Thursday March 6, 2008
Viktor Bout Arrested in Thailand in a Perfect Storm
Viktor Bout, the subject of my book with Steve Braun has been arrested in Thailand on charges of supplying weapons to the FARC in Colombia.
It is a stunning blow to the world's "Merchant of Death," who has been responsible for fanning wars across Africa, as well as aiding and abetting the Taliban, and thus, indirectly, al Qaeda.
Of course, this may finally stop the U.S. from carrying on dealing with him, despite his being the subject of an Interpol red notice, an Executive Order signed by President Bush, and numerous Treasury Department sanctions. Despite all that, Bout aircraft flew hundreds of flights, as a sub-contractor, for the U.S military and its principal contractors such as KBR, Fedex and others.
The arrest is the result of a DEA sting operation focused on targeting suppliers of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia),
ccording to ABC News.
The FARC is the hemisphere's oldest insurgency, and one that now sustains itself through drug trafficking activities and kidnappings. The FARC has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. and European Union.
Bout was arrested in a five-star hotel in Bangkok, according to Gen. Pongpat Chayapan, head of the nation's Crime Suppression Bureau. He had been under surveillance for several months.
Over the past 15 years, Bout worked with nearly every despot in Africa, and many further afield, as well as his Afghanistan ventures with the Taliban. Charles Taylor, Mobutu, Savimbi, Kabila, Bemba, Foday Sankoh-the list of serial human rights abusers who were his clients, is long and bloody.
This is not Bout's first contact with the FARC. As we document in our book (thanks to the work of Kathi Austin and others), Bout aircraft flew a series of flights in 1998-1999 that originated in Jordan. Most of the weapons were destined for the government of Peru, but about 10,000 AK-47s were parachuted from the aircraft to FARC troops near the Peruvian border.
So, the question now is, can the man who has survived by his wits and his high level protection from the Russian intelligence establishment, actually be held?
Russian officials are already making noises about request his extradition to Russia, which would be the end of any trial.
RSI Novosti is reporting:
Moscow may request the extradition of Russian businessman Viktor Bout, arrested in Thailand at the request of U.S. authorities on charges of illegal arms trading, a Russian law enforcement source said on Thursday.
"At this time, Russia is awaiting investigation materials from Thailand...After that, a decision to request extradition may be taken," the source said.
As I have written before, much of what Bout did, under the current international law, is not illegal, although it is morally repugnant. It is heartening that the new charges involve specific charges of efforts to help the FARC, which is likely to be something that is far less nebulous to prove than breaking U.N. arms embargoes.
Thai officials say he could be brought back to the United States to stand trial. That would be a sight indeed.
It is a stunning blow to the world's "Merchant of Death," who has been responsible for fanning wars across Africa, as well as aiding and abetting the Taliban, and thus, indirectly, al Qaeda.
Of course, this may finally stop the U.S. from carrying on dealing with him, despite his being the subject of an Interpol red notice, an Executive Order signed by President Bush, and numerous Treasury Department sanctions. Despite all that, Bout aircraft flew hundreds of flights, as a sub-contractor, for the U.S military and its principal contractors such as KBR, Fedex and others.
The arrest is the result of a DEA sting operation focused on targeting suppliers of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia),
ccording to ABC News.
The FARC is the hemisphere's oldest insurgency, and one that now sustains itself through drug trafficking activities and kidnappings. The FARC has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. and European Union.
Bout was arrested in a five-star hotel in Bangkok, according to Gen. Pongpat Chayapan, head of the nation's Crime Suppression Bureau. He had been under surveillance for several months.
Over the past 15 years, Bout worked with nearly every despot in Africa, and many further afield, as well as his Afghanistan ventures with the Taliban. Charles Taylor, Mobutu, Savimbi, Kabila, Bemba, Foday Sankoh-the list of serial human rights abusers who were his clients, is long and bloody.
This is not Bout's first contact with the FARC. As we document in our book (thanks to the work of Kathi Austin and others), Bout aircraft flew a series of flights in 1998-1999 that originated in Jordan. Most of the weapons were destined for the government of Peru, but about 10,000 AK-47s were parachuted from the aircraft to FARC troops near the Peruvian border.
