Egyptian Muslim cleric threatens Copts with genocide

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

It’s that Religion of Peace-thing, you know:

Islamic leaders continue to portray the popular protests against President Morsi and his recently passed Sharia-heavy constitution as products of Egypt’s Christians. Recently, Muslim Brotherhood leader Safwat Hegazy said in an open rally, as captured on video:

“A message to the church of Egypt, from an Egyptian Muslim: I tell the church — by Allah, and again, by Allah — if you conspire and unite with the remnants [opposition] to bring Morsi down, that will be another matter…. our red line is the legitimacy of Dr. Muhammad Morsi. Whoever splashes water on it, we will splash blood on him.”

More recently, Dr. Wagdi Ghoneim — who earlier praised Allah for the death of the late Coptic Pope Shenouda, cursing him to hell and damnation on video — made another video, entitled, “A Notice and Warning to the Crusaders in Egypt,” a reference to the nation’s Copts, which he began by saying, “You are playing with fire in Egypt, I swear, the first people to be burned by the fire are you [Copts].” The video was made in the context of the Tahrir protests against Morsi: Islamic leaders, such as Hegazy and Ghoneim, seek to portray the Copts as dominant elements in those protests; according to them, no real Muslim would participate. Ghoneim even went on to say that most of the people at the protests were Copts, “and we know you hid your [wrist] crosses by lowering your sleeves.”

The heart of Ghoneim’s message was genocidal: “The day Egyptians — and I don’t even mean the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafis, regular Egyptians — feel that you are against them, you will be wiped off the face of the earth. I’m warning you now: do not play with fire!”

And to make that genocide even easier to carry out, he dehumanized them by comparing them to animals:

“Respect yourselves and live with us and we will protect you… Why?… because Allah has forbidden me to be cruel to animals. I’m not trying to compare you to animals … but if I am not cruel to animals or plants, shall I be cruel to a soul created by Allah? You are an infidel in Allah’s sight — and it is for him to judge you. However, when you live in my country, it is forbidden for me to be unjust to you — but that doesn’t mean we are equal. No, oh no.”

Ghoneim can weasel all he wants, but the idea is clearly planted. Copts are inferior, maybe even animals, and if they don’t act like good little dhimmis… If you noticed a resemblance to Germany in the 1930s, your mind wasn’t playing tricks on you.

The Coptic Christmas falls on January 7th this year. You can imagine what a merry season it is for them.

And speaking of Christmas, Islam’s birthplace (maybe…) demonstrated its dedication to tolerance for all by arresting 44 people who were engaged in a hideous plot.

They were planning to celebrate Christmas:

In the latest kingdom-wide crackdown on those who would violate the national religious policy of Islam only, Saudi Vice and Virtue Police arrested 44 on charges of plotting to celebrate Christmas, as reported on Dec. 27, 2012 by the Beirut-based Al-Akhbar news portal.

The raid took place in the northwest province of al-Jawf, at the private residence of an individual identified only as “an Asian diplomat.”

The fiends… It’s a good thing the watchful officers of the Vice and Virtue police were on the job. Who knows what might have happened? They might have sung carols, exchanged good wishes and presents, said a prayer or two — someone might have had a good time!!

Is it any wonder, in the kind of society that develops under Sharia law, that people can speak of another of the world’s major religions, Christianity, as being the most persecuted on the planet and even in danger of extinction in the lands of its birth?

A merry Christmas season and a happy New Year, indeed.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

President Obama needs to wake the hell up regarding the Muslim Brotherhood

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

No, I don’t expect any “waking up” to happen, as the left’s naive and dangerous tendency to treat established radical public figures and regimes – especially Islamists masquerading as “moderates” – as allies of America is welldocumented.  But all the same, National Review editor Rich Lowry sounds alarms bells today in a blistering rebuke of the Obama administration’s fawning admiration of the Muslim Brotherhood, in particular, its President – Mohamed Morsi. Lowry writes:

The great, acerbic 19th-century satirist Ambrose Bierce defined a revolution as “an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.” He would understand events in Egypt since the fall of Hosni Mubarak very well.

In the signature revolution of the Arab Spring, the country turned its back on a secular dictatorship only to fall into the arms of what looks like a budding Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship. Meet the new pharaoh, same as the old pharaoh. Except Egypt’s old form of misgovernment may soon look progressive by comparison.

Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi’s decree neutering the judiciary is the latest act in his steady consolidation of power. While he assiduously builds a dictatorship, the Obama administration just as assiduously tells itself bedtime stories about his good intentions. It’s a perfect division of labor — he goes about his empire-building with a clear-eyed realism; we consider it through a gauzy lens of delusion.

Since the end of Mubarak, the air has been thick with descriptions of the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi as moderates, as basically no more than Islamic social democrats. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the Muslim Brotherhood “largely secular.” If he had been speaking of the Church of England, he might have been right.

Unfortunately, the Brotherhood’s credo is, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” And it’s not kidding. Morsi summarized his program during the campaign as “the sharia, then the sharia, and finally the sharia.” (Unlike President Barack Obama, at least he had an agenda.)

Eric Trager of The New Republic describes how Brotherhood recruiting emphasizes rigidity. “Throughout this process,” he writes, “rising Muslim Brothers are continually vetted for their embrace of the Brotherhood’s ideology, commitment to its cause, and — most importantly — willingness to follow orders from the Brotherhood’s senior leadership.” In sum, he says, it is “a cultish organization that was never likely to moderate once it had grasped power.” Obviously, Trager would never make it as national intelligence director.

After Mubarak’s fall, we fooled ourselves about the level of support for the Brotherhood. We fooled ourselves about the Brotherhood abiding by its promise not to run for the presidency. We fooled ourselves about what a Morsi victory would mean for democracy. Why stop fooling ourselves now?

Morsi staged his latest power grab on Thanksgiving Day in the immediate aftermath of working with Obama to get a cease-fire in hostilities between Hamas (a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot) and Israel. In a New York Times piece that ought to be preserved in amber as a record of 21st-century liberal naiveté, the paper reported that in his talks with Morsi, “Mr. Obama felt they were making a connection.” How sweet.

“He was impressed with the Egyptian leader’s pragmatic confidence.” And who can resist the lure of pragmatic confidence?

“He sensed,” the paper continued, in a gushing tone, “an engineer’s precision with surprisingly little ideology.”

Disturbing. Make sure to read the whole thing.

(Via Memeorandum)

Give Egypt’s foreign aid money to Libya?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Interesting idea from Michael Totten:

Almost everything that happened in Libya was the reverse of what happened almost everywhere else.

The Libyan exception began with the terrorist attack on Sept. 11 at the consulate in Benghazi. For a while it looked as if Libya’s reaction to the video might be the worst in the world, but that didn’t last. The assassination of Ambassador Stevens wasn’t part of a mob action or a hysterical demonstration. On the contrary: Spontaneous protests have erupted throughout the country, but not against the U.S. or a crackpot videographer out in Los Angeles. The Libyan protesters have stood squarely against the terrorists who killed Stevens and against the militias that have been running amok since Moammar Gadhafi was lynched last year in Sirte.

Libyan demonstrators have displayed moving, hand-written signs: “Sorry people of America.” “Benghazi is against terrorism.” “Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.” “Thugs and killers don’t represent Benghazi or Islam.” That’s what Libyans were saying while people elsewhere flew bin-Ladenist flags and set cars and buildings on fire. And it wasn’t just talk. The Libyan government swiftly arrested dozens of suspects following the Sept. 11 attacks. Ten days later, thousands of demonstrators in Benghazi seized the headquarters of an Islamist militia and forced its inhabitants to flee with their guns into the desert.

And let’s not forget Libya’s President, Mohammed el-Magarief, who’s been much more honest and forthright about what happened in his country than our own government.

I’ve often described the Obama administration’s foreign policy as “hug our enemies, slap our friends.” Perhaps it’s time to reverse that (1) and reward those who are the enemies of our enemies?

We need intelligence from North Africa, but Egypt is lost for the foreseeable future, so why keep giving them taxpayer money? Why give Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who demands the release of the Blind Sheikh and that we respect values antithetical to our own, another penny? Why not rebuild our position in another country, instead, which seems to share at least some of our interests?

Why not Libya?

Footnote:
(1) Sadly, that will have to wait for another administration. One that has actual adults in charge.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Dear President Obama: no, no, no, NO!!!

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

This had better just be a rumor:

The U.S. State Department is actively considering negotiations with the Egyptian government for the transfer of custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as “the Blind Sheikh,” for humanitarian and health reasons, a source close to the the Obama administration told TheBlaze.

