Islam  --  Facts and Fiction

-- Statistics Show Women Fare Badly Under Islam - 10/22/10
-- The Multicultural Cult - 10/19/10
-- Islamic kids cartoons praised by Obama draw terse warning - 10/16/10
-- Will Islam Conquer the Netherlands? - 10/16/10
-- Canada’s Failure to Win A U.N. Security Council Seat - 10/14/10
-- Dozens of NATO Oil Tankers Torched in Pakistan - 10/01/10
-- 'Son of Hamas' warns U.S. fatally falling for lies - 08/25/10

 Statistics Show Women Fare Badly Under Islam, but U.N. Official Calls Data ‘Stereotyping’

October 22, 2010     By Patrick Goodenough

The head of the U.N. Population Fund blames stereotyping for the perception that Islamic societies are “backward” when it comes to the treatment of women, but data released by other international agencies challenge that assertion.

U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) Executive Director Thoraya Obaid, a Saudi, made the statement in an interview with Inter Press Service (IPS), as the agency she heads released its annual report on the world’s population.

This year’s report focuses on the way women are affected by conflict, and Obaid told IPS that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein left Iraqi women worse off.

(Human rights advocates say the rights enjoyed by Iraqi women under family laws enacted two decades before Saddam seized power in 1979 were set back after the Baathist regime fell, as newly empowered Islamists pressed for marital and family matters to be regulated by shari’a law.)

“Although the [Iraqi] constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of gender, in practice conservative societal standards impeded women’s abilities to exercise their rights,” the State Department said in its most recent annual human rights report.)

Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the United Nations Population Fund, leaves a news conference in London following the release of UNFPA’s annual report regarding the state of world population, on Wednesday Nov. 18, 2009. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

Obaid said conditions for Iraqi women had worsened after the U.S.-led invasion.

The interviewer then asked her, “How does this square with the perception that, left to themselves, Muslim societies are backward, and that the U.S. is the progressive one?”

Obaid replied, “That is a political question in many ways. There are stereotypes of Muslim countries, and Muslim women.”

“This is the stereotyping of a people and also of a religion, and as a result assumptions are based on such perceptions,” Obaid added. “In many ways it is perceptions that hinder Muslim women in many places.”

Obaid pointed out that she is a Saudi woman – “and see where I am right now.”

Obaid’s career achievements stand in stark contrast, however, to the situation faced by millions of women in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab and Islamic world, as borne out by two major reports released this month.

The World Economic Forum last week distributed its annual Global Gender Gap Report [3], a review of how 134 countries have succeeded in closing gaps between women and men in four areas – economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment and health and survival.

While some non-Muslim countries do poorly, the vast majority of the worst-scoring countries are Islamic, most of them Arab states.

Seventeen of the 20 countries at the bottom of the gender gap scale are Islamic – Lebanon (placed at 116), Qatar (117), Nigeria (118), Algeria (119), Jordan (120), Oman (122), Iran (123), Syria (124), Egypt (125), Turkey (126), Morocco (127), Benin (128), Saudi Arabia (129), Mali (131), Pakistan (132), Chad (133) and Yemen (134).

The three non-Muslim countries in the bottom 20 are Nepal at 115, Ethiopia at 121 and Cote d’Ivoire at 130.

Another 13 Muslim-majority countries appear higher up in the ratings, with the five scoring the highest Kazakhstan (41), Kyrgyzstan (51), Brunei (77), Bangladesh (82) and Indonesia (87).

School enrolment, literacy, employment, politics

On Wednesday, the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) released another major report [4], also dealing with the status of women around the world in 2010. The numerous indicators explored in the report include the rate of girls of primary school age enrolled in school, compared to that of boys.

The seven countries with the biggest gaps are all Islamic countries – Chad (a 22 percent difference between boys and girls enrolled), Yemen (20), Pakistan (16), Guinea-Bissau (16), Mali (14), Iraq (13) and Niger (13).

Two Islamic countries do break the pattern significantly – in Iran the percentage of girls enrolled in primary school is nine percent higher than that of boys; Mauritania also has five percent more girls enrolled than boys.

When it comes to the difference between literacy rates in adult women and men, Islamic countries once again score worst for women.

Of the seven countries with the biggest literacy gaps, five are Islamic – Yemen (a 36 percent gender gap), Mozambique (30), Guinea-Bissau (29), Niger (28) and Pakistan (27). The non-Islamic two are Central African Republic (28) and Ethiopia (27).