So, the question now is, can the man who has survived by his wits and his high level protection from the Russian intelligence establishment, actually be held?
Russian officials are already making noises about request his extradition to Russia, which would be the end of any trial.
RSI Novosti is reporting:
Moscow may request the extradition of Russian businessman Viktor Bout, arrested in Thailand at the request of U.S. authorities on charges of illegal arms trading, a Russian law enforcement source said on Thursday.
"At this time, Russia is awaiting investigation materials from Thailand...After that, a decision to request extradition may be taken," the source said.
As I have written before, much of what Bout did, under the current international law, is not illegal, although it is morally repugnant. It is heartening that the new charges involve specific charges of efforts to help the FARC, which is likely to be something that is far less nebulous to prove than breaking U.N. arms embargoes.
Thai officials say he could be brought back to the United States to stand trial. That would be a sight indeed.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday March 5, 2008
Qaradawi, Mughniyeh's Martyrdom, and al Qaeda's Love of Qutb
For those who retain doubts about the the true thinking and attitude of the international Muslim Brotherhood toward violence, it is always useful to look to Shiekh Yousef al-Qaradawi, their spiritual leader.
While often portraying himself as a non-violent moderate when dealing with the outside world, he often sounds a starkly different note when addressing his own.
In a recent letter to the leader of Hezbollah from the International Union of Islamic Scholars, led by al-Qaradawi and published on the organization's official website, declares Imad Mughniyeh a martyred hero to be revered.
Truly, we are deeply sorry for the death of the martyred hero and our sadness can only be paralleled with our joy that Almighty Allah selected him to be a martyr; granting him a status that is only attained by those who have been true to their covenant with Allah (they have gone out for Jihad), of them some have fulfilled their obligations (have been martyred), and some of them are still waiting, but they have never changed (betrayed their covenant) in the least.
This for a man who made his fame murdering civilians, kidnapping and murdering hostages and blowing up non-military targets in Argentina, as well as inspiring and helping Osama bin Laden and his cadres.
It is interesting that al-Qaradawi, who has consistently urged Shia and Sunni Muslims to set aside their "minor differences" in order to build the Islamist caliphate, went so far out his way to praise a Shia combatant.
This attempt to bridge the theological divide in search of a greater good is a part of the reasons some of the armed Islamist groups in Iraq, have, as this NEFA Foundation translation shows, come to view Muslim Brotherhood as traitors to the cause.
But that does not mean that at least the leaders of al Qaeda Central (the old guard) have forgotten their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideological founders, Hassan al Banna and Sayyid Qutb.
As this NEFA Foundation translation of Ayman Zawahiri's lastest remarks shows, the Brotherhood figures are revered, listing al Banna, Qutb, along with Zarqawi, Abu Sayef and others as part of the mujahadeed who "stand their ground against the fiercest crusade in the history of Islam."
So, it is a tangled relationship. But, unlike Leiken et al who can brush away the relationship altogether, I think it shows a great deal of common ground.
While often portraying himself as a non-violent moderate when dealing with the outside world, he often sounds a starkly different note when addressing his own.
In a recent letter to the leader of Hezbollah from the International Union of Islamic Scholars, led by al-Qaradawi and published on the organization's official website, declares Imad Mughniyeh a martyred hero to be revered.
Truly, we are deeply sorry for the death of the martyred hero and our sadness can only be paralleled with our joy that Almighty Allah selected him to be a martyr; granting him a status that is only attained by those who have been true to their covenant with Allah (they have gone out for Jihad), of them some have fulfilled their obligations (have been martyred), and some of them are still waiting, but they have never changed (betrayed their covenant) in the least.
This for a man who made his fame murdering civilians, kidnapping and murdering hostages and blowing up non-military targets in Argentina, as well as inspiring and helping Osama bin Laden and his cadres.
It is interesting that al-Qaradawi, who has consistently urged Shia and Sunni Muslims to set aside their "minor differences" in order to build the Islamist caliphate, went so far out his way to praise a Shia combatant.
This attempt to bridge the theological divide in search of a greater good is a part of the reasons some of the armed Islamist groups in Iraq, have, as this NEFA Foundation translation shows, come to view Muslim Brotherhood as traitors to the cause.