“Humanitarian reasons” my rear end! If they’re considering this, it’s because their whole foreign policy in the Middle East has blown up in their faces, and Abdel-Rahman’s release has been one of the Islamists’ demands for decades. Just weeks before the current crisis, Egypt’s President Morsi, himself a Brotherhood member, had been pressing for Abdel-Rahman’s release. They’re in a panic.

And who is “the Blind Sheikh?” He was the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the jihad’s first attempt to bring those buildings down. Six people died in that attack, including a pregnant woman, and more were seriously injured. We were lucky only that the bomb makers underestimated how much explosive they would need. If anything, Abdel-Rahman should have been taken out and hanged.

And we’re negotiating for this savage’s release? Seriously??

According to the DoJ… “Nah, not happening:”

The Department of Justice, however, told TheBlaze that Rahman is serving a life sentence and is not considered for possible “release.” Previous calls to the State Department were referred to the Department of Justice and so far, the State Department has neither confirmed nor denied the report.

Well, that’s comforting. Not. Note that, while they said Abdel-Rahman was not eligible for release, they didn’t say a thing about not transferring him to Egyptian custody “for humanitarian reasons.” (Poor baby’s not been feeling well. I weep.) You can bet what’s left of your 401K that’s what they’re discussing.

But, it’s just a rumor, right? Hold on a minute:

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who was the lead prosecutor in the Blind Sheikh case, told TheBlaze that he does not doubt the accuracy of the report, saying “there are very good reasons as to why it could be true.”

McCarthy explained that Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has been calling for the release of the Blind Sheikh ever since he was elected earlier this year. He said it is a matter of “great importance” to the radical Islamists in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, adding that his transfer to Egypt would undoubtedly lead to the terrorist’s release.

“I think the plan has been to agree to the Blind Sheikh’s release but not to announce it or have it become public until after the election. That is consistent with Obama’s pattern of trying to mollify Islamists,” he added. “Obviously, they did not want this information to surface yet… but sometimes a situation can spin out of control.”

Given this administration is so quick to appease that it would make Neville Chamberlain blush, I find this rumor very credible, too. And that has my blood boiling.

No fan of Obama, but still skeptical, Allahpundit wonders what possible political advantage the White House could see in such a crap sandwich of a deal:

Just one question: What would Obama get out of it, assuming he followed through on this in a second term? His credibility on counterterrorism would be shattered instantly; all the GOP accusations of appeasement, which have failed to get traction against the guy who ordered Bin Laden taken out, would finally have a track to run on. After years of trying, the Dems have finally pulled even with the GOP on the question of which party is better on fighting terror; hard for me to believe O’s going to give that away in one fell swoop. Granted, a lame duck wouldn’t have to worry about his own reelection but he would have to worry about vulnerable Democrats in Congress, whom he’d need to achieve any of his second-term goals. And no, needless to say, “humanitarian and health reasons” won’t be enough to justify the release. That wouldn’t have flown even before Britain gave the Lockerbie bomber back to Libya, but after Megrahi lingered for years after doctors had given him six months to live, that all but ensured no western government will ever try that excuse again.

One problem: Obama doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss about the congressional Democrats. He never has. He’s already factored in a future Republican congress and plans to pursue his agenda through the regulatory powers of the presidency. What he wants is for this mess in the Islamic world to calm down, now, before the press can’t cover for him anymore. A deal with Morsi over Abdel-Rahman might just give him that, especially if he can hold off on the “transfer” until after the election.

You know, when he’ll have more flexibility.

Transferring Omar Abdel-Rahman to Egyptian (read: Muslim Brotherhood) custody would be the ultimate “briar patch” moment for Team Smart Power’s foreign policy, doing exactly what the jihadists want. Not only would it insult the Rule of Law, not only would it be a slap in the face to the victims and their survivors, it wouldn’t even do any good! It would be a craven, cowardly act of appeasement that would only lead to further demands and further American deaths, not peace, because they know they can get away with it.

Churchill once wrote of appeasement:

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last”

And the crocodile always comes back for more.

via Blue Crab Boulevard

SNEAKY AFTERTHOUGHT: What if the story is true, but someone in the government who still has a shred of decency left was rightfully appalled and leaked this to a friend, who leaked it to a friend, who told another friend who knew Glenn Beck, who was the first to break this? That would be a good way to put a lot of pressure on the administration to put down the stupid idea and back away. If so, well played. Well played.

RELATED: More at Roger’s Rules; Fausta calls it insane. Andy McCarthy has written the definitive book on the 1993 WTC bombing and the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, called “Willful Blindness.”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Disturbing: Suspected ‘anti-Islam filmmaker’ taken in for ‘questioning’ by the feds

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Absolutely chilling:

Updated at 10 a.m. ET: A man purported to be a filmmaker involved with the anti-Islam video sparking violent unrest in the Middle East and North Africa was escorted by deputies from his Cerritos, Calif., home shortly after midnight Saturday morning, NBCLosAngeles.com reported.

Media and law enforcement had been staking out the home at the end of a cul de sac in the Southern California city for about 48 hours when Nakoula Besseley Nakoula emerged wearing a coat, hat, scarf and glasses.

L.A. County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore confirmed to NBCLA that Nakoula, 55, was taken to the Cerritos sheriff’s station for interviewing by federal probation officers aimed at determining whether he violated the terms of his 5-year probation by uploading a video to the Internet.

“We are in an assist mode,” he said.

Whitmore added that Nakoula, who has denied involvement in the film in a phone call to his Coptic Christian bishop, agreed to the interview prior to the deputies arriving at his home, that the move was “entirely voluntary” and the man was “very cooperative.”

In “assist mode”? To who?

Look, we all know what’s going on here but it’s being done under the pretense of the “filmmaker” being “suspected of violating his probation.”  Do not be fooled.  This ‘film” was released months ago but he is only now being taken in for questioning why exactly?  Because radical Islam is literally setting the world on fire, and the feds want to put on a dog and pony show to indicate to the Muslim world that they are “doing something” about this filmmaker who so offended the sensitivities of fundamentalist thugs who hate Western values.

Let me also say this: Nakoula doesn’t sound like a paragon of virtue, but he was expressing his First Amendment rights to an opinion some people don’t agree with. Does he deserve the treatment he is receiving by the press, other critics, the feds, and the Obama administration?

My friend @JCinQC nails it here:

If you’re not gasping in shock and outrage over this, you should be.

What else should send your temperature rising today? Read the article I linked above. We now know more, courtesy of the MSM, about the history of this “filmmaker” than we do the history of our own President. This is insane, and it’s not just the feds who should be called to account over the “questioning” of a man for engaging in his right to free speech, not just the politicos and administration officials who are blaming this man for Islamofascist rage in the Middle East (and who have shut down questioning by the press on the Benghazi murders), but also the mainstream media who give more of a d*mn about an obscure filmmaker’s life story than they did about the Democrat nominee for President Barack Obama in 2008.

I went on quite a rant this morning about this on Twitter. Relevant tweets are below:

I repeat – this happened in America:

‘[the filmmaker] was escorted by deputies from his Cerritos, Calif., home shortly after midnight Saturday morning.’

Wake up, America. Before we have no country left.

Arab Spring: US ambassador murdered in Libya, US embassy in Egypt besieged

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Hurt feelings.

The Islamic World sent its regards on the anniversary of September 11th:

Looks like President Obama’s much-touted Arab Spring has become the Arab Autumn.

Tuesday Muslim militants stormed the American Embassy in Cairo, tore down the U.S. flag and raised their own banner. In Libya, militants stormed an American consulate, set it on fire and killed four people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

The alleged reason: Someone made a video that insulted Allah. So, naturally that’s the United States’ fault. Never mind the $9 million a day U.S. bombing of Libya to rid those folks of Col. Qadhafi and his amazing hat collection. Never mind the $1 billion in annual aid to Egypt and not-so gentle nudging out of democracy-challenged President Mubarak last year.

Apparently the ever-so-sensitive Muslim feelings were hurt by a short, badly made video criticizing Muhammad. The video had been available since at least July (h/t Howie), but it took until, oddly enough, until September 11th for the mobs to become enraged enough to actually do something, much like the murderous riots over the Muhammad cartoons several years ago.

If the words “coordinated” and “pre-planned” come to mind, you’re not alone.

Libya is, of course, by far the worst of the situation so far: at least three, perhaps four Americans are dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was visiting the Benghazi consulate at the time. I don’t know if the consulate had any Marine guards, but there’s a disturbing report that the Libyans hired to protect the consulate first whisked to ambassador to a “safer” location, then told the mob where he was:

Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building – deemed safer – after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.