With the net cast wider, of the 28 countries scoring worst for women when it comes to literacy, 20 are Islamic states.

The DESA report also tracks the percentage of women represented in parliaments in 2009. Rwanda scores highest, with 56 percent of its parliamentary seats held by women.

At the other end of the scale, the only countries with no female representatives are all Islamic, and all Arab Gulf states – Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Finally, Islamic states fare poorly in a list showing the percentage of women making up the adult labor force.

In 27 countries where women accounted for less than one-third of the total adult labor force, 22 are Islamic states, with the UAE (women comprise 15 percent of the workforce), Saudi Arabia (16) and Qatar (16) scoring worst.

Source URL:

 The Multicultural Cult
Oct 19, 2010 By Thomas Sowell
Somebody eventually had to say it -- and German chancellor Angela Merkel deserves credit for being the one who had the courage to say it out loud. Multiculturalism has "utterly failed."
Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about "diversity," without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.
In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.
"We kidded ourselves for a while," Chancellor Merkel said, but now it was clear that the attempt to build a society where people of very different languages and cultures could "live side-by-side" and "enjoy each other" has "failed, utterly failed."
This is not a lesson for Germany alone. In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist.
Even the tragedies and atrocities associated with racial differences in racist countries have been exceeded by the tragedies and atrocities among people with clashing cultures who are physically indistinguishable from one another, as in the Balkans or Rwanda.
Among the ways that people with different cultures have managed to minimize frictions have been (1) mutual cultural accommodations, even while not amalgamating completely, and (2) living separately in their own enclaves. Both of these approaches are anathema to the multicultural cultists.
Expecting any group to adapt their lifestyles to the cultural values of the larger society around them is "cultural imperialism" according to the multicultural cult. And living in separate neighborhoods is considered to be so terrible that there are government-financed programs to take people from high-crime slums and put them in subsidized housing in middle-class neighborhoods.
Multiculturalists condemn people's objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.
The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased "perceptions" or "stereotypes," if not outright "racism." But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.
The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.
Before these immigrants were culturally assimilated to the norms of American society, they were by no means scattered at random among the population at large. On New York's lower east side, Hungarian Jews lived clustered together in different neighborhoods from Romanian Jews or Polish Jews -- and German Jews lived away from the lower east side.
When someone suggested relieving the overcrowding in the lower east side schools by transferring some of the children to a school in an Irish neighborhood that had space, both the Irish and the Jews objected.
None of this was peculiar to America. When immigrants from southern Italy to Australia moved into neighborhoods where people from northern Italy lived, the northern Italians moved out. Such scenarios could be found in countries around the world.
It was in later generations, after the children and grandchildren of the immigrants to America were speaking English and living lives more like the lives of other Americans, that they spread out to live and work where other Americans lived and worked. This wasn't multiculturalism. It was common sense.


 Islamic kids cartoons praised by Obama draw terse warning

Posted: October 16, 2010     By Bob Unruh     WorldNetDaily

'These are not types of heroes you want your children to have'

New Shariah-compliant Islamic cartoon "superhero"

A coming series of "superhero" cartoons promoting the tenets of Islam under the title of "The 99" – which has been praised by President Obama – is drawing a terse warning from an expert who has analyzed media impact on people for decades.

"These are not the types of heroes you want your children to have," Dr. Ted Baehr, chief of MOVIEGUIDE®," told WND today. "These heroes, at their core, because they represent values contrary to humanity, at the core these heroes are more villain than hero."

Get the latest reports on what Hollywood is doing, subscribe to "MOVIEGUIDE,"

Reports already have circulated about the plans by The Hub, which formerly was Discovery Kids, to produce the series featuring characters portraying the 99 attributes of Allah, at Family Security Matters and others.

The New York Post ran a column describing plans for the Shariah-compliant Muslim superheroes – "including one who fights crime hidden head-to-toe by a burqa."

"These Islamic butt-kickers are ready to bring truth, justice and indoctrination to impressionable Western minds," the report said.

That's the problem, according to Baehr, with the Middle East cartoon that reportedly is being picked up and scheduled for a launch early in 2011 by Hasbro toys and Discovery Communications.

A preview of the program has been posted online:

Baehr's organization said the program includes "hair-hiding headscarves" that are "mandatory for the five female characters, not including a 'burqa babe' called Batina the Hidden."

"Curiously (or not so curiously considering his track record), President Obama, who was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia but supposedly converted to Christianity, praised this work created by Kuwaiti psychologist Naif al-Mutawa, saying at an April meeting with Arab entrepreneurs, 'His superheroes embody the teachings of the tolerance of Islam.'"

