Ramadan: Islam’s ‘Holy Month’ of Christian Oppression by Raymond Ibrahim

Investigative Project on Terrorism


The month of Ramadan, which ended earlier this week, proved to be a month of renewed Muslim piety on the one hand, and renewed oppression of non-Muslim minorities on the other. In Nigeria, for example, Islamic militants are living up to the assertion that “Ramadan is a month of jihad and death for Allah,” proving that killing Christians is not only reserved for Christian holidays—like Christmas and Easter, when militants bombed churches killing dozens—but is especially applicable during Islam’s Ramadan. Usually, however, Ramadan-related oppression has to do with Muslim perceptions that Christians do not “know their place”—either because the latter openly do things forbidden to Muslims during Ramadan, or because they dare object to the things Muslims do during their holy month.

When it comes to these aspects of dhimmitude, Egypt offers countless examples, past and present, simply because it houses the Middle East’s largest Christian minority, the Copts, and thus offers more opportunities for the intolerant face of Ramadan to reveal itself. Two recent examples follow:

First, according to Coptic websites, on July 27, a diabetic man in Egypt was driving his car in Maadi, a suburb of southern Cairo, when he was struck with great thirst, “which he could not bear” (a side-effect of diabetes, further exacerbated by Egypt’s July weather). He pulled over by a public water source and started drinking water. Soon three passer-bys approached him, inquiring why he was drinking water (among the many things forbidden to Muslims during daylight in Ramadan). The diabetic man replied, “Because I am a Christian, and sick,” to which they exclaimed “you’re a Christian, too!” and begun beating him mercilessly. Other passer-bys began to congregate to see what was happening, but no one intervened on behalf of the diabetic non-Muslim, until he managed to make a dash for his parked car and fled the scene.



I’m a big fan of the 1 percent. No, not the dastardly 1 percent of Occupy Wall Street myth; I’m partial, instead, to the 1 percent of Congress that takes seriously the threat of Islamic-supremacist influence operations against our government.

The people have 435 representatives serving in the House and another hundred in the Senate. Of these 535, a total of 288 are Republicans — 241 and 47 in the lower and upper chambers, respectively. Of these, only five House conservatives — five — have had the fortitude to raise concerns about the Islamist connections of government officials entrusted with positions enabling them to shape U.S. policy.

Think about that. Republicans purport to be the national-security party. For decades this claim was well founded, starting with Ronald Reagan’s clarity in seeing the Soviets as enemies to be defeated, not accommodated. President Reagan’s plan for the Cold War was, “We win, they lose,” and he pulled it off because he was not under any illusions about who “they” were.

But something happened to the GOP in the Bush years. For all the welcome understanding that Bill Clinton was wrong — that the jihad could not be indicted into submission — the Bush administration never learned a fundamental truth that Reagan knew only too well: You cannot defeat your enemies unless you understand them, and you cannot even begin to understand them if you are too craven to name them.

As they gather in Tampa for their quadrennial showcase, Republicans, but for the 1 percent, remain timorous on the subject of America’s enemies. Oh, they’ll tell you that we must confront “terrorism” and crack down on the “terrorists.” But that’s not much different from claiming to be against “burglary” and “burglars.” Terrorism is a vicious crime, but it becomes a national-security threat only when it is an instrument of an ideology that aims to destroy our country. What made the terrorist organizations armed and trained by the Soviets in the Sixties and Seventies a threat was the Soviets, not the terrorism.

America’s enemies are Islamic supremacists: Muslims adherent to a totalitarian interpretation of Islam who, like Soviet Communists, seek to impose their ideology throughout the world, very much including the United States. Terrorism is an offensive strategy they use, but it is only one arrow in the quiver. Its chief utility, moreover, is not that it will coerce surrender on its own; it is the atmosphere of intimidation it creates. That dramatically increases the effectiveness of the enemy’s several other offensive strategies — legal demands for concessions, media campaigns, infiltration of society’s major institutions, and influence operations against government.