For what it’s worth (and it isn’t much) the Libyan president (more like the “Mayor of Tripoli”) has issued an abject apology:

Libya’s interim president has apologized to the United States for the attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed the American ambassador and three of his staff.

Mohammed el-Megarif described the attack as “cowardly” and offered his condolences on the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans. Speaking to reporters, he vowed to bring the culprits to justice and maintain his country’s close relations with the United States. He said the three Americans were security guards.

While I don’t hold the Libyan government at fault in this –they’re just too weak– this atrocity cannot go unpunished. Though we often criticize (and sometimes rightly so) our diplomats for being too accommodating, Foreign Service Officers are accredited representatives of the United States, often spending years away from home working in very dangerous places to further American interests. They are entitled to absolute protection by the host country under centuries-old international law and, when that protection is denied or fails, it is the duty of the United States to retaliate for any outrage. Our diplomats, volunteers all, deserve no less.

President Obama must do more than issue a condemnation or fire a perfunctory volley of missiles at some tents. If the Libyan government cannot bring these barbarians to justice, Obama must order the intelligence and military services to hunt these people down and kill them. If an organization was behind it, he must order their destruction. Whether it’s accomplished tomorrow or years from now, the enemies of the United States must know they will pay a fatal price for killing our people.

Anything less will be interpreted by the jihadists as weakness and only invite more atrocities.

RELATED: In a new low for US public diplomacy, while trying to fend off the mob in Cairo, the US Embassy there issued a groveling apology for Americans exercising their natural right of free speech. On September 11th. What a surprise, it didn’t work. (And if you want a legitimate reason to criticize our diplomats, here ya go.) Questions: The Embassy in Egypt is sovereign American soil. It is entitled to protection from the host country. Where the Hell was the Egyptian Army during all this? Did Muslim Brotherhood member President Morsi approve of his Salafist allies’ actions? Does he understand the words “act of war?” And about our Smart Power leadership: When it became clear the embassy was not getting the protection it needed (or any at all), why wasn’t the Egyptian ambassador hauled into the State Department and read the Riot Act? It was 3AM. Why wasn’t Obama on the phone with Morsi demanding he clear the streets? We give them a billion dollars a year in aid Cairo desperately needs, and I say that gives us a damn lot of leverage. As in “if those streets aren’t cleared in two hours, or if any American or native embassy employee is hurt, kiss off every last cent.”

RELATED II: It’s been noted in several places that the peaceful and tolerant Muslims barbarian mob in Cairo raised the al Qaeda banner. It’s a little more nuanced than that, as Raymond Ibrahim explains:

Some clarifications for context: Islam’s black flag with the shehada and sword inscription is not an al-Qaeda banner but rather Islam’s most ancient banner, popularized by the Abbasid caliphs in the 800s. In other words, these protesters were not imitating al-Qaeda; rather they—and al-Qaeda—are imitating Islam’s heritage, replete with jihad against the infidel. Same with the phrase “worshippers of the cross”—Islam’s ancient appellation for the hated Christians.

Read the whole thing. As Ibrahim explains, Muslim outrage over their hurt feelings is especially hypocritical, given the wretched and often murderous discrimination against Copts in Egypt.

RELATED III: Governor Romney and President Obama both held press availabilities on the North African crisis. For what it’s worth, I think Romney said the right things and acted like a president should act. He also wouldn’t let the press get away with trying to cover for Obama by presenting Romney’s criticisms as the problem, not the events in Egypt and Libya. President Obama, on the other hand, took no questions and voted “present.” Again. For those who criticize Romney and say “politics should stop at the water’s edge,” I reply “forget it.” The Democrats haven’t played by those rules in years, and we shouldn’t unilaterally disarm.

RELATED IV: Sarah Palin unleashes her night stick on Obama. Boom! You don’t want to miss it.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Egyptian jihad group calls for Christian genocide

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Coptic cross

Via Raymond Ibrahim:

According to today’s issue of El Fegr, “Elements of terrorist, jihadi organizations distributed leaflets today inciting for the killing of Copts in Suez, Ismailia, and Upper Egypt, promising them [Copts] a tragic end if they do not return to the truth.”

An image of a copy of the letter appears on El Fegr’s website. Titled “An Urgent and Important Notice,” it begins by calling on “all brothers and sisters” to “kill or physically attack the enemies of the religion of Allah—the Christians in all of Egypt’s provinces, the slaves of the Cross, Allah’s curse upon them…” It proceeds to promise a monetary reward for whoever helps “achieve Allah’s rights against his enemies.”

(…)

This genocide has been called until Egypt’s Christians “return to the truth,” a reference apparently meaning that Egypt’s Christians must either embrace “the truth”—that is, Islam, which they must convert to—or else return to the truths of the religion, which holds that Christians must embrace their subhuman dhimmi status (Koran 9:29).

The ongoing persecution of religious minorities in the Muslim world is something rarely reported in our mainstream media, which instead hangs on every word about “Islamophobia” uttered by CAIR and its allies. But, unlike those claims, the persecution of Christians, Zoroastrians, Baha’is, Jews, and Buddhists in areas where Islam dominates or seeks domination is all too real — and often fatal.

One of the founding, core ideals of the United States is freedom of religion, the right to practice one’s faith -or no faith at all- without fear of punishment. We consider it a universal, unalienable right, pre-existing any government, endowed in all by Nature and Nature’s God.

It would be nice if the current administration could be bothered to speak out for that right, on behalf of those suffering genuine oppression.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Fruits of the Arab Spring: peaceful, tolerant Muslim preacher pardoned?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Maybe, but the web site of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president and that of the preacher himself are doing their best to scrub the news from their sites.

Via Raymond Ibrahim, behold another consequence of Obama “Smart Power” diplomacy in Egypt:

Wagdi Ghoneim, the Islamic cleric whose many terrorist-connections and activities got him exiled from Egypt where, under Mubarak’s rule he was sentenced to do five years in prison, has, according to several Arabic news sites, just received a general pardon from Egypt’s new president, Muhammad Morsi.

Ghoneim is especially renowned for his hate-mongering and constant incitements to kill Christians, Jews, and secular Muslims. Most recently, he praised Allah for the death of Coptic Pope Shenouda, cursing him to hell and damnation—even as many Egyptians were mourning him during his state funeral.

What a sweetheart of a guy. So happy he’s free to return to Egypt to contribute to its future and that of the whole Middle East.

Yeesh.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

“Please God. Please make it stop.”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Last year it was CBS’ Lara Logan, who was sexually assaulted by a gang of hundreds of Egyptian men while covering the anti-Mubarak demonstrations in Tahrir Square. This year, it’s independent journalist Natasha Smith, attacked while she was walking with friends across a bridge during celebrations of the Muslim Brotherhood’s electoral victory:

But in a split second, everything changed. Men had been groping me for a while, but suddenly, something shifted. I found myself being dragged from my male friend, groped all over, with increasing force and aggression. I screamed. I could see what was happening and I saw that I was powerless to stop it. I couldn’t believe I had got into this situation.

My friend did everything he could to hold onto me. But hundreds of men were dragging me away, kicking and screaming. I was pushed onto a small platform as the crowd surged, where I was hunched over, determined to protect my camera. But it was no use. My camera was snatched from my grasp. My rucksack was torn from my back – it was so crowded that I didn’t even feel it. The mob stumbled off the platform – I twisted my ankle.

Men began to rip off my clothes. I was stripped naked. Their insatiable appetite to hurt me heightened. These men, hundreds of them, had turned from humans to animals.

No, animals act far better. This is a direct result of the less-than-human status women are accorded under Islam, particularly infidel women.

There are no words to describe the disgust I feel right now.

via Patrick Poole

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Tomatoes are a Crusader plot against Islam!!

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

And they wonder why we laugh and point sometimes:

OMG! A cross!!

A Salafist group called the Popular Egyptian Islamic Association has come under fire after sending out a warning on Facebook urging its followers not to eat tomatoes because the vegetable (or fruit) is a Christian food.

The group posted a photo on its page of a tomato – which appears to reveal the shape of a cross after being cut in half – along with the message: “Eating tomatoes is forbidden because they are Christian. [The tomato] praises the cross instead of Allah and says that Allah is three (a reference to the Trinity).

We all know this is ridiculous, of course. Tomatoes in no way offend Islam. Besides, they’re great in kebabs.

Ice cream cones, on the other hand, are an insult worthy of jihad.

UPDATE: And how could I forget that other decadent, anti-Islamic food, pizza?

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)