That message also is online:

Adrian Morgan of Family Security Matters, which is a think tank, wondered, "Are we going to see a**-kicking Christian superhero nuns called Faith, Hope and Charity ... sending Satan into Hell? It's doubtful!"

Baehr's organization said the characters, which are expected to be on-air sometime in January 2011 or later, also reportedly are featured in a six-part series of DC Comics where the Justice League superheroes of Superman and Batman reach out to the Islamics.

"With all due respect to President Obama and contrary to his opinion, the Muslim faith is known for its lies about Christians and Jews, lies about the Bible, lies about Jesus and His apostles, violence, warrior mentality, abuse of women, slavery, persecution of non-Muslims, and terrorism against peaceful civilians, from the alleged founder of the faith, Mohammed, down to the present day," Baehr's analysis said.

Baehr told WND he's been working with the study of media impact on people for nearly four decades. Of thousands of studies, there has been only one – by a media organization – that concluded the media did not have an influence on children.

But that "influence" does not always manifest itself the same way, he said. For example, a study revealed that 1 in 4 children who watch R-rated movies started drinking earlier than children who did not.

A small percentage, he said, are very likely to be influenced toward the violence that is inherent in Islam – it's admonitions to "kill infidels" and the like.

"Islam is a toxic religion, I will say that up front," Baehr said. "It is a very negative religion toward people and especially women."

The Family Security Matters commentary also suggested a darker side to the "heroes."

"In the Islamic world, cartoons have a more sinister purpose. In Iran, on Al-Quds Day, Iranian TV schedules are filled with cartoons about evil Israelis with red eyes, shooting and murdering innocent doe-eyed Palestinians. For older kids, the heroes fight back, and even get martyred in the cause of Allah. Al-Quds day, named after the Arab term for Jerusalem and initiated by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983, is a time for Iranian media to reinforce Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic propaganda," it said.

The characters already are in comic books that come from Teshkeel Comics in Kuwait, a company that has worked with Marvel, DC and Archie comic companies.

"Not all kids [who watch] are going to become violent," Baehr said, "It's only if they have a susceptibility. This will become a pattern of behavior just like American converts to radical Islam in Detroit and Tennessee.

"This will appeal to a certain group who will become radicalized by watching this," he said. "The problem with all of this … is that you cannot tell until it's too late."

WND previously has reported just exactly what Islamic television's children's programs feature.

Kids play at "jihad" in new Hamas television presentation

For example, the terror group Hamas' Al-Aqsa Television has "martyred" a children's bunny character named Assud and knocked off a Mickey Mouse-lookalike for the cause of jihad.

Also in a report documented by the Middle East Media Research Institute, it has been promoting jihad for children, or children for jihad.

In the musical clip, a children's choir opens with: "Dad, we put on our new clothes. Give us our pocket money. Today is a holiday. … Me, my brother, and the neighborhood kids want to arm ourselves with guns."

MEMRI explained that the message is an excerpt of a holiday video aired on Hamas Al-Aqsa Television on Sept. 8 called "Holiday Gun." It was performed by Muhammad al-Madhoun and Ibrahim Sheikh Khalil.

According to MEMRI, the lyrics continue with the dad singing:

"My children, I'm worried about you.

"This toy might harm your eyes.

"My children, I'm worried about you.

"This toy might harm your eyes.

"Think about another toy.

"You are the apple of my eye, may Allah protect you."
And the children return:

"Dad, we are a steadfast people.

"These guns need hands to carry them.

"Dad, we are a steadfast people.

"These guns need hands to carry them.

"Today we play, tomorrow we will wage Jihad.

"How joyous my heart will be on the Day of Return."

 Will Islam Conquer the Netherlands?
October 16, 2010 By Diana West

All eyes are on the war on free speech, the one that Dutch powers-that-be are waging inside an Amsterdam courtroom. That's where Geert Wilders is standing trial for his increasingly popular political platform, based on his analysis of the anti-Western laws and principles of Islam, that rejects the Islamization of the Netherlands.

But don't stop there. There's much more to see in the trial of Wilders, whose Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) is the silent partner in the Netherlands' brand new center-right coalition government. That camel in the courtroom is the tip off.

You haven't noticed it? I've been watching it since last year, when sometime after Dutch prosecutors announced in January 2009 that Wilders would go to trial for "insulting" Muslims and "inciting" hatred against them, Stephen Coughlin, famous in national security circles in Washington for his airtight and exhaustive briefs on jihad, clued me in to his analysis of the Wilders trial to date.