The most disheartening thing about the modern Republican party’s dereliction — about its accommodation and empowerment of our enemies under the delusional guise of “Muslim outreach” — is that it flies in the face of the Bush Justice Department’s signal counterterrorism achievement.

That was the 2007–08 Holy Land Foundation case. For once, political correctness and the fear of being smeared as “Islamophobic” were shelved. In the course of convicting several Hamas operatives, prosecutors proved that the Muslim Brotherhood is engaged in a far-flung enterprise aimed, in the Brothers’ own words, at “eliminating and destroying” our way of life “from within” by means of “sabotage.” The Bush Justice Department not only showed that what the Brotherhood calls its “grand jihad” (or “civilization jihad”) is real; Justice shed light on the ideology that fuels this enterprise, and expressly identified many of the global Brotherhood’s accomplices.

Alas, this achievement is one today’s Republicans prefer to ignore. The party of Ronald Reagan would have worn it like a badge of honor. Today’s GOP would rather engage our enemies and call them our friends — not understand them, call them what they are, and defeat them. Today’s Beltway Republicans save their wrath for the occasional conservative — the messengers who embarrass them by illustrating how small the big time has made them.

Did you know, for example, that when the Republican establishment had its hissy fit over the inconvenient 1 percent — when John McCain and John Boehner led the shrieking over their five conservative colleagues’ purported scaremongering over Islamist influence-peddling — the fact that this influence-peddling effort exists had just been proved in court?

As Patrick Poole, one of few to cover the case, has observed, it is the biggest spy scandal you’ve never heard about. Right around the time McCain and Boehner were dressing down the 1 percent last month, Ghulam Nabi Fai was finally heading off to prison. He had pled guilty last December to acting as a secret foreign agent against our government.

In sum, Fai was paid millions of dollars over two decades by the Pakistani intelligence service to push its agenda through a D.C.-based front, the Kashmiri American Council. You haven’t heard much about it because it is a Muslim Brotherhood operation through and through, one that demonstrates exactly what the 1 percent is warning about.

Fai grew up in Kashmir, the disputed territory Islamists have sought to wrest from India, often by terrorism, for over half a century. His story would be typical of Muslim Brotherhood operatives if we actually spoke about Muslim Brotherhood operatives. He became a member of Jama’at-e-Islami, which maintains close relations with the Brotherhood and is, for Pakistanis, what the Brotherhood is for Arabs — the vanguard of global Islamic supremacism.

The force that globalizes this movement is Saudi money and commitment. During one of the many Indian crackdowns on Kashmiri Islamists, Fai did exactly what Muslim Brothers in Egypt frequently did during regime crackdowns: He fled to Saudi Arabia. While studying at one of the kingdom’s Wahhabist universities, he made himself useful to a highly influential imam who incited Kashmiri jihadists. Impressed by Fai’s devotion to the cause, the Saudi government agreed to pay for his education in the United States.

The Saudis steered Fai to Temple University, where Islamists had a beachhead. Fai studied under a Palestinian sharia specialist, Ismail Raji al-Faruqi, who led the Saudi-funded “Islamization of knowledge” program. Ismail would later join Muslim Brotherhood operatives to found the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a think tank dedicated to the “Islamization of knowledge” project, and one that worked so closely with Sami al-Arian, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad emir, that its leadership was listed among the unindicted co-conspirators cited by the Bush Justice Department at al-Arian’s terrorism trial.

At Temple, Fai became the president of the Muslim Students Association — the national organization. Established in the early sixties, the MSA is the original foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s American infrastructure. It now has hundreds of chapters grooming Islamists across the United States and Canada. Patrick Poole has recounted the numerous MSA leaders who have graduated to violent jihadism. They include — and this is just to name a few of many — Wael Jalaidan, a founder of al-Qaeda; Abdurahman Alamoudi, a leading financier of al-Qaeda who was eventually convicted in a murder plot; and Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda leader who counseled the 9/11 hijackers and, before finally being killed in Yemen last year, was implicated in sundry jihadist plots, including the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to bomb a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. Like Fai, both Alamoudi and Awlaki were once admired in Washington as model moderates thanks to the magic of “Muslim outreach.” (So was al-Arian.)

