Islam  --  Facts and Fiction

--
-- Dubai ruler pardons Norwegian woman convicted after she reported rape - 7/22/13
-- Supreme Court Rules for Muslim Woman Denied Job at Clothing Store - 1/01/15
-- Obama taken for fool by classic Muslim ploy - 4/09/15
--
Home    Back

 Dubai ruler pardons Norwegian woman convicted after she reported rape

July 22, 2013 CNN

By Nicola Goulding. Jennifer Z. Deaton and Laura Smith-Spark

Norwegian woman pardoned, released

Marte Dalelv says it is a "fantastic feeling" to have her freedom back Dalelv says she has her passport now and wants to go home as soon as possible

Norway: Dialogue, along with international pressure and interest, led to Dalelv's release

Lawyer: A royal pardon wipes the slate clean; Dalelv's alleged attacker also is free

Dubai (CNN) -- A Norwegian woman who was sentenced to prison in Dubai after reporting that she was raped has been given a pardon and will be heading home soon, she said Monday.

Speaking to reporters in Dubai, Marte Deborah Dalelv seemed relieved and happy as she confirmed the news -- if still slightly bewildered by the swift turn of events.

"They told me that I would be pardoned and that they were going to give me my passport back, so I got it immediately," she said.

Asked what happens next, Dalelv paused a moment before replying: "I get to go home."

Dalelv: Pardon is 'fantastic'

Woman reports Dubai rape, faces prison She added, "We want to make it as soon as possible."

Dalelv has her passport in her possession and filed the paperwork for an exit visa Monday afternoon. She hopes to find out Tuesday when she can leave the country.

A spokeswoman for Norway's Foreign Ministry, Ragnhild Imerslund, said Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum had said Dalelv was free to travel where she wants and can remain in Dubai if she chooses.

The sheikh, who is vice president of the United Arab Emirates, also said the 24-year-old had not been and would not be deported, Imerslund said. She is expected to travel in a day or two, the spokeswoman said.

Dalelv, a Qatar-based interior designer, was on a work trip to Dubai when she reported to police that she had been raped by a colleague at the hotel where she was staying.

She was herself then detained and charged with having unlawful sex, making a false statement and illegal consumption of alcohol. A court last week sentenced her to 16 months in prison, prompting outrage in Norway.

Dalelv's lawyer, Mahmoud Azab Abu Gareda, said the sheikh's pardon is "effectively a royal decree," which wipes the slate clean, leaving no record of her conviction.

This means the alleged perpetrator, who was charged with public intoxication and having sex outside of marriage, also walks free, he said.

Dalelv has dropped her case against him, so it will not be pursued further, he said.

Men convicted of raping Swiss tourist in India

'Fantastic feeling'

Dalelv said she had not known what to expect when she went into a meeting Monday with the Dubai attorney general, her lawyers and Norway's ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Ase Elin Bjerke.

"I just went in with an open mind, and they said, 'Well, we are pardoning you.' This is such a good day," Dalelv said.

"Now I get my exit visa, and then I am going home to see my mum!"

Dalelv gave insight into the pressure she has been under, saying that she knew what had happened to her but that she had started to believe she was "guilty emotionally."

She said it was a "fantastic feeling" to have her freedom back and be able to leave Dubai, but at the same time she would miss the friends she has made.

Bjerke, Norway's envoy, said that her country had been working on Dalelv's behalf for several months and that she was very grateful for the decision to issue a pardon.

Bjerke said the case had resonated on social media in Norway and elsewhere.

"I think people can see themselves in Marte," she said. "She has done what a lot of people would do when they come and visit Dubai. You are out with your friends ,and things roll on that you are not in control of. She is happy now, and we are happy with her, and she can return free to Norway."

Norway has a "very good" relationship with the United Arab Emirates, Bjerke said, adding that she credited the openness between the two nations for the outcome of this case.

Islamic laws, traditions

Norwegian Foreign Affairs Minister Espen Barth Eide also welcomed news of Dalelv's pardon.