What we know now we knew then: that this trial presented a watershed moment. Wilders, leader of a growing democratic movement to save his Western nation from Islamization, risks one year in prison for speaking out about the facts and consequences of Islamization. Such speech is prohibited not by the Western tradition of free speech Wilders upholds, but rather by the Islamic laws against free speech that he rejects. Wilders' plight demonstrates the extent to which the West has already been Islamized.

"It is irrelevant whether Wilder's witnesses might prove Wilders' observations to be correct," the public prosecutor stated back at the beginning. "What's relevant is that his observations are illegal." Since when are observations "illegal"? Under communist dictatorships is one answer. Under Sharia is another.

Writing in Wilders' defense in the Wall Street Journal, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a former Dutch parliamentarian, reported that Dutch multiculturalist parliamentarians, "spooked" by Wilders rising political star, modified the Dutch penal code in the fall of 2009 to fit Wilders' alleged crimes. They crafted what Hirsi Ali went on to call "the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and E.U." when trying to criminalize defamation (criticism) of religion (Islam).

This is a crucial point to understand, and one that takes me back to what Stephen Coughlin posited last year. Everywhere the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) goes, it peddles Islamic law. In effect, then, to build on Hirsi Ali's point, the Dutch modified their laws to conform with Islam's. This gibes precisely with how Coughlin saw the trial from the start: as an attempt to apply Islamic law, as advanced by the OIC, in the Netherlands.

The OIC is an international body guided by policy set by the kings and heads of state of 57 Islamic countries in accordance with Islamic law. Such law permeates OIC activities, which are shaped by the Sharia-based Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The OIC relies on the Cairo Declaration as its "frame of reference and the basis ... regarding issues related to human rights." (These include free speech rights as restricted by Sharia.) The organization's 57 foreign ministers meet annually, as the OIC's website explains, to "consider the means for the implementation" of OIC policy. As Coughlin puts it, these are "real state actors using real state power to further real state objectives." Sharia objectives.

Topping the OIC wish list is its effort to criminalize criticism of Islam in the non-Muslim world. And this is what makes the Wilders case is so significant. It's one thing if Islamic street thugs mount assassination attempts in Western nations against violators of Islamic law (i.e., elderly Danish cartoonists), or Muslim ambassadors to Western nations lobby them to punish such violations (the free press), or OIC representatives introduce similar Sharia resolutions at the United Nations. It would be something else again if a Western government were itself to convict a democratically elected leader for violating the Sharia ban on criticizing Islam. That's not war anymore; that's conquest.

In this context, Wilders' trial was never a straight judicial process; it was a political battle from the start, a proving ground for Sharia in the West, dovetailing with the OIC's "10 year Plan," which includes a global campaign against so-called Islamophobia. It remains a test of the tolerance of Dutch elites -- tolerance for the truth -- and their openness to the intolerance of Sharia.

Diana West
Diana West is a contributing columnist for and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Diana West's column. Sign up today and receive daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

 Canada’s Failure to Win A U.N. Security Council Seat Follows Years of Sparring With Islamic States
Thursday, October 14, 2010     By Patrick Goodenough

( – Canada’s unprecedented failure to win a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council triggered a wave of analysis and soul searching in the country, where many see it as payback by Islamic states and their allies for Ottawa’s strong pro-Israel stance in the world body.

Other reasons put forward by commentators for Canada’s defeat in a vote Tuesday include unhappiness in various parts of the world with the Conservative government’s foreign aid, human rights and climate change policies, while some blamed longstanding practices at the U.N. that that need reform.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being slammed on the left for not being sufficiently “progressive” in his foreign policy, and praised in some conservative quarters for refusing to let other countries, especially those falling short of democratic norms, dictate Canada’s policies.

“We don’t have a seat because we didn’t dance to the U.N.’s hypocritical tunes,” the Winnipeg Free Press said in an editorial Wednesday.

(Sixty percent of U.N. member states in 2010 are “electoral democracies,” according to Freedom House, but the Washington-based organization rates only 46 percent as “free.”)

Some in Canada say that Harper tried to have things both ways and had only himself to blame.

“[T]he lesson from this loss is that you can be ‘principled’ or you can be popular,” opined National Post political columnist John Ivison. “The Prime Minister should have figured out much earlier that you can’t be both.”

“Stephen Harper should have steered clear of the U.N. in the first place,” argued another National Post columnist, Kelly McParland. “With all its hypocrisy and negotiable principles, it’s a place more suited to Liberals.”