But that does not mean that at least the leaders of al Qaeda Central (the old guard) have forgotten their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideological founders, Hassan al Banna and Sayyid Qutb.
As this NEFA Foundation translation of Ayman Zawahiri's lastest remarks shows, the Brotherhood figures are revered, listing al Banna, Qutb, along with Zarqawi, Abu Sayef and others as part of the mujahadeed who "stand their ground against the fiercest crusade in the history of Islam."
So, it is a tangled relationship. But, unlike Leiken et al who can brush away the relationship altogether, I think it shows a great deal of common ground.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday March 3, 2008
Chavez and the FARC Threaten Wider Regional Conflict
The reaction of presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador to the killing of FARC commander Raul Reyes is now threatening to plunge South America into a disastrous conflict.
"This could be the start of a war in South America," Chavez said. He warned Colombian president Alvaro Uribe: "If it occurs to you to do this in Venezuela, President Uribe, I'll send some Sukhois" _ Russian warplanes recently bought by Venezuela.
This is no small threat. In the past several years Chavez has spent , according to the Defense Intelligence Agency, $4.3 billion in weapons in 2005-2006, more even than China. This includes a Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK-47) factory licensed from Russia. For a nation not at war, this is hardly an auspicious sign.
This is the alliance many of us have warned of for some time. Chavez, Correa, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Evo Morales in Bolivia have been trying for some time now to form an anti-American bloc in Latin America but have no coherent ideology to counter the changes in the world.
It is no secret that the Bush administration has taken even less interest in Latin America than Clinton and Bush I. The consequence of this short-sighted world view is the emergence of an axis that is fed on Venezuela's oil riches and the FARC's cocaine bonanza.
As I have said before, I do not want to use this forum to debate the rationality or efficiency of the U.S.-led "war on drugs." The policy is what it is, and is unlikely to change soon. So, in that context, the FARC has chosen to engage in a criminal activity that provides it with hundreds of millions of dollars. This river of money allow the group to control criminal pipelines that move drugs, weapons, illegal aliens, stolen cars etc. across our borders with impunity, on a daily basis. That is no small threat.
The economic bonanza of this alliance, coupled with the failure of previous governments in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela to deal with endemic corruption and real social issues, have given this axis access to power.
The main beneficiary of the current hue and cry by nations that have long sheltered the FARC-designated a terrorist entity for its drug trafficking, kidnapping and extortion activities-is, of course, the FARC itself. For the first time in more than two decades the group, numbering some 10,000-15,000 combatants, has international backers who favor giving it a place at the regional table.
This is a huge step for a group that primarily funds itself through organized criminal activities, and whose once-staunch Marxist ideology has long been lost in the mists of the jungles where the group operates. For years even the radical Latin American left shunned the FARC because of its ideological bankruptcy and criminal actions.
Chavez's affinity to the group-currently holding more than 700 hostages-was already clear.
Asking his nation to hold a moment of silence to honor Reyes, the FARC's second-in-command and ideologist who has been fighting for several decades, showed a far stronger relationship that Chavez had publicly shown. Reyes was the public face of the FARC, and the one who has justified the policy of kidnapping as a legitimate weapon.
How one can call the death in combat of a person who has publicly identified himself as an armed combatant as a "cowardly murder" is hard to imagine, yet both Chavez and Correa used that phrase, as if Reyes were an heroic figure.
Rather than dealing with the fact that the FARC has long used eastern Ecuador as a sanctuary, along with Venezuela, the question should be not where Reyes was killed or whether he was asleep at the time of the strike. After all, he has shown no hesitation in kidnapping civilians, ambushing the army and was a clear military target.
The question is, but how come he was living in a camp in Ecuador that was permanent enough to have a refrigerator, computer operations and electricity? This was no small, overnight slip across the border, but a much more permanent set up.
Most damaging to the region are the documents found in Reyes' computer, showing that Correa, like Chavez, is seeking a more formal alliance with the FARC. While Ecuador accuses the Colombian police of fabricating this evidence, it seems highly unlikely for several reasons.