"Marte is released! Thanks to everyone who signed up to help #ReleaseMarte," his Twitter feed said.

Imerslund said "very constructive" dialogue between the foreign ministers of Norway and the UAE, along with international pressure and interest, led to this outcome in Dalelv's case.

On Friday, Eide had called his UAE counterpart, Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, to protest Dalelv's conviction as "contrary to fundamental human rights," a weekend statement from the Norwegian ministry said.

While Dubai has a reputation as a cosmopolitan city that boasts Western influences, where visitors can drink at bars and restaurants and unmarried couples can share hotel rooms, the country adheres to Islamic laws and traditions.

Having sex outside of marriage and public consumption of alcohol are both violations of the law in the United Arab Emirates.

Women's rights violations not just a developing nation issue

Fired from her job

Dalelv no longer has a job with the company that sent her on the work assignment to Dubai.

She said that a month after the rape, while forced to stay in Dubai as the case wound through the legal system, she was fired by her employer, Al Mana Interiors.

A representative of Al Mana Interiors, who declined to be publicly identified, said Saturday that Dalelv and the Sudanese man she accused -- who is married with three children -- were both terminated by Al Mana Interiors for "drinking alcohol at a staff conference that resulted in trouble with the police."

A statement released later the same day by Al Mana Interiors spokesman Hani El Korek said that the company was sympathetic toward Dalelv "during this very difficult situation" and that her dismissal was not because of the rape claim.

The statement said that company representatives were by her side through the initial investigation, spending "days at both the police station and the prosecutor's office to help win her release."

"Only when Ms. Dalelv declined to have positive and constructive discussions about her employment status, and ceased communication with her employer, was the company forced to end our relationship with her," the statement said.

"The decision had nothing to do with the rape allegation, and unfortunately neither Ms. Dalelv nor her attorneys have chosen to contact the company to discuss her employment status."

The company is owned by Qatari billionaire Wissam Al Mana, who made headlines this year after it was revealed that he secretly married singer Janet Jackson in 2012.

Raped on the job in America's fields

Rights record criticized

The United Arab Emirates has been heavily criticized by rights groups that say it condones sexual violence against women. Human Rights Watch has called its record "shameful," saying it must change the way it handles such cases.

In December 2012, a British woman reported being raped by three men in Dubai. She was found guilty of drinking alcohol without a license and fined.

In January 2010, a British woman told authorities she was raped by an employee at a Dubai hotel. She was charged with public intoxication and having sex outside of marriage.

An Australian woman reported in 2008 that she was drugged and gang-raped. She was convicted of having sex outside marriage and drinking alcohol, and she was sentenced to 11 months in prison.

Amanpour: What's next for women's rights in the Middle East?
 

 Supreme Court Rules for Muslim Woman Denied Job at Clothing Store

Monday, 01 Jun 2015 11:38 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

On a 8-1 vote, the court handed a victory to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that sued the company on behalf of Samantha Elauf. She was denied a sales job in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa when she was 17.

The legal question before the court was whether Elauf was required to ask for a religious accommodation in order for the company to be sued under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, bans employment discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices.

The court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that Elauf needed only to show that her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision.

"A request for accommodation ... may make it easier to infer motive, but it is not a necessary condition of liability," Scalia wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter. He said that "mere application of a neutral policy" should not be viewed as discrimination.

Elauf was wearing a head scarf, or hijab, at the job interview but did not specifically say that, as a Muslim, she wanted the company to give her a religious accommodation.

The company denied Elauf the job on the grounds that wearing the scarf violated its "look policy" for members of the sales staff, a policy intended to promote the brand's East Coast collegiate image.

Muslim groups said in a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Elauf that employment discrimination against Muslims is widespread in the United States. Often, the act of a woman wearing a head scarf is what triggers the discrimination, according to the brief. The EEOC has reported that Muslims file more employment claims about discrimination and the failure to provide religious accommodations than any other religious group.

Groups representing Christians, Jews and Sikhs also filed court papers backing Elauf.