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon meet in Ottawa on May 12, 2010. (UN Photo by Mark Garten)

Canadian government sources meanwhile blamed the Liberal opposition for not throwing its weight behind the national bid, pointing to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s earlier remark that his party was “not convinced” the government had earned a place on the UNSC.

In his response to the outcome, Ignatieff commented that after four years of Conservative government “the sad reality is that too many countries have lost faith in the way Canada conducts its international relations.”

The left-wing New Democrats said “an overhaul of Conservative government’s foreign policy” was needed.

Whatever the reasons for Tuesday’s election defeat in New York, it was a first for Canada, which has stood successfully for a two-year stint on the Security Council once a decade ever since the U.N. was created in 1948.

Five of the UNSC’s 10 non-permanent seats were filled in a vote by the 192 members of the General Assembly. Three went to South Africa, India and Colombia after their respective regional groups put up only a single candidate each.

The other two were earmarked for the Western Europe and Others group (known as WEOG, with the “others” including Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and were contested by three countries – Canada, Portugal and Germany.

Germany went through in a first round of voting, and run-off handed victory to Portugal, with Canada withdrawing after scoring just 78 votes to its rival’s 113.

Canadian-born conservative commentator David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, blamed E.U. bloc voting practices for Canada’s failure. Two of the UNSC’s 10 rotating seats are reserved for WEOG members, and the E.U. also effectively controls two of the five permanent seats – those held since the U.N.’s founding by Britain and France.

The “elegant solution” to the problem, Frum suggested, would be for the permanent seat now held by France to become a permanent E.U. seat. Then WEOG could agree that one of its two rotating seats should be reserved for non-European members of WEOG.

Human Rights Council battlefield

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) wields 56 votes in the General Assembly, and often votes as a bloc – especially on issues of particular importance to many Islamic governments, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict and “religious defamation.”

Its growing influence has been especially evident at the U.N.’s Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva, where the OIC has never held fewer than 14 of its 47 seats, and this year holds a record 18.

With backing from non-Islamic allies including China, Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua and South Africa, the OIC has often used its weight to drive the four year-old HRC’s agenda, outvoting the group of mostly Western democracies.

From 2006-2009 Canada held a seat on the HRC and during that period it clashed repeatedly with Islamic and other non-democratic members.

One year after the HRC began to operate, an evaluation by the Geneva-based non-governmental organization U.N. Watch assessed 20 key actions. It handed Canada the highest score, while all 16 OIC members received negative scores, with 12 of them placed at the bottom of the list.

Canada led a small group of mostly European democracies in the council (sometimes joined by others like Japan and Chile) seeking to counter the influence of Islamic states and their allies – usually without success.

On several occasions it voted alone against a resolution. A January 2009 measure condemning Israel for “grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” passed with a 33-1 vote, for instance, with 13 European and other democracies choosing to abstain rather than join Canada in voting no.

Canada also took an early stand on not attending last year’s controversial “Durban II” conference – an event of particular importance to the OIC, which used the preparatory process to focus on Israel and the campaign against “defamation of religion.”

More than a year ahead of conference, Canada announced it would not take part. It was later joined in that stance by Israel, Australia and several other democracies, including – at the eleventh hour – the United States.

Early this year, Canada announced it would no longer fund the U.N.’s sometimes controversial agency [3] for Palestinian refugees, UNWRA, saying it would instead direct the money directly to projects such as food aid, in line with “Canadian values.”

Last month the Canadian Arab Federation in a statement [4] urged all Arab and Islamic states at the U.N. to vote against Canada’s UNSC bid, citing a range of reasons mostly relating to the government’s Middle East policy, but also the decision to boycott “Durban II” and its refusal to deal with the CAF and another Canadian Islamic group. McParland of the National Post said that, if anything, Canada’s rejection by OIC states was something of which to be proud.

“Given the anti-Israel bias that pervades the U.N., campaigning for a seat on the Security Council – if it requires the OIC’s approval – is the international equivalent of applying for membership at a club that bans Jews,” he wrote.


Source URL:

 Dozens of NATO Oil Tankers Torched in Pakistan
Around 80 percent of the fuel, spare parts, and other non-lethal supplies for foreign forces in landlocked Afghanistan travels through Pakistan.
Friday, October 01, 2010
By Aaron Favila, Associated Press

Suspected militants in Shikarpur, southern Pakistan, set fire to at least 27 tankers carrying fuel for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan on Friday Oct. 1, 2010. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila)

Shikarpur, Pakistan (AP) - Suspected militants in southern Pakistan set ablaze more than two dozen tankers carrying fuel for foreign troops in Afghanistan on Friday, highlighting the vulnerability of the U.S.-led mission a day after Pakistan closed a major border crossing.