All the rebel groups I have dealt with, even in the pre-compuer age, kept extensive records of their actions and contacts. The FARC does, in part, because its high command is dispersed and many decisions of import are made by consensus. The compuer age, of course, has made that easier.
Gen. Oscar Naranjo, the commander of the Colombian National Police, is one of the few officials I have known for years whose integrity I would vouch for. And Colombia, if it were fabricating, would not alienate a neighbor where relations were not yet sour, but would seek to put the onus on Chavez, who is a more dangerous player in the region.
The war mongering by Chavez is unlikely to explode into all out war. Even he must know that most of Latin America, and certainly the United States, will not let him overthrow an elected government in a democratic society.
But it does mean that he has given carte blanche for the FARC to operate with impunity from Venezuela, inviting an escalation in regional tensions and violence that can only bring more chaos.
"This could be the start of a war in South America," Chavez said. He warned Colombian president Alvaro Uribe: "If it occurs to you to do this in Venezuela, President Uribe, I'll send some Sukhois" _ Russian warplanes recently bought by Venezuela.
This is no small threat. In the past several years Chavez has spent , according to the Defense Intelligence Agency, $4.3 billion in weapons in 2005-2006, more even than China. This includes a Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK-47) factory licensed from Russia. For a nation not at war, this is hardly an auspicious sign.
This is the alliance many of us have warned of for some time. Chavez, Correa, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Evo Morales in Bolivia have been trying for some time now to form an anti-American bloc in Latin America but have no coherent ideology to counter the changes in the world.
It is no secret that the Bush administration has taken even less interest in Latin America than Clinton and Bush I. The consequence of this short-sighted world view is the emergence of an axis that is fed on Venezuela's oil riches and the FARC's cocaine bonanza.
As I have said before, I do not want to use this forum to debate the rationality or efficiency of the U.S.-led "war on drugs." The policy is what it is, and is unlikely to change soon. So, in that context, the FARC has chosen to engage in a criminal activity that provides it with hundreds of millions of dollars. This river of money allow the group to control criminal pipelines that move drugs, weapons, illegal aliens, stolen cars etc. across our borders with impunity, on a daily basis. That is no small threat.
The economic bonanza of this alliance, coupled with the failure of previous governments in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela to deal with endemic corruption and real social issues, have given this axis access to power.
The main beneficiary of the current hue and cry by nations that have long sheltered the FARC-designated a terrorist entity for its drug trafficking, kidnapping and extortion activities-is, of course, the FARC itself. For the first time in more than two decades the group, numbering some 10,000-15,000 combatants, has international backers who favor giving it a place at the regional table.
This is a huge step for a group that primarily funds itself through organized criminal activities, and whose once-staunch Marxist ideology has long been lost in the mists of the jungles where the group operates. For years even the radical Latin American left shunned the FARC because of its ideological bankruptcy and criminal actions.
Chavez's affinity to the group-currently holding more than 700 hostages-was already clear.
Asking his nation to hold a moment of silence to honor Reyes, the FARC's second-in-command and ideologist who has been fighting for several decades, showed a far stronger relationship that Chavez had publicly shown. Reyes was the public face of the FARC, and the one who has justified the policy of kidnapping as a legitimate weapon.
How one can call the death in combat of a person who has publicly identified himself as an armed combatant as a "cowardly murder" is hard to imagine, yet both Chavez and Correa used that phrase, as if Reyes were an heroic figure.
Rather than dealing with the fact that the FARC has long used eastern Ecuador as a sanctuary, along with Venezuela, the question should be not where Reyes was killed or whether he was asleep at the time of the strike. After all, he has shown no hesitation in kidnapping civilians, ambushing the army and was a clear military target.
The question is, but how come he was living in a camp in Ecuador that was permanent enough to have a refrigerator, computer operations and electricity? This was no small, overnight slip across the border, but a much more permanent set up.
Most damaging to the region are the documents found in Reyes' computer, showing that Correa, like Chavez, is seeking a more formal alliance with the FARC. While Ecuador accuses the Colombian police of fabricating this evidence, it seems highly unlikely for several reasons.
All the rebel groups I have dealt with, even in the pre-compuer age, kept extensive records of their actions and contacts. The FARC does, in part, because its high command is dispersed and many decisions of import are made by consensus. The compuer age, of course, has made that easier.
