintain an existing environment of free speech.

Hypocrisy in Canadian Government

36077200_303

Canada’s foreign policy bureau has condemned the implementation of sharia in Brunie. A tweet released this morning stated “Canada is deeply concerned with #Brunei’s decision to punish members of the #LGBTQ2 community under its new penal code. Canada supports #humanrights for all and will always oppose the #deathpenalty.”

cann

It is encouraging to hear that Canada has taken a stand in this particular instance. Do they take the same stand against Imams in Canada that preach against the LGBTQ community? Is the government of Canada just as deeply concerned about the same views held by imams in Canada concerning this aspect of sharia?

At an April 1996 conference, Canadian imam   Zafar Bangash was criticizing the West for being “proud of being homosexuals,” and saying: “It is time for us to pick up the stones to stone these people to death for [this] abomination… Allah imposes [this responsibility] upon us.”

The Islamic party of Ontario leader  Jawed Anwar posted an article in 2018 warning about the death penalty in Islam for the LGBTQ community. Will the Canadian government act on this?

Many Canadian Imams have spoken out against the LGBTQ lifestyle, some even stating that  the punishment for this is death. Does our government act on this?

Do they condemn mosques and imams that preach/pray for the death of non Muslims, imams that pray for the success of mujahideen (jihadi)?  It is yet to be seen.