From the MSA, Fai seamlessly moved on to the “shura council” (i.e., the advisory board) of the Islamic Society of North America. ISNA evolved out of the MSA and the two organizations consider themselves as one. ISNA has become the largest and, perhaps, the most influential Brotherhood affiliate in the United States — see its president, Mohamed Magid, pictured here with State Department official Huma Abedin at the Iftar (end-of-Ramadan) dinner hosted by President Obama just a few weeks ago.


Rangel: ‘You bet your ass’ Biden invoked slavery
Count Congressman Charlie Rangel amo…
Read more…
Obama tweets that Biden’s ‘an outstanding VP’
“Today marks four years since I chos…
Read more…
Ex-Capitol Hill reporter: ‘Lied to every day, all day’
After 14 years at National Public Ra…
Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz24XxbERqA
U.Va. turns down Obama request for campus rally
The Wall Street Journal
Friday, August 24, 2012
U.Va. turns down Obama request for campus rally
The Obama campaign was forced to scramble after the University of Virginia rejected a request to hold a rally on campus next week. In another hiccup, the campaign late on Friday canceled Vice President Biden’s plans to visit Tampa, Fla., next week, which is hosting the Republican National Convention. The campaign cited concerns connected to a looming hurricane. View Video…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz24XzgnKOO
Chaffetz digs into stimulus cash used on job ads
Jim McElhatton

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, plans to push Obama administration officials for more information on why the Labor Department spent a half-million dollars in federal stimulus money for more than 100 commercials that ran on MSNBC.
Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz24Y0V0nO8


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/how-german-islamists-recruit-young-men-for-jihad-a-851393.html Young Muslim men in Germany are systematically trying to recruit their peers for jihad using sophisticated rhetoric and psychology and by targeting vulnerable youths who are searching for direction in life. Two men who have quit the scene tell their story to SPIEGEL, providing a rare look into a dangerous underground. Young Muslim men […]


THAT MUSLIM VOTE In Mitt Romney’s home state of Michigan, about 1.5 percent of the population is Arab-American. In 2008, President Obama beat opponent John McCain by 49 percentage points in Wayne County which claims to have the largest Arab-American population in the country. MUSLIM PAEDOS ON WHEELS In a triumph for disabled child molesters […]


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/08/friday-afternoon-roundup-carjackers-and.html RELEASE THE BACON-SNIFFING HOUNDS Turn on CNN or MSNBC and the topic of choice will either be how Paul Ryan intends to turn America into Afghanistan (which would be swell because Afghanistan is run by the Religion of Peace and is a very tolerant place) or how four trillion Muslims were killed by Islamophobia […]



Two years ago, Republican congressional candidates overwhelmed their Democratic counterparts, winning just about everything in sight. In the end, the GOP tsunami picked up 66 seats while losing just 3 of its own, and carried a solid majority into the 112th Congress. 2010 was, at least in the House, a historic shift in the balance of power and the largest in over 60 years [1].

Now, nearly two years removed from that electoral wipeout, it’s time to look ahead to the 2012 edition of the battle for Capitol Hill. The question that usually arises first when evaluating possible House election outcomes is whether the minority party will regain control of the chamber. This year, Democrats will need to realize a net gain of 25 seats in order to accomplish that feat. The current consensus [2] is that they will probably gain a handful but not enough to tip the balance in their favor.

Enough about the big picture — what about the races themselves? All 435 seats are up for election every two years. Most of them are nothing more than formalities in which the incumbent, or incumbent party, waltzes to Washington for another term. Others feature competitive matchups whose outcomes are uncertain. These are the races that make Election Projection’s Contested House Race Summary [3].

And then there are the truly interesting, pure toss-up contests, made all the more intriguing by unusual circumstances or colorful personalities. They are the “must-watch” races for any political aficionado. Today, we’ll look at five such races you’ll want to follow closely over the next 10 weeks.