Gen. Oscar Naranjo, the commander of the Colombian National Police, is one of the few officials I have known for years whose integrity I would vouch for. And Colombia, if it were fabricating, would not alienate a neighbor where relations were not yet sour, but would seek to put the onus on Chavez, who is a more dangerous player in the region.
The war mongering by Chavez is unlikely to explode into all out war. Even he must know that most of Latin America, and certainly the United States, will not let him overthrow an elected government in a democratic society.
But it does mean that he has given carte blanche for the FARC to operate with impunity from Venezuela, inviting an escalation in regional tensions and violence that can only bring more chaos.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday February 22, 2008
Are We Really Just Beginning to Talk About "Soft Power" Now?
A series of talks I have had recently echoed this Walter Pincus story in the Washington Post about the sudden recognition that "soft power" must be a vital component of any successful strategy to fight terrorism.
"How do we and our allies counter the ideology that supports violent extremism?" asked Michael Leiter, the acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in a speech Wednesday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The goal, Leiter said, is "to prevent the next generation of terrorists from emerging," and one approach he suggested is "to show that it is al-Qaeda, not the West, that is truly at war with Islam."
My response is, can it really have to taken this long to come to grips with the fact we need to do this? Is it really not being done in any significant way?
For several years, going back to Don Rumsfeld's ruminations on whether more terrorists were being killed than created, there has been some recognition that military power is not going to make a huge or sustainable dent in the pool of people being radicalized by a variety of forces, and becoming convinced that their religion calls them to kill themselves for the cause.
And yet here is John A. Kringen, the CIA's deputy director for intelligence, admitting that despite military success in "disrupting and dismantling terrorist organizations . . . the supply of people wanting to join those organizations continues and in some areas continues to grow."
To counter this, he talked to the House Armed Services Committee not in terms of what has been done in the past six plus years since 9/11. Rather, he said that "over time we're going to need to build that kind of infrastructure" to engage in an ideological struggle with al Qaeda. How far in the future this might be deemed necessary was not clear.
This is not the Cold War, and working to counter a politicized version of a widely-spread religion is a far trickier matter than tracking Communists.
The Cold War was sponsored by nation-states that could, and usually did, act in a rational self-interest we could understand and predict.
The world did not blow up. One could deal with the Soviet Union and its proxies as what they were, and there were means for an ongoing dialogue.
Here we are dealing with radical elements of a religion that are non-state networks. There is no one to talk to, no negotiations to be had. Their rational self-interest encompasses blowing oneself up in order to please Allah and reach paradise. So there is no common ground.
But some of the basic structures of front groups, trade craft as practiced by front groups, mass media and propaganda, recruitment etc. do bear some resemblance to what we do know.
We also know that wherever the Salafists and radical Islam have triumphed they have lost popular support quickly and heavily. Afghanistan was glad to be rid of the Taliban. Iraqi in Anbar province were happy to get rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The bloom is off the rose of the Iranian revolution, etc. etc.
So, yes, building the infrastructure to fight a winnable, non-military war could be considered an essential element in the conflict. Are we really still debating that?
"How do we and our allies counter the ideology that supports violent extremism?" asked Michael Leiter, the acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in a speech Wednesday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The goal, Leiter said, is "to prevent the next generation of terrorists from emerging," and one approach he suggested is "to show that it is al-Qaeda, not the West, that is truly at war with Islam."
My response is, can it really have to taken this long to come to grips with the fact we need to do this? Is it really not being done in any significant way?
For several years, going back to Don Rumsfeld's ruminations on whether more terrorists were being killed than created, there has been some recognition that military power is not going to make a huge or sustainable dent in the pool of people being radicalized by a variety of forces, and becoming convinced that their religion calls them to kill themselves for the cause.
And yet here is John A. Kringen, the CIA's deputy director for intelligence, admitting that despite military success in "disrupting and dismantling terrorist organizations . . . the supply of people wanting to join those organizations continues and in some areas continues to grow."
To counter this, he talked to the House Armed Services Committee not in terms of what has been done in the past six plus years since 9/11. Rather, he said that "over time we're going to need to build that kind of infrastructure" to engage in an ideological struggle with al Qaeda. How far in the future this might be deemed necessary was not clear.