The Pakistani government shut the Torkham border in the northwest in apparent protest at a NATO helicopter incursion that killed three of its soldiers on the border. The events raised tensions between Pakistan and the United States, which have a close but often troubled alliance in the fight against militants.

The convoy of tankers attacked Friday was likely headed to a second crossing in southwest Pakistan that was not closed. It was not clear if the vehicles had been rerouted because of the closure at Torkham.

Around 80 percent of the fuel, spare parts, clothing and other non-lethal supplies for foreign forces in landlocked Afghanistan travels through Pakistan after arriving in the southern Arabian sea port of Karachi. The alliance has other supply routes to Afghanistan, but the Pakistani ones are the cheapest and most convenient.

Islamist militants occasionally attack NATO supply tankers in Pakistan, mostly in the northwest where their influence is stronger. Thursday's strike was in Sindh province, far from the border, and might be taken as a sign that the insurgents are expanding their reach.

A Pakistani police officer stands guard near smoldering oil trucks in Shikarpur, southern Pakistan, on Friday Oct. 1, 2010. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila)

Around 10 gunmen attacked the vehicles when they were parked at an ordinary truck stop on the edge of Shikarpur town shortly after midnight. They forced the drivers and other people there to flee before setting the fires, said police officer Abdul Hamid Khoso. No one was wounded or killed.

The trucks were alight several hours after the attack, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene.

Another officer, Nisar Ahmed, said the tankers had arrived in Shikarpur from the southern port city of Karachi and were heading to Quetta, a major city in the southwest. From there, the road leads to the Chaman border crossing.

Attacks on NATO and U.S. supply convoys in Pakistan give militants a propaganda victory, but coalition officials say they do not affect operations in Afghanistan. The vast majority travel through the country unharmed and the frequency of attacks reported in the media does not appear to have risen much, if at all, over the last two years.

In recent years, the alliance has sought to shift more of the supplies through Central Asian countries north of Afghanistan and Russia, aware of the problems of relying too much on Pakistan, which some argue does not share America's strategic goals in the region.

There is a risk, albeit small, that militant attacks could one day seriously squeeze supplies. But the overriding concern is that hosting the supply routes gives Islamabad immense leverage in its relationship with Washington. The United States cannot force Pakistan to, say, crack down on militants in the northwest behind attacks in Afghanistan because Islamabad holds a trump card: it can cut off most of the supplies to the war whenever it wants.

Pakistani firemen stand beside still-smoldering NATO oil trucks in Shikarpur, southern Pakistan on Friday Oct. 1, 2010. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila)

Some of the attacks are believed to be the work of criminals. Media reports have alleged that truck owners may be behind some of them, perhaps to fraudulently claim insurance.

Pakistani security forces provide guards for the trucks and tankers in the northwest, but generally do not do so in south and central Pakistan, where attacks are rare. Pakistani security officials had warned after two alleged NATO helicopter incursions last weekend that they would stop providing protection to NATO convoys if it happened again.

Opinion polls show many Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy, and conspiracy theories abound of U.S. troops wanting to attack Pakistan and take over its nuclear weapons. The Pakistani government has to balance its support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan -- and its need for billions of dollars in American aid -- with maintaining support from its own population.

Friday's attack and the decision to close to the border have underscored the uneasy relations.

Pakistan said two NATO choppers fired on one of its border posts in the northwest's Kurram tribal region, killing three Pakistani soldiers Thursday. NATO said its helicopters entered Pakistani airspace and hit a target only after receiving ground fire. The alliance expressed condolences to the families of the soldiers and said both nations would investigate the incident.

It was the third alleged incursion by NATO helicopters into the northwest in the last week.

A lengthy closure of Torkham would place intense strain on the U.S.-Pakistani relationship and hurt the Afghan war effort. But that is seen as unlikely, as neither Islamabad nor Washington can afford a meltdown in ties at a crucial time in the 9-year-old war.

At Torkham, some 150 containers were waiting Friday for the border to reopen. The truck drivers were getting impatient and worried about the prospect of militant attacks.

"I might have not come here with NATO material if I knew that I will have to face this problem," said Shalif Khan. "We are forced to spend the day and the night in the open. We do not have any security here."


Associated Press writer Riaz Khan in Torkham, Pakistan, contributed to this report.

(Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

 'Son of Hamas' warns U.S. fatally falling for lies
'Peaceful' Muslims following Quran's dictate to establish 'global Islamic state'

Posted: August 25, 2010
9:58 pm Eastern

By Art Moore


As the son of a Hamas co-founder who became a Christian, a spy for Israel and a consultant to the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance trial, Mosab Hassan Yousef offers a rare perspective on the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood – at once the spawn of nearly every major Islamic terrorist group and of "mainstream" operatives in the U.S. such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Yousef, who recently was granted asylum in the U.S. after the Department of Homeland Security tried to deport him, told WND in a telephone interview Americans must understand that the ultimate goal of the highly influential Brotherhood is not terrorism but to establish a global Islamic state over the entire world.

"If they can establish this in a peaceful manner, that's fine," he said. "But they are required by the Quran to establish this global Islamic state on the rubble of every civilization, every constitution, every government."

Order your copy of "Son of Hamas" from the WND Superstore now!

The Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2008 – the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history – presented evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood's "100-year plan" to gradually destroy the U.S. and Western civilization from within "so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

"This is not a doctrine of some freak Muslim," Yousef observed. "It's the doctrine, the requirement, of the god of Islam himself and his prophet, whom they praise every day."

One of the Brotherhood's prime strategies to help achieve its ultimate aim is to spin off groups such as the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, that attempt to give Islam a positive face, he pointed out.

CAIR, casting itself as a human rights organization, has often been called on by government and media to represent Muslims in the U.S. But it's origin as a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is now widely documented, including in the WND Books best-selling expose "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America"

CAIR and some of its leaders were confirmed by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted of helping fund Hamas. An FBI letter to lawmakers in April 2009 explained the bureau suspended all formal contacts with CAIR because of evidence the group was founded as a front in the U.S. for Hamas. Among numerous government relationships, CAIR leaders had regular meetings with top FBI brass on security issues and helped lead FBI Muslim "sensitivity training" sessions.

At the Holy Land Foundation trial, the FBI presented a transcript from a wiretap of a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia in which Hamas supporters sought to establish Muslim organizations in the U.S. "whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous." CAIR was soon founded by two Palestinian participants in the Philadelphia meeting, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad.

The Fox News Channel's Martha MacCallum with CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad

Wiretaps revealed Ahmad argued for using Muslims as an "entry point" to "pressure Congress and the decision makers in America" to change U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. One FBI official quoted in "Muslim Mafia" says CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups differ from al-Qaida only in their methods.

"The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics," the official explained.

CAIR, meanwhile – which has more than a dozen former and current leaders with known associations with violent jihad – is trying to keep alive a lawsuit against WND and two investigators behind "Muslim Mafia."

While CAIR repeatedly has denied it receives foreign support, the covert operation that produced "Muslim Mafia" obtained video footage that captured CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper boasting of his ability to bring in a half million dollars of "overseas money," including from Saudi Arabia.

Money continues to flow in the other direction, as well, Yousef said.

He noted the FBI documented that the Holy Land Foundation sent $12.4 million from the U.S. to Hamas committees. But based on his 10 years of experience as a spy for the Israeli internal security service Shin Bet, he believes many times that amount has been smuggled to Hamas in cash.

As an example, Yousef cited the case of a Palestinian terror operative he met in prison who was arrested transporting $100,000 after Shin Bet provided information to law enforcement authorities.

"I guarantee you that there still people who collect money in mosques that go directly to Hamas in cash," Yousef said. "And this is a problem that the government doesn't have control over. Obama doesn't have control over this money."

'Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood'

Hamas itself was formed in 1987 as part of the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy to advance the movement by spinning off new organizations, Yousef said.

"If they have a confrontation with Israel as the Muslim Brotherhood, they are going to pay a very high price," he explained. "So they choose people like my father, from the Muslim Brotherhood originally, and they ask them to establish an independent movement that shares the same exact doctrine."

As WND reported, Yousef worked alongside his father, Sheik Hassan Yousef, in the West Bank city of al-Ghaniya near Ramallah while secretly embracing Christian faith and serving as a Shin Bet spy. Since publicly declaring his faith in August 2008, he has been condemned by an al-Qaida-affiliated group and disowned by his family.

"Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood," Yousef said. "It's the same organization."

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in the 1920s in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Turkish empire, considers itself an instrument of the charge Muslims have been given since Islam's founding 1,400 years ago – to make the Quran and Allah's authority supreme over the entire world.