The case involving a young Muslim woman alleging workplace discrimination in the American heartland was decided by the top U.S. court at a time when some Western nations are struggling with culture clashes relating to accommodating local Islamic populations. The United States has not, however, faced the same tensions as some European countries including France.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Muslim-Woman-Abercrombie-Fitch/2015/06/01/id/647930/#ixzz3btoddfny
 

 Obama taken for fool by classic Muslim ploy

Posted By Leo Hohmann On 04/09/2015 @ 9:34 pm In Faith,Front Page,U.S. | No Comments

Secretary of State John Kerry talks with President Barack Obama. The two have led the way in getting Iran to sign a treaty on nuclear weapons in return for elimination of sactions.

Did President Obama get hoodwinked by the Iranians because of his ignorance of an ancient, time-tested negotiating tactic ingrained in Islamic law?

The president’s secular Marxist mindset, which tends to downplay the importance of religion in all aspects of politics, may have left him easy pickings for an Iranian team skilled in the art of Islamic deception, says the author of two best-selling books and a documentary about Islam’s apocalyptic ambitions.

Joel Richardson, author of the New York Times-best seller “The Islamic Antichrist” followed by “Mideast Beast,” looks at the preliminary nuclear deal between Iran and the U.S. with five other world powers and sees the markings of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.

“If one wishes to have even a basic understanding of the underlying principles involved in Middle East politics, then one must first understand the history and implications of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah,” Richardson told WND.

He believes Obama committed a “brazenly amateur” gaffe by failing to understand who he was dealing with – an Iranian regime steeped in Islamic law.

The rules the mullahs follow trace back to the life and example of Muhammad, he said. “And one of the most important tactical victories in Muhammad’s career is what is known as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.”

Muhammad made this treaty with the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, which was the most powerful tribe in the region at the time.

The Qurayshis entered into a 10-year peace pact with Muhammad and lived to regret it.

It appeared to be a lopsided treaty in favor of the Qurayshis. For instance, if one of Muhammad’s followers wanted to leave and join the Qurayshis, they were free to do so. But if one of the Qurayshis wished to become a Muslim, they were to be rejected and returned to the Quraysh.

But Muhammad saw an opportunity.

Freed from any military threat from the most powerful tribe in the region, he suddenly “received a revelation” from Allah, Richardson said.

This revelation can be found in Surah 48 of the Quran. It begins with “Surely We (Allah) have given to you a clear victory.”

With the Quravshis sidelined, Muhammad began attacking several large Jewish tribes in Arabia.

Any men who joined the Muslims in war would receive a significant share of the plunder, booty, slaves and female prisoners.

The Jewish villages fell like Dominos, and the wealth of the Jews became that of the Muslims.

Within two years, the Muslims went from about 1,200 men to more than 10,000.

Muhammad then launched a surprise attack on the Qurayshis and defeated them. The Muslims stood alone as the most powerful group in the Arabian Peninsula.

“The takeaway is that Muslims today look to the example of Muhammad and the Treaty of Hudaibiyah as one of the primary go-to strategies to defeat their enemies,” Richardson said. “Enter into a treaty, a covenant, a ceasefire. But it is only for the purpose of gaining strength to eventually defeat your enemy.

“Muslims today clearly understand ‘Hudaibiya’ to be a code-word which, in brief, means ‘kiss the hand of your enemy until you have the opportunity to cut it off.’”

Ingrained in Islamic legal teaching

Dr. Andrew Bostom has studied Islamic jurisprudence for years and written five books about the history of jihad and Shariah, including “Legacy of Jihad” and “Sharia Versus Freedom.”

Bostom addresses the principle of Hudaibiya as it relates to the current nuclear deal in his new book, “Iran’s Final Solution for Israel.”

“It is a principle of Islamic law, that as a Muslim leader, as a Muslim society, you’re not supposed to sign a treaty for longer than 10 years. It is based on Muhammad,” Bostom told WND. “It’s a well-enshrined doctrine, and you are to enter into a deal like this only when you’re in a position of weakness.”

The deal the Obama administration negotiated with Iran expires after 10 years. Iran has been under harsh economic sanctions for decades, and oil prices have fallen to the lowest level in a decade.

Bostom says all the classical Islamic jurists have accepted Hudaibiya as a binding principle.

In fact, in December 2013, Iranian leaders talking about the negotiations with the six world powers were openly referring to Hudaibiyah.

“In my book is a very pertinent example: Within three weeks of when the initial announcement was made in December 2013 about the plan to reach an agreement an adviser to former Iranian President Khatami actually invoked the treaty of Hudaibiyah,” he said. “So you can see how it’s used to illustrate exactly this deal.”

Bostom also documents in his book that the U.S. State Department has been aware of the Islamic view of treaties with non-Muslim countries since 1880:

“Edward A. Van Dyck, then U.S. Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt, prepared a detailed report in August, 1880 on the history of the treaty arrangements (so-called ‘capitulations’) between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, European nations, and the much briefer U.S.-Ottoman experience. Van Dyck’s report – written specifically as a tool for State Department diplomats – opens with an informed, clear, and remarkably concise explanation of jihad and Islamic law.” (“Iran’s Final Solution for Israel, Page 74)

“The Muslim jurists teach that Muslim rulers are never to make a lasting peace with unbelievers but can only make temporary truces, ‘to be broken at the pleasure by the prince and in the interest of the believers,’” Van Dyck wrote in 1880, quoting from the works of Abu al-Hussein el-Quduri of the Hanafite School of doctors, who died in 1037 A.D.

“This is a cardinal principle of Islamic law, not just something from Muhammad’s lore or Muhammad’s past,” Bostom told WND. “This is Islamic law. Muhammad is just cited as the precedent for it, but it’s embedded in their law that you don’t engage in any sort of negotiation or treaty unless you’re in some position of weakness; otherwise, you just keep waging jihad.”

The 1880 State Department document “lays it all out there, all the facts,” Bostom said. “But that was back when we still had knowledgeable people, actually educated people, handling things in our government.”

Peace with one’s enemies is never the end-game for those who follow Islamic law, Richardson said, but the Obama administration is either ignorant of this principle or willfully cooperating with it.

Yasser Arafat caught red-handed employing Hudaibiya

He points to another case in modern history where the Hudaibiya card was played against the Israelis.

In May 1994, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat addressed a group of Muslims in Johannesburg, South Africa. Arafat didn’t know he was being secretly recorded. At this time, things were looking good for the Middle East peace process. During this speech, Arafat spoke of the ongoing “jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

Those Israelis who had trusted Arafat’s previous promises of peace and goodwill were stunned.

But even more damaging to the peace process were Arafat’s comments about the treaty of Hudaibyah, Richardson said.

Referring to the peace pact he’d only recently made with Israel, Arafat was recorded as saying:

“I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca. … The prophet had been right to insist on the agreement, for it helped him defeat the Quraysh and take over their city of Mecca. In a similar spirit, we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem.”

‘They danced circles around our president’

The Iranian regime, perhaps better than any in the Middle East, knows how to play the long game, Richardson said.

“They are brilliant strategists. Today, they are celebrating the gullibility of the Obama administration in making such significant concessions, and agreeing (purportedly) to lift sanctions. They danced circles around our president.”

It is no coincidence that Obama’s deal with Iran last 10 years, precisely like Muhammad’s so-called treaty with the Qurayshis.

After the 10 years, the Iranians would then be free to continue work on their nuclear weapons, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

“The problem is, they will never actually stop,” Richardson said, citing a Times of Israel report. “They will continue work on day one.”

“Our president has been taken, the American people have been made fools, and the security of Israel has been sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s legacy. That legacy however is already dissipating in thin air even before the ink is dry.”

Persia comes back to bite

Carl Gallups, author of “Final Warning,” sees prophetic significance in Obama’s preliminary deal with Iran.

“The Iran/Obama ‘deal’ that has been drafted thus far appears absolutely ludicrous to many,” he told WND. “It seems as though it is an agreement only attained when the crafty ones with whom you are ‘negotiating’ get a whiff of your fear, your trepidation, your weakness.”

The comparison to the treaty of Hudaibiyah is especially profound when considering the fact that Iran is the modern name for the heartland of the ancient Persian Empire.

It is from the modern region of today’s Iran that Persian emperor Cyrus the Great united the Medes and other Iranian empires, and then further expanded Persian influence by swallowing up the decaying Babylonian empire.

“Of course, it was also from the ancient Persian Empire where the decree to ‘kill all the Jews in the land’ was signed into effect by King Artaxerxes through the plot of his viceroy, Haman,” Gallups said. “It seems to many prophecy watchers of today that those attitudes of ancient Persia might have come full circle.”

The majority of Israelis certainly fear so, re-electing Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu as their prime minister last month. A week before that election, he made the landmark speech to the U.S. Congress on March 3, which is the Fast of Esther on the Hebrew calendar.

“Who can forget Netanyahu’s biblical overtones when he addressed the U.S. Congress? In that speech, he made the direct parallel between ancient Persia, modern Iran, and Iran’s current and expressed desire to destroy Israel,” Gallups noted.

Netanyahu said:

“We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago.”

Netanyahu was already aware that back in 2014 the commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Reza Naqdi, announced that Iran was escalating its efforts to arm West Bank Palestinians for war against Israel, according to the Times of Israel. He went on to declare this action would ultimately lead to Israel’s “annihilation.”

Parallels to Esther, Haman

Then there’s the fact that the six world powers and Iran announced they had reached a framework for a deal on April 2, which was Nisan 13 on the Hebrew calendar.

Esther 3:12, 13, says that on Nisan 13 the Persian king Ahasuerus was tricked by a viceroy, Haman, into signing an agreement to destroy all the Jews in the land at a future date. This was also the day before the third of three blood moons, or lunar eclipses. Blood moons often mean war is coming to Israel, according to Jewish sages.

It was not long after Netanyahu’s speech to Congress that Naqdi then proclaimed “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable.”

“It is not a new revelation to Netanyahu, or much of the rest of the world for that matter, that the ultimate destruction of Israel is Iran’s passionate and apocalyptically driven end game,” Gallups said. “Apparently, Obama missed the memo somewhere along the way. Some speculate that Obama is actually, knowingly or unknowingly, fueling the fires of that ominous and highly potential scenario.”

The opening words of the treaty of Hudaibiyah are:

“In your name, O God!
This is the treaty of peace between Muhammad Ibn Abdullah and Suhayl ibn Amr. They have agreed to allow their arms to rest for ten years. During this time each party shall be secure, and neither shall injure the other; no secret damage shall be inflicted, but honesty and honour shall prevail between them.” (Learning Islam 8. Islamic Services Foundation. 2009. P. D14.)

Those words could have easily been copied into the current Iranian “agreement,” Gallups believes.

“Now we learn, after the current Obama/Iran deal has been negotiated, that Iran will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect.”

Netanyahu denounced the deal as a “historic mistake.”

He warned the agreement bore the terrible chance of causing “a horrific war.” The fear is that the deal will leave much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact while not addressing Iran’s support for hostile militant groups in the region.

Netanyahu also insisted that any final agreement with Iran must contain “a clear and unambiguous recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” At this point, it does not appear this stipulation is anywhere in the agreement.

Iran’s President Hassan Rohani said in a national address last Friday that the Iranians will “remain loyal and stand by the promises” they made, and that they “do not seek to deceive” the international community.

Richardson, Bostom and Gallups will be watching.

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/obama-taken-for-fool-by-classic-muslim-ploy/

- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Presuming Israel has the Nukes everyone think they have, I would expect Israel has already pre-targeted every city in Iran.  and expecting a flank attack I would expect them to pre-target Arabia, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt and Libya - where ever their enemies are.   If correctly set up firing control would be by country giving the option of total annihilation of all counties in the Middle East.

It amazes me that Iran and others can't understand that they are facing mutual destruction if they attack Israel.  If the US has a real leader someday, they can expect the same response from the US.