This is not the Cold War, and working to counter a politicized version of a widely-spread religion is a far trickier matter than tracking Communists.
The Cold War was sponsored by nation-states that could, and usually did, act in a rational self-interest we could understand and predict.
The world did not blow up. One could deal with the Soviet Union and its proxies as what they were, and there were means for an ongoing dialogue.
Here we are dealing with radical elements of a religion that are non-state networks. There is no one to talk to, no negotiations to be had. Their rational self-interest encompasses blowing oneself up in order to please Allah and reach paradise. So there is no common ground.
But some of the basic structures of front groups, trade craft as practiced by front groups, mass media and propaganda, recruitment etc. do bear some resemblance to what we do know.
We also know that wherever the Salafists and radical Islam have triumphed they have lost popular support quickly and heavily. Afghanistan was glad to be rid of the Taliban. Iraqi in Anbar province were happy to get rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The bloom is off the rose of the Iranian revolution, etc. etc.
So, yes, building the infrastructure to fight a winnable, non-military war could be considered an essential element in the conflict. Are we really still debating that?
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Thursday February 21, 2008
Qaradawi Embraces Archbishop's Call for Acceptance of Sharia Law in Britain
The basic, public premise of the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy for the conquest of Europe hinges on creating Muslim enclaves that are exempt from national laws and under sharia law-then steadily expanding those areas. So it is not surprising the group headed by the Muslim Brotherhood's chief theologian would embrace the call from the Archbishop of Canterbury to actually implement such a plan.
The International Union for Muslim Scholars, led by Yousef al-Qaradawi, laments the "fierce attacks" in Britain against Archbishop Rowan William's statement that sharia law could be implemented in family matters and other issues.
If one followed that logic, then the physical abuse of women could be legal in Muslim circles, as Qaradawi has gone to considerable lengths to describe how, under sharia law, a man can hit his wife, how he should not leave marks, etc.
Would honor killings then be okay if the family chose to try them under sharia law?
The main point, however, is that this opening is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has been seeking for some time. TRR William's ignorance of this as a cornerstone of their strategy is clear. But it does not make what he said any less damaging.
As Lorenzo Vidino pointed out in a Hudson Institute piece in 2006, since at least 1990 Qaradawi has outlined this strategy, and done so publicly.
As Vidino writes, Qaradawi:
advocates the establishment of Muslim communities with "their own religious, educational and recreational establishments." He urges his fellow revivalists to try "to have your small society within the larger society" and "your own ‘Muslim ghetto.’"
Qaradawi clearly sees the Islamist movement playing a crucial role in creating these separated Muslim communities and thereby providing it with an unprecedented opportunity to implement its vision, at least partially. Its local affiliates will run the mosques, schools, and civic organizations that shape the daily life of the desired "Muslim ghettoes." And Qaradawi’s ambitions go further still. Without saying so openly, he suggests that sharia law should govern the relations among inhabitants of these Muslim islands; Muslim minorities "should also have amongst them their own ulema and men of religion to answer their questions when they ask them, guide them when they lose the way and reconcile them when they differ among themselves."
What Qaradawi outlines in his treatise might, at first glance, appear to be nothing more than a fantasy. In reality, it corresponds to what the international network of the Muslim Brotherhood has been doing in the West for the past fifty years. Since the end of World War II, in fact, members of al Ikhwan al Muslimoun have settled in Europe and worked relentlessly to implement the goals stated by Qaradawi
Now, having received an opening, the Brothers will proceed to claim to be victims of vicious Islamophobia by agents of intolerance.
What is more dangerous, but equally predictable, is that they will distort the historic record, as the IUMS does in its statement supporting Williams. The basic lie is that Islamic nations have been bastions of tolerance and equal rights.
The IUMS would like to remind the entire world that the Islamic state – since its establishment at the hands of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and over hundreds of years - allowed all citizens, regardless of their religion, to practice their personal law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and so on) in accordance with their religion. They did so with freedom and respect in spite of its contradiction to the laws of the Islamic state in many cases. Moreover, the Ottoman Islamic state issued laws to organize these practices; thus, non-Muslim citizens were allowed to resort to their own courts in many cases.