California CD-52

Brian Bilbray-inc (R) vs. Scott Peters (D)

Of all the House targets on the DCCC’s wish list, few rate higher than Brian Bilbray. In 2006, Bilbray won a controversial special election [4] against Francine Busby to fill the vacancy in CD-50 left by Randy Cunningham’s resignation and subsequent conviction on an assortment of felony counts. Bilbray followed his special election victory by winning the rematch against Busby in November that year, and then cruising to two more re-election triumphs in 2008 and 2010. Given his 18-point margin of victory in the latter election, one might wonder why this race is on this list.

Something happened on the way to Election 2012 — redistricting. California’s non-partisan redistricting commission played havoc with the former congressional district lines and landed Bilbray in a newly minted District 52. Not only is Bilbray’s seat now much bluer than two years ago (Cook Political PVI D+1), but he must also face a formidable challenger in Democrat Scott Peters.

(Note: PVI = Partisan Voting Index. Developed by political handicapper Charlie Cook, the PVI average results from the prior two presidential elections and compares them to national results. So a PVI of D+1 indicates a district that went Democratic exceeding the national average of the Democratic vote over the last two presidential elections by 1 percentage point.)

After the controversy surrounding Bilbray’s first election victories, Democrats may, at long last, have the opportunity to send Bilbray packing. This race is up for grabs.


Illinois CD-12 (open seat)

William Enyart (D) vs. Jason Plummer (R)

Like Republicans in North Carolina, Democrats in Illinois used redistricting to carve out a substantial advantage in House elections for the next decade. Election Projection currently shows Democrats picking up 4 seats [5] in the Land of Lincoln against just one Republican pick-up, which happens to be Illinois CD-12.

Democrat Jerry Costello was supposed be an easy victor here. His seat was to be a solid hold for the blue team — until Costello decided to retire at the end of the current term. Charlie Cook reacted to the announcement by moving his rating from “Solid Democrat” to “Toss-up” in one drastic shift.

Further complicating their prospects, Brad Harriman, winner of the Democratic primary, dropped out of the race due to health concerns. Now, his replacement, William Enyart, must run double-time to catch up to Republican nominee Jason Plummer. Still, the district does sport a D+3 PVI so Plummer’s road is uncertain at best. Polls show Plummer ahead, but expect them to tighten considerably between now and November 6.


New Hampshire CD-1 and CD-2

Frank Guinta-inc (R) vs. Carol Shea-Porter (D)

Charlie Bass-inc (R) vs. Ann McLane Kuster (D)

These two seats have so much in common and are so competitive that a package deal is in order. Besides, they have mirrored each other in recent elections. In fact, these two seats have gone to the same party in every election since 1992. Both were Democratic pick-ups in 2006, and Republicans reclaimed them both two years ago.

But the similarities don’t end there. All four of the likely nominees (likely because the Democratic primary won’t be held until September 11) were on the ballot in 2010. It’s a pair of rematches, and early polls indicate two razor-close battles are in store.

As red spots in the blue expanse of the Northeast, these two contests hold special significance for the GOP. Along with a competitive Senate race in nearby Connecticut, they represent two of very few opportunities for Republican victories in the region.


Pennsylvania CD-12 (merged seat)

Mark Critz-inc (D) vs. Keith Rothfus (R)

An interesting phenomena of reapportionment after every 10-year census is the incumbent-vs-incumbent race. When a state loses seats to reapportionment, it is quite common for two incumbents to end up in the same district. That’s just what happened in Pennsylvania this year. Republicans used their control over the redistricting process to paint Democratic Congressmen Jason Altmire and Mark Critz into a newly configured CD-12. Critz won the primary and will face Keith Rothfus, a Tea-Party backed Republican who lost to Altmire in 2010 by just 2 percent.

This year, Rothfus may turn the tables on Critz, given the new district’s R+6 PVI, but Critz has proven a formidable challenge in the past. He won a special election to replace the late John Murtha in May 2010 and then held on to win re-election, 51-49, in November of that year, despite seeing so many of his Democratic colleagues go down to defeat.

It’ll be an exciting race in a battleground state, and the winner could be determined by the color and length of the coattails at the top of the ticket.


Minnesota CD-8

Chris Cravaack-inc (R) vs. Richard Nolan (D)

Democrat Jim Oberstar rarely campaigned for re-election. His seat was one of those formalities I mentioned earlier. In 2010, Chris Cravaack was supposed to be just the next GOP pretender to lose big to the 19-term incumbent. But then the red wave kept rising and rising. Once Oberstar realized his race was competitive, it was too late. Cravaack’s stunning victory was one of the most surprising in recent memory.

Now, it is Cravaack who must work hard for re-election in this Democrat-leaning district (D+3 PVI). Demographic shifts may have moved his constituency rightward, but this remains difficult territory. His opponent, DFL-endorsed Richard Nolan, has been through the House election wars before — most recently in 1978. No, that’s not a typo, Nolan served three terms in Congress during the 1970s [6] and hasn’t run for office since!

This race will be another nail-biter, but if Cravaack avoids the sophomore slump, he may be set up for easier tests in future cycles.


Overall these races won’t decide who controls the House. If the Democrats manage an unlikely takeover, all of the races on this list — and many other less competitive ones — will have to fall in their favor. If that happens, these races may not turn out to be very competitive after all. But, barring the unforeseen, we will still have a Republican majority come January, albeit a few seats smaller, and these select contests will have provided us the suspense and intrigue that keep us coming back to the elections arena cycle after cycle.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/five-must-watch-congressional-races-for-2012/



The government of South Africa has defined the State of Israel as not including Beersheva, Yad Mordechai, Acco, Afula, and Nahariya. It creates an “Arab Enclave” in Jaffa not governed by Israel. It reduces the borders of Israel in two places to points on a map — one in the Galilee and one in the Negev Desert — and, for good measure, restores Jerusalem and certain of its suburbs to “corpus separatum.” Yasser Arafat didn’t have the nerve to define such borders.

South Africa has decided to label goods entering the country from certain places as “IOT” for “Israeli Occupied Territory.” The outraged Israeli government called the decision “blatant discrimination based on national and political distinction. This kind of discrimination has not been imposed — and rightly so — in any other case of national, territorial or ethnic conflict[.] … What is totally unacceptable is the use of tools which, by essence, discriminate and single out, fostering a general boycott.”

It is worse than that.

The statement by the South African cabinet “approved that a notice … be issued by the minister of Trade and Industry requiring the labeling of goods or products emanating from IOTs (Israel Occupied Territories) to prevent consumers being led to believe that such goods come from Israel. This is in line with South Africa’s stance that recognizes the 1948 borders delineated by the United Nations and does not recognize occupied territories beyond these borders as being part of the State of Israel.”

The South African Cabinet appears to insist on the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan as the parameters for an Israel with which it is morally comfortable. Aside from the historical oddity of choosing 1948 — a year in which no borders for Israel were determined — there is the question of how to react to the delicate moral sensibilities of a government that just shot and killed 34 of its own citizens and wounded more than 70 others for protesting over pay.

Sticking to history, there are three possible eastern boundary lines for the State of Israel1: the 1947 U.N. partition line, the 1949 Armistice Line (also and incorrectly known as the “pre-’67 borders”), and the Jordan River post-Six-Day War. None are recognized borders, and none were established in 1948.


http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2457 NAM and The New York Times Comic relief can be a good temporary remedy for actual, long-term tragedy. This must be why there was such a heavy dose of it in The New York Times on Thursday. Any other explanation for the piece by former political science professor at Tehran University and former adviser […]


http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/obama-campaign-enlisting-support-from-radical-anti-israel-rabbis/2012/08/24/ Some of the “Rabbis for Obama” group in conversation with an Ayatollah on their recent visit to Iran. Photo Credit: Shalom Rav blog According to Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, President Obama’s attitude towards Jewish voters is astonishing. Speaking to The Jewish Press, Pollak said, “the Rabbis for Obama […]