Along with CAIR, prominent U.S. organizations launched by Muslim Brotherhood leaders include the Muslim Students Association, North American Islamic Trust, the Islamic Society of North America, the American Muslim Council, the Muslim American Society and the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

"Before we start to listen to their lies," Yousef said, "we have to ask ourselves all the time, what is the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood? Ask them, 'What do you want?'"

He said the Muslim Brotherhood "will keep the hope and the ultimate goal very clear in the eyes of every Muslim who belongs to the organization that one day [we will] establish an Islamic state and establish Shariah law."

In unusually candid moments, CAIR leaders have expressed that aim.

CAIR founder Ahmad was reported telling a Muslim group in the San Francisco Bay area that Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant and that the Quran should become the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth. CAIR spokesman Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune he wants to see the U.S. become a Muslim country "through education."

The West, Yousef said, has fallen for the "lie" that there are two types of Islam, radical and moderate. While there may be individual Muslims who are radical or moderate, Islam itself is not moderate, he contends.

"Let's learn what Islam says about itself," Yousef said. "Forget about what the Muslim Brotherhood, what al-Qaida, what Hezbollah – what even Americans or Westerners say about Islam. Let's study and see what Islam says about itself, then we will understand why we have this problem."

'Buying the lie'

American foreign policy, especially under President Obama, he said, has "bought the lie of Muslim groups who are trying to make Islam look good in the eyes of Westerners."

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Because of that approach, he said, Muslim leaders such as Feisal Abdul Rauf have developed "the courage to come forward with a very aggressive symbol" of Islamic authority, the proposed Islamic center and mosque near the site of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

"If it was any other American president, we wouldn't have this aggressive step," Yousef contended.

He noted the State Department has designated Rauf an ambassador to the Muslim world despite the imam's unwillingness to condemn Hamas as a terrorist group.

"Of course, he cannot condemn Hamas, because he knows that Hamas is an organization that is doing the will of Allah," Yousef said. "How can he condemn an organization that serves the same god that he worships every day five times?"

Yousef pointed out Rauf has claimed Obama based his highly publicized Cairo speech to the Muslim world last year on a chapter from the Arabic version of Rauf's book, "A Call to Prayer From the World Trade Center: Islamic Dawah in the Heart of America Post-9/11."

Obama asserted in the speech that violent extremists have exploited tensions between Muslims and the West, insisting Islam was not part of the problem but part of promoting peace.

'This is the red line'

Mosab Hassan Yousef

Defenders of the proposed Ground Zero mosque cite American Muslims' First Amendment freedoms to practice their religion.

But Yousef makes a distinction between Islam and other religions, arguing Islam is a subversive system that threatens America's very existence.

"Even if it's a religion, and 1.5 billion people around the world believe in it, this doesn't mean that they are right; and this doesn't mean that we compromise with them," he said. "We tell them, 'You're accepted, but guess what? This is the red line: We don't compromise with your god. We don't compromise with your belief system.'"

Yousef reasoned that he certainly would not be allowed to create a religion in which he demanded that his followers kill everyone who doesn't embrace his beliefs.

"Will I be able to register this religion here and build my symbols for this religion in this country?" he asked. "I will go to jail for that – and all my followers as well."

'A matter of life and death'

No one in the Middle East has the courage or the power to confront Islam, he said, but transformation can start in the most powerful country in the world.

"Instead of giving Islam credit, this is the country where we can start to fight – not against Muslims, against the bad teachings of Islam."

Americans can begin, he said, by "understanding the real nature of Islam."

"I am telling you, this is not a matter of politics," he said. "It's a matter of life and death. It's a matter of hundreds of millions who have been killed because of this deadly ideology of Islam that has been here 1,400 years."

Mosab Hassan Yousef in 2008 interview with Al-Hayat TV (Middle East Media Research Institute)

"This is the time" to speak out, he said, "especially here in America. This is the time to stand firm and strong against this crazy, big system."

Yousef said that while some may want to "scare people about Islam" for some kind of financial or personal profit, he is speaking out because of his concern for America and as "a person who loves my people."

"I cannot wait for them to be liberated," he said of his fellow Palestinians and Muslims worldwide. "And when I see the example of liberty and freedom in this country, I want this to go to my people."

If America leads the way in confronting Islam, change can come, he said.

"But if the country of liberty and freedom welcomes a radical and violent belief that wants to destroy everything, we won't be able to defeat them," he said.

"This is why we need to work all together. This is not for America only. This is for the world. This is for the future of humanity."