So, let's take a quick tour of the human rights conditions in Islamic states where Qaradawi holds some considerable political/theological sway:
Saudi Arabia? Somewhat problematic, as one cannot take a Bible, crucifix or anything relating to any religion except Islam into the country. Sudan and its genocidal regime? Afghanistan under the Taliban? Iran, where the MB retains influence?
In the Ottoman Empire and previous parts of the Caliphate, non-Muslims never had equal rights with Muslims. At times they were allowed to privately practice their religions, but never publicly and never recognized as anything other than second class citizens.
It is hard to believe that when an adversary writes out a battle plan, gives it to you, proceeds to follow it to the letter, one cannot believe there is actually a conflict in progress. Apparently the RR Williams does not.
The International Union for Muslim Scholars, led by Yousef al-Qaradawi, laments the "fierce attacks" in Britain against Archbishop Rowan William's statement that sharia law could be implemented in family matters and other issues.
If one followed that logic, then the physical abuse of women could be legal in Muslim circles, as Qaradawi has gone to considerable lengths to describe how, under sharia law, a man can hit his wife, how he should not leave marks, etc.
Would honor killings then be okay if the family chose to try them under sharia law?
The main point, however, is that this opening is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has been seeking for some time. TRR William's ignorance of this as a cornerstone of their strategy is clear. But it does not make what he said any less damaging.
As Lorenzo Vidino pointed out in a Hudson Institute piece in 2006, since at least 1990 Qaradawi has outlined this strategy, and done so publicly.
As Vidino writes, Qaradawi:
advocates the establishment of Muslim communities with "their own religious, educational and recreational establishments." He urges his fellow revivalists to try "to have your small society within the larger society" and "your own ‘Muslim ghetto.’"
Qaradawi clearly sees the Islamist movement playing a crucial role in creating these separated Muslim communities and thereby providing it with an unprecedented opportunity to implement its vision, at least partially. Its local affiliates will run the mosques, schools, and civic organizations that shape the daily life of the desired "Muslim ghettoes." And Qaradawi’s ambitions go further still. Without saying so openly, he suggests that sharia law should govern the relations among inhabitants of these Muslim islands; Muslim minorities "should also have amongst them their own ulema and men of religion to answer their questions when they ask them, guide them when they lose the way and reconcile them when they differ among themselves."
What Qaradawi outlines in his treatise might, at first glance, appear to be nothing more than a fantasy. In reality, it corresponds to what the international network of the Muslim Brotherhood has been doing in the West for the past fifty years. Since the end of World War II, in fact, members of al Ikhwan al Muslimoun have settled in Europe and worked relentlessly to implement the goals stated by Qaradawi
Now, having received an opening, the Brothers will proceed to claim to be victims of vicious Islamophobia by agents of intolerance.
What is more dangerous, but equally predictable, is that they will distort the historic record, as the IUMS does in its statement supporting Williams. The basic lie is that Islamic nations have been bastions of tolerance and equal rights.
The IUMS would like to remind the entire world that the Islamic state – since its establishment at the hands of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and over hundreds of years - allowed all citizens, regardless of their religion, to practice their personal law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and so on) in accordance with their religion. They did so with freedom and respect in spite of its contradiction to the laws of the Islamic state in many cases. Moreover, the Ottoman Islamic state issued laws to organize these practices; thus, non-Muslim citizens were allowed to resort to their own courts in many cases.
So, let's take a quick tour of the human rights conditions in Islamic states where Qaradawi holds some considerable political/theological sway:
Saudi Arabia? Somewhat problematic, as one cannot take a Bible, crucifix or anything relating to any religion except Islam into the country. Sudan and its genocidal regime? Afghanistan under the Taliban? Iran, where the MB retains influence?
In the Ottoman Empire and previous parts of the Caliphate, non-Muslims never had equal rights with Muslims. At times they were allowed to privately practice their religions, but never publicly and never recognized as anything other than second class citizens.
It is hard to believe that when an adversary writes out a battle plan, gives it to you, proceeds to follow it to the letter, one cannot believe there is actually a conflict in progress. Apparently the RR Williams does not.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH