THE OBAMA NETANYAHU MEETING SHOWS OBAMA REALLY HATES ISRAEL

The article by Israel National News has put its finger on the truth of the situation. Obama came across in the interview after the meeting with Netanyahu as a man who has got little ideas in his head of value, but in any case is totally hostile to the Jews and to the Israel state, and is in fact to all intents and purposes a palestinian supporter and die hard. Eltad in the following is correct.

MK Eldad:

U.S. Selling Us Down the River

 
by Gil Ronen

 

(IsraelNN.com) MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union party) said following the meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that Israel has true cause for concern, because the U.S. is shaking off its historic commitment to vouch for Israel’s security.

“Defining a deadline-free negotiating process vis-à-vis Iran means, in practice, that the U.S. is willing to accept a nuclear Iran and that Israel remains alone facing Iran,” Eldad said.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131431

Actually the above assessment contains a misunderstanding of a very deep nature

THE US HAS NEVER BEEN A FRIEND OF ISRAEL

This was proved completely by the reseach of Jared israel and Francisco Gil White.

It is on this vital point that the questions of the day do have to be fought out.

Let us return to the INN report

“Israel will have no choice but to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities with all the means at its disposal, be the price what it may be,” Eldad concluded.

MK Ophir Akunis, head of the Likud’s Media Responses Team, said that the predictions of a tense meeting between Obama and Netannyahu have proven untrue. “The Obama-Netanyahu meeting proved again the power of the deep bond between the U.S. and Israel,” he said. 

MK Danny Danon (Likud) said that the Prime Minister deserves praise for standing firm in the face of pressures exerted upon him in the past weeks.

Danon is indeed correct. Netanyahu did stand firm against Obama and the whole of the Media Machine.

Netanyahu did not lose sight of the main aim, and the main reason for his election, nd that is to save the Jes of Israel from a ne Holocaust of the Jews.

But you understand that the Jewish people are very divided and that there are real traitors inside the Israeli population.

As the following shows:

MK Ze’ev Boim (Kadima) said after the meeting, “It is too bad that the Number One expert in Israel on understanding American political culture stumbled when he tried to lure President Obama with meaningless verbiage.”

 Netanyahu “missed an opportunity to create real relations of trust, just as he is about to miss the historic opportunity mentioned by the President,” Boim added.

“Bibi should have known that verbal acrobatics will not persuade the President and it would have been better if he had arrived with a thought-out plan for dealing with the Palestinian issue in order to achieve American support for Israel’s approach on Iran,” Boim said.

Boim appears not to give tuppence about the Iranian Bomb threat and he appears to support the Jihadist Palestine state.

And Boim is from Kadima which is responsible through Sharon for the evacuation of every Jew from Gaza which as taken over by Hamas which has waged war on Israel since that event.

REMEMBER, AHMADINEJAD MADE THAT SPEECH IN A “WORLD WITHOUT ZIONISM” CONFERENCE!

by Felix Quigley

May 19, 2009

I continue to look at the radio station “Radio Talk Europe” which broadcasts in Spain.

Yesterday, May 18, its chief “politico” Stephen Ritson made a reference to AIPAC as a “Trojan Horse”.

What this is usually taken to mean is that there are Jewish Americans who are loyal to Israel and are traitors to America. The obvious meaning also is that this AIPAC as part of the “Jewish Lobby” control the US foreign agenda.

This control is in particular towards the Middle Eastern US policy, and the added nuance is that Israel is oppressing the “Palestinians”.

Ritson has also made a reference to Hamas as a “Resistance”.

Also in yesterday´s programme on Ritson´s hour long show a Kate Hoey called for a one state solution. She means a state with an Arab majority. The implication is that Jews could be safe in that state.

A week ago we reported that a Howard Brereton had run a BBC report the essence of which was that Israel was driving Muslims and Christians out of Bethlehem (time of Pope visit)

To complete the picture a Barry Norman called for a Palestine state on the Ritson show. Norman calls himself pro Israel!!!

Ritson is extremely favourably disposed to a “Barbara”, an American who rings each week, and who has the same politics as the terrorist supporting ISM.

When I rang once Ritson was heckling me before I even got started. Why the difference in treatment Ritson!!!

And to top it all the station is owned and run by a Jewish man Maurice Boland.

As we reported Boland (on his folksy show) seemed to call an Arab called Saleem who has broken from the PLO a fake. We also reported on this.

WHERE THIS IS LOCATED IN TODAY´S EVENTS

The big issue at the moment is the position of the US towards Iran and the Iranian Bomb.

It is on that issue that there needs to start a discussion as to what is the essence of the Iranian regime. This can focus on the meaning of the various statements which Ahmadinejad has made towards Israel.

(Can we take it as certain that the Iranian Mullahs wish to make a Nuclear Bomb and that that is the reason for their enrichment process)

Let us examine the statement of Ahmadinejad. Actually he has made many but let us focus on the statement made at one specific conference

 

I turn to the entry in Wikipedia because those who are pro Iranian Mullah and anti Israel have a fair shout in this entry. I focus on that part which deals with the “World Without Zionism” meeting or conference where Ahmadinejad made that disputed call.

Inside this there is a Canadian reference to this call by Ahmadinejad and teh Canadians claim that Iranian translators of the highest calibre were sure that he as calling literally for wiping Israel off the map.

But before we go into this lengthy quote from Wikipedia which the reader may decide to skim or read quickly, please do not miss the context

THE SPEECH WAS MADE AT A “WORLD WITHOUT ZIONISM” CONFERENCE

I will return to the significance of that later

[begin Wikipedia extract on the disputed Ahmadinejad speech]

2005 “World Without Zionism” speech

 

On October 26, 2005, IRIB News, an English-language subsidiary of the state-controlled Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, filed a story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s recent speech to the “World Without Zionism” conference in Asia. The story was entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map.[1] The story was picked up by Western news agencies and quickly made headlines around the world. On October 30, The New York Times published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying:

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[2]

Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over “the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power”,[3] and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as “acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.”

The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid.[4]

 

[edit] “Wiped off the map” or “Vanish from the pages of time” translation

Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) statement that Ahmadinejad had demanded that “Israel must be wiped off the map”,[5][6] an English idiom which means to “cause a place to stop existing”,[7] or to “obliterate totally”,[8] or “destroy completely”.[9]

Ahmadinejad’s phrase was ” بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود ” according to the text published on the President’s Office’s website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.[10]

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad’s statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[11]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as “be eliminated from the pages of history.”[12]

According to Cole, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ because no such idiom exists in Persian”. Instead, “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”[13]

On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[14]

Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.[15][16][17] On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. “Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned,” Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. “How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime,” he said.[18][19][20]

Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada who presented a paper at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust conference in Iran, believes the text is a mistranslation.[21]

Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—”wipe Israel off the map”—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[22][23][24]

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor and Israeli resident Ethan Bronner argued that Ahmadinejad had called for Israel to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner stated:

But translators in Tehran who work for the president’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than “vanish” because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

Bronner continued: “..it is hard to argue that, from Israel’s point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.”[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who took issue with the use of the word “map” instead of the phrase “wipe out” and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for misrepresenting Ethan Bronner.[25]

[edit] Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad

President Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[26] “There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want.”

Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you… there won’t be any war in the future,” both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[27][28]

And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn’t mean that there are objections against the Jewish”. He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country’s parliament.[27]

In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: “If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?” and replied

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay … Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it’s very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[29]

Interviewer Juan Gonzalez called the reply “a tiny opening”.[29] Another observer however dubbed it an “astonishing” admission “that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel,” and a “softening” of Ahmadinejad’s “long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance”. Australian-born British human rights activist Peter Tatchell also asked whether the statement reflected opportunism on Ahmadinejad’s part, or an openness by Iran “to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map.”[30]

 

[edit] Interpretation of speech as call for genocide

The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada‘s then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, “this threat to Israel’s existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran’s obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore.”[31]

In 2007, more than one hundred members of the United States House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill,[32] “Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.”[33]

Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:

His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the “occupation regime” in Gaza “vanish” last summer [sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.[34]

However, the Iranian government IRIB News in English published a story reporting on the Ahmadinejad speech on ‘Qods Day’ on Oct 5 2007, stating that the president ‘repeated an earlier suggestion to Europe on settlement of the Zionists in Europe or big lands such as Canada and Alaska so they would be able to own their own land.’[35]

Gawdat Bahgat, Director of Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, commenting on this saying of Ahmadinejad and Iran’s nuclear program states: “The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies. Iran has no plan to attack Israel with its nuclear arsenal and powerful conventional military capabilities. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni summed up his country’s stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict by stressing, ‘[The] Palestine issue is not Iran’s jihad.'” In fact, Bahgat says that according to most analysts a military confrontation between Iran and Israel is unlikely.[36]

In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein‘s regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, “they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan.”[2]

In April 2006, Iran’s ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad’s position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?

SOLTANIEH: I think I’ve already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no. But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.[37]

 

[end of lengthy extract from Wikipedia on interpretations of Ahmadinejad speech]

The above is taken from the Wikipedia entry under the url

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

 

THERE IS A REFERENCE IN THE ABOVE TO A MAN CALLED COLE, AND FOLLOWING THE LINK

Cole is a strong critic of Israel‘s foreign and military policy and its treatment of Palestinians. He criticizes the nature of America’s support for Israel and the activities of the “Israel Lobby”,[59] and claims that some senior US officials such as Doug Feith have dual loyalties to America and the Israeli Likud Party.[60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole#Israel

 

 

Remember that we said that we would not forget that the Ahmadinejad disputed comment was made at a “World without Zionism” conference.

SO LET US ASK JUST EXACTLY WHAT IS ZIONISM?

As an Irish person let me say that Zionism is Jewish nationalism, it is the wish of the Jews to have a Homeland which they can call their own.

Well the Irish have this. So why not the Jewish people as well!

Or is the world going to deny the right of the Jewish people to have a Homeland?

So let us call that sentiment by its very precise and proper name. To do that is indeed the action of an antisemitic person.

So the conference in total “World without Zionism” was indeed antisemitic.

Now that is the essence of the position of the Iranian Mullah Government as expressed by its President Ahmadinejad.

PLEASE LOOK AT THIS WIKIPEDI ENTRY AND YOU WILL FIND THAT AHMADINEJAD HAS MADE ABOUT 20 MAJOR AND SIMILAR SPEECHES ON ISRAEL, THE JES, THE HOLOCAUST ETC. THE MAN IS CLEARLY OBSESSED BY THIS ISSUE IS HE NOT!

So then have we established that the Iranian Mullah regime is based on antisemitism. If so what must be the action of the Jews of Israel if they have got knowledge that these antisemites are producing Nuclear Bomb capability.

That is the question which has to be addressed by these people, in no particular order

1. Obama

2. Barry Norman

3. Ritson, who seems to have a hatred for Israel

4. Hoey, who wants the Jewish state ended

5. Boland, the Jewish owner of that radio station, who hosts all of these people, and who condemns asa fake an Arab who opposes the PLO

And of course many others.

We do live in interesting, and if you are Jewish, very dangerous times.

THE GREAT DANGER OF HOLOCAUST FOR THE JEWS IN ISRAEL TODAY

by Felix Quigley

May 18, 2009

(later in this article we deal with a discussion on Radio Talk Europe, a weekly programme, and I listened to it today)

Today Netanyahu Prime Minister of Israel is in Washington to talk to Obama. This whole series of events and meetings has got life and death implications for the 6 million of Jews who live in Israel and for the Jews also in the Diaspora, whose future also depends totally on Israel.

The central issue is Iran and the attitude which the American Governments have had towards Iran. It is not simply Obama although this present Democratic Government run by Obama and Hilary Clinton is the most dangerous for Israel.

We also noted in recent weeks the role of the Papacy and the machinery of the Catholic Church and the great danger to Israel from the Pope.

The planned Palestine state which all of these, especially the Obama antisemitic team in Washington, is pushing for is the other side of the coin to the plans of Iran to get their hands on a Nuclear Bomb.

And behind this whole scenario, the threat to Israel from Iran, the atttacks on Israel by the Washington elite, the EU attacks also, lies the danger to Israel and Jews from antisemitism.

Consider this

1. A Palestine state lodged on the border of Israel will be dominated by Hamas

2. Hamas denies the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis

3. Hamas and Fatah, the whole Palestinian movement, was founded by the Nazi Hajj Amin el Husseini, who played a central role in the Holocaust

4. The whole of the Arab world was directly supporting the Nazis in the Holocaust. At the centre of operations in Germany with direct responsibility for the Balkans was the Arab from Palestine el Husseini

5. Recent vital research by 2 German academics, Mallman and Cuppers, has showed that the Nazis cum Arabs were intent on speading the Holocaust to Palestine, and that a team of killers were standing by in Egypt behind the Nazis Army which was fighting a life and death struggle in the Egyptian Desert to kill all Jews in Palestine

6. That in short is the history of the “Palestine” movement. Arafat was a relative of el Husseini. Abbas gained his doctorate in denial of the Holocaust.

That historical episode is what is posed today.

 

The great crisis in the leadership of the Jews is shown in that AIPAC, the group which canvasses support in America for Israel, has decided to campaign for a Palestine state, that is for a Nazi type state, which will be controlled by these Nazis and descendents of Nazis.

Another sign of the great crisis in leadership among Jews is suggestions that Jordan can be encouraged to take over the West Bank, that is Judea and Samaria. This is being suggested by Jewish bloggers like Ted Belman of Israpundit and I will show why this is totally bankrupt.

Inside Jordan there is already a population made up of at least 75 per cent Arab Palestinians. Consider then what these Jewish pundits are saying. That these 75 per cent be joined by all those Nazis and Jew haters from the West Bank and from Gaza. Who are directed and backed by Iran!

What then would happen?

Surely with Hamas in control this would mean total Jihadism in the Middle East.

Another sign of the great crisis in the ranks of the Jews was on a programme I listened to today on Radio Talk Europe.

Consider the panel of four on that who are Stephen Ritson, Norman Thomas, Barry Norman and a Kate Ferry.

Ritson today referred to AIPAC as a “Trojan Horse”, by which is usually meant that the Jews through AIPAC control the politics of the US Government. This is of course a lie.

Kate Ferry called for a single state, not a 2 state solution, which is whether Ferry knows it or not the position also of the terrorist supporting Palestine Solidarity Campaign. A single state would indeed be an Arab state with NO Jews except dead Jews. If you apply the logic of the Hamas Constitution.

Barry Thomas sees the problem as “extremists” on both sides who will not let it rest…so Israel is the same as the PLO etc

And Barry Norman supposed to be pro Israel (!!!) is now supporting Obama and the creation of a Palestine Jihadist state.

These positions are interesting only in so far as they express the whole of the EU elite and hatred of Israel.

And on top of this radio station, employing these 4 pundits, is Maurice Boland who is a Jewish man  from Dublin.

Can Maurice Boland, owner of Talk Radio Europe, now tell the world which of these 4 people that he agrees with?

Talk Radio Europe is in English and both Spanish and Europeans both listen to this. What then is the message that the Jihadists of the Palestine state will be good for Jews?

Is that really what Boland as the owner of this radio station really thinks? How does he get over the issue that it will be controled by Hamas. That when the Jews pulled out of Gaza and made it Judenfrei that Hamas used it as a base to attack Israel and to do what they only know, kill Jews.

What is the real lesson of the Gaza pull out by Israel? Did it bring peace? And why not?

Is Boland aware that Ritson referred to Hamas as a “resistance”. And should Boland not ask Ritson resistance to what and whom?

Why is Ferry allowed to call for a one state solution which means the obliteration of the state FOR the Jews, which was the very centre of the meaning of the Holocaust was it not?

And so on. The questions are endless.

What then is the alternative.

The first step in progress is to understand that the opposition to Israel is closely tied in with the politics and philosophy of Islam, that they simply do not want to have Jews living not only in their lands, but anywhere. They want a new Holocaust.

Remember Boland that Jews in the 1930s did not say anything and the result was the Holocaust.

Already Ritson has thrown a Holocaust Survivor, Naomi, off your station. How many other Jews are living in Spain who were in Palestine in the mid 1940s as Naomi tried to explain to Ritson but was thrown off Ritson´s station. That is over 60 approaching 70 years ago. Naomi was a child she told listeners. But there cannot be many, if any.

In short Boland I can find nobody on your station who is fighting for Israel and fighting for Jews. Yet you are Jewish.

 

We shall continue to monitor this weekly discussion programme led by Ritson and essentially hosted by Jewish man Boland.

THE COPTIC PRIEST WHO ISSUES A BIG CHALLENGE TO ISLAM

by Felix Quigley

May 15, 2009

We have been dealing with the interview which Maurice Boland did with  Kamal Saleem.

The basic point of difference between Saleem and Boland was this.

Boland has in his mind a rigid idea of Islam, probably of religion in general.

Boland probably argues to himself that all religions are good, all alike, all want peace, and it is just a minority of “bad” people who set out to use and abuse these religions for their own nefarious ends.

But Boland has not bothered to study the subject.

So how does he know that all religions are the same, or like Ritson claim that all religions are equally bad. There may after all be differences between these religions and you will not know until you do the leg work.

Those who have taken the time and effort to study Islam have reached their own conclusions. These are the really interesting and enterprising people.

The reality is this. We are living in a period of great crisis and great change in the capitalist system, possibly great dangers from unstable environmental issues are going to be thrown into the mix.

It is a period where ideas are being challenged as never before.

So someone in a country like England or Spain gets up and challenges Islam. Racist! Reactioanry! hiss those folk who have these rigid ideas in their head. The following story shows very well the way in which ordinary people are moving, and I would say the ordinary poor people in countries especially crisis ridden Asia, and in this case the Arab world, to challenge Islam and the dogmas of Islam.

[begin story of Zakaria Botros here]

 

National Review Online

March 25, 2008

Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1’
Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.

By Raymond Ibrahim

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy No 1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadidhas been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (I.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.

Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam  “ten demands” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.

The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world.

Several factors account for the Botros phenomenon.

First, the new media — particularly satellite TV and the Internet (the main conduits for Life TV) — have made it possible for questions about Islam to be made public without fear of reprisal. It is unprecedented to hear Muslims from around the Islamic world — even from Saudi Arabia, where imported Bibles are confiscated and burned — call into the show to argue with Botros and his colleagues, and sometimes, to accept Christ.

Secondly, Botros’s broadcasts are in Arabic — the language of some 200 million people, most of them Muslim. While several Western writers have published persuasive critiques of Islam, their arguments go largely unnoticed in the Islamic world. Botros’s mastery of classical Arabic not only allows him to reach a broader audience, it enables him to delve deeply into the voluminous Arabic literature — much of it untapped by Western writers who rely on translations — and so report to the average Muslim on the discrepancies and affronts to moral common sense found within this vast corpus.

A third reason for Botros’s success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme — from the pressing to the esoteric — often expressed as a question (e.g., “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” “Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?”). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes — always careful to give sources and reference numbers — from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet — the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present — the illustrious ulema.

Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.

More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.

Botros spent three years bringing to broad public attention a scandalous — and authentic — hadith stating that women should “breastfeed” strange men with whom they must spend any amount of time. A leading hadith scholar, And al-Muhdi, was confronted with this issue on the live talk show of popular Arabic host Hala Sirhan. Opting to be truthful, al-Muhdi confirmed that going through the motions of breastfeeding adult males is, according to sharia, a legitimate way of making married women “forbidden” to the men with whom they are forced into contact — the logic being that, by being “breastfed,” the men become like “sons” to the women and therefore can no longer have sexual designs on them.

To make matters worse, Ezzat Atiyya, head of the Hadith department at al-Azhar University — Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution — went so far as to issue a fatwa legitimatizing “Rida’ al-Kibir” (sharia’s term for “breastfeeding the adult”), which prompted such outrage in the Islamic world that it was subsequently recanted.

Botros played the key role in exposing this obscure and embarrassing issue and forcing the ulema to respond. Another guest on Hala Sirhan’s show, Abd al-Fatah, slyly indicated that the entire controversy was instigated by Botros: “I know you all [fellow panelists] watch that channel and that priest and that none of you [pointing at Abd al-Muhdi] can ever respond to him, since he always documents his sources!”

Incapable of rebutting Botros, the only strategy left to the ulema (aside from a rumored $5-million bounty on his head) is to ignore him. When his name is brought up, they dismiss him as a troublemaking liar who is backed by — who else? — international “Jewry.” They could easily refute his points, they insist, but will not deign to do so. That strategy may satisfy some Muslims, but others are demanding straightforward responses from the ulema.

The most dramatic example of this occurred on another famous show on the international station, Iqra. The host, Basma — a conservative Muslim woman in full hijab — asked two prominent ulema, including Sheikh Gamal Qutb, one-time grand mufti of al-Azhar University, to explain the legality of the Koranic verse (4:24) that permits men to freely copulate with captive women. She repeatedly asked: “According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema would give no clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. Basma remained adamant: Muslim youth were confused, and needed a response, since “there is a certain channel and a certain man who has discussed this issue over twenty times and has received no response from you.”

The flustered Sheikh Qutb roared, “low-life people like that must be totally ignored!” and stormed off the set. He later returned, but refused to admit that Islam indeed permits sex-slaves, spending his time attacking Botros instead. When Basma said “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand the issue of concubinage in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,” the sheikh responded, “You don’t need to understand.” As for Muslims who watch and are influenced by Botros, he barked, “Too bad for them! If my son is sick and chooses to visit a mechanic, not a doctor — that’s his problem!”

But the ultimate reason for Botros’s success is that — unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint — his primary interest is the salvation of souls. He often begins and concludes his programs by stating that he loves all Muslims as fellow humans and wants to steer them away from falsehood to Truth. To that end, he doesn’t just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites all his viewers to come to Christ.

Botros’s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote “Israeli interests,” or “demonize” Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another. And so Father Zakaria Botros has been fighting fire with fire.

Raymond Ibrahim is the editor of The Al-Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.

BOLAND MUST DECIDE IS ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE

by Felix Quigley

May 15, 2009

The Irish Jewish man Maurice Boland who resides in the South of Spain and there runs a radio station in his interview with Kamal Saleem is of the opinion that the Koran and Islam is good, just that there is a minority who have distorted it.

This caused in the interview with Saleem an inordinate amount of hostility to this excellent Arab man, who has broken with the Fascist PLO and who actually fears for his life on that score.

I think Boland gave Saleem scant respect.

This was very strange. Boland claims to be a supporter of Israel so why was he not rolling out the welcome mat to Saleem.

Maybe he is just scared, scared of what the Islamofascists might and could do to his station etc. If so that is understandable anyways but it only serves to hightlight the problem, not make it go away.

So then how to resolve the problem and unanswered difference between Saleem and Boland?

Boland has probably never read a word of the Koran but still somehow thinks it is a religion of peace, just a minority distorting its message.

I would say that this is a leap into the dark by Boland. I think he is being a little adventurous in this. I doubt he has done the research. Boland therefore is in danger of lapsing from opinion to prejudice.

Actually the issue was admirably stated and answered by John Spencer on Front Page magazine some time ago.

We could do worse than have a good look at what Spencer wrote since Spencer is in my opinion the authority on the subject and really has put in the hours in studying this phenomenon, at the centre of which is the Koran.

I think that this publication of Spencer´s thoughts is the best answer to Boland who after Saleem had jumped on his bike to ride home was slandering Saleem as a phoney.

[begin extract from the John Spencer analysis of Islam here]

Killing for Allah

by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch

March 29, 2006

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21831

Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 29, 2006

Before he drove a rented SUV onto the campus of the University of North Carolina and tried to run down and kill as many people as he could on March 3, Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar left a letter of explanation in his apartment. It is chillingly detached, almost clinical: “In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate. To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah.”

 

In the letter, Taheri-azar identifies himself simply as “a servant of Allah.” He declares that “in the Qur’an, Allah states that the believing men and women have permission to murder anyone responsible for the killing of other believing men and women.…After extensive contemplation and reflection, I have made the decision to exercise the right of violent retaliation that Allah has given me to the fullest extent to which I am capable at present.” And further, “Allah’s commandments are never to be questioned and all of Allah’s commandments must be obeyed. Those who violate Allah’s commandments and purposefully follow human fabrication and falsehood as their religion will burn in fire for eternity in accordance with Allah’s will.”

In a letter written a week later, Taheri-azar asserted: “I live with the holy Koran as my constitution for right and wrong and definition of justice…. Allah gives permission in the Koran for the followers of Allah to attack those who have raged [sic] war against them, with the expectation of eternal paradise in case of martyrdom and/or living one’s life in obedience of all of Allah’s commandments found throughout the Koran’s 114 chapters. I’ve read all 114 chapters approximately 15 times since June of 2003 when I started reading the Koran.” And he did not try to murder UNC students “out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead. I live only to serve Allah, by obeying all of Allah’s commandments of which I am aware by reading and learning the contents of the Koran.”

Taheri-azar may have been referring to passages such as Qur’an 2:190 (“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you…”) and 9:111: “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain…” There are numerous other passages enjoining violence against unbelievers (2:216; 9:5; 9:29; 47:4; etc.). But in response, according to a local news report, “several leaders of the Triangle Muslim community say Taheri-azar’s personal interpretation of the Quran is wrong and it goes against the true belief of Muslims across the world — which is peace.”

Such a response was predictable both in its content and lack of specificity. Every day brings more evidence that Muslims believe the Qur’an enjoins anything but peace: Monday saw hundreds of Muslim clerics demonstrating in Afghanistan against the release of Christian convert Abdul Rahman. They chanted “Death to Christians!” and called for the killing of Abdul Rahman in accord with Islam’s traditional prohibition of apostasy. One cleric, Faiez Mohammed of Kunduz, was succinct: “Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it.”

It is abundantly clear that even if Mohammed Taheri-azar acted alone on March 3 in Chapel Hill, his view of the Qur’an is not eccentric among Muslims worldwide. Yet three and a half years after Muhammad Atta and his crew flew a plane into the World Trade Center out of love for Allah, we still don’t see any sustained or concerted effort by self-proclaimed peaceful Muslims in the United States or anywhere else to disabuse their coreligionists of this jihad ideology, and its globalist, supremacist, totalitarian political agenda. Such an effort should not be seen as optional or incidental; without it, the very commitment of these self-proclaimed moderates to the United States and its Constitution can and should be called into question.

Also, analysts keep focusing on the question of whether or not Taheri-azar was a “terrorist.” I don’t care if you call him a canteloupe. The real problem here is that anyone anywhere at any time can read the Qur’an and come to the same conclusion that he did. If American officials were really serious about preventing a future attack, they would address that. If American Muslim advocacy groups were really serious about being loyal, patriotic Americans, they would address that.

Am I saying that the Qur’an should be outlawed, as was attempted long ago in Calcutta and about which there have been some rumblings recently in Germany?

No, I would prefer to deal more in the realm of what is realistically possible. I’d like to see an honest public discussion of the elements of the Qur’an and Sunnah that give impetus to violence and fanaticism. I’d like to see American Muslim spokesmen explain how they will specifically address these elements, and teach Muslims to reject them in favor of the principles of the equality of dignity and rights of all people, women as well as men, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. And I’d like to see them follow through on these explanations with real action.

Only then might we be getting somewhere against the phenomenon represented by Mohammed Taheri-azar. I am not holding my breath.

[end analysis here]

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1802

In conclusion, in fact that is what Kamal Saleem in his interview with Maurice Boland was doing.

He was calling for an honest look at the Koran and at the teachings of Mohammed and those who came after him. Also for an objective look at the role of Islam in history.

A debate! To his great shame Boland did the opposite in this interview on his radio station.

Every question which Boland posed to Saleem he answered in a comprehensive and cool manner.

For example when Saleem pointed to the effects of the hate filled passages in the Koran on Muslims in this day and age Boland asked for the evidence. Saleem directed Boland to the Pew website which is the recognized expert on statistics.

Boland was silent.

Yet when Saleem was gone Boland went on to slander Saleem to claim that he was a phoney.

Today Stephen Ritson on Boland´s station opened up a new front against Israel. Ritson was opposing the right of Israel to defend itself against the Iranian Fascists and their Jew hatred, at the centre of which surely is their H Bomb plan. Ritson by the way in practice lines up with Obama and against Netanyahu and Israel, thus Ritson the “Leftist” is on the side of Imperialism in the shape of Obama and the US State Department.

Under the influence of Ritson, and unable to cope with events, I can see Boland ending up attacking Israel. Hope not but we shall see.

BOLAND AND SALEEM INTERVIEW POSES QUESTION IS ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE?

by Felix Quigley

15 May, 2009

As stated last night Maurice Boland the Irish Jewish man who resides in the south of Spain and runs a radio station (called Talk Radio Europe)interviewed Kamal Saleem.

Much information about Arafat´s PLO was put out by Saleem and it was strange that Boland seemed to me to be uneasy with Saleem.

After all Boland is Jewish and is I would have thought a supporter of Israel. So when Saleem was exposing the real terrorist nature of the Palestinians and the Palestinian movement then why not be supportive.

Even before Saleem came on Boland had stated that Saleem´s views were not those of the station. Is Boland afraid of upsetting Islamists? Understandable if he is. But not good!

Saleem gave many leads that Boland did not follow up very hard.

He made heavy work of Saleem being recruited as a child, 7 year old, and used in a specific action, hence the name of the book “Blood of Lambs”.

We have pictures on our site which shows this is a common thing in the PLO.

Saleem stated he heard Arafat say that the Arabs above all must capture Jerusalem. Very apt as the interview took place in the Pope´s visit! But not followed up by Boland.

By the way the Pope´s visit was actually pretty well ignored by Boland´s station, except for one notorious BBC extract used by Howard Brereton which claimed that the Jews were driving the Christians out of Jerusalem (along with Muslims!)

Boland ever since the Gaza War has been on a dumbing down mission on his station, he refuses to confront the extremely biased against Israel reporter Stephen Ritson, and in his morning show from 8 to 10 Boland has employed a man called Jeremy who must qualify as not so much the King of Trivia but the Emperor of Trivia. His programmes are idiotic and a total insult to human intelligence! That in my opinion IS Boland and the direction Boland gives to HIS station.

In any case there was barely concealed hostility from Boland to Saleem.

I was not imagining this because when Saleem waved goodbye at the end of his interview Boland continued talking to his listeners. Then a strange, but actually disgustingly strange thing happened.

Boland claimed that the interview made him uneasy and that he believed that Saleem was a phoney, and in summing up at the end never a terrorist at all.

But he did not say it to Saleem´s face!

This was reminiscent of 2 things

 

1. When Stephen Ritson threw a Jewish woman called Naomi off his programme and Boland did not defend Naomi… I do not know Naomi but she told listeners before that she was present in 1947 in Israel and that things were so bad she had to flee to Cyprus. So Ritson threw a Holocaust Survivor off his programme because all present in Israel in 1947 to 49 were indeed fleeing from the Holocaust.

2. During the Gaza War a few months back Boland wanted to put the commercial interests of his station first. So he sought to close down the debate on Gaza. This however gave the green light to Ritson who is very biased against Israel. I realized Boland was doing this when he did an interview with Ian O´Doherty but then refused to broadcast the interview. O´Doherty was an opponent of Hamas.

Though many things came out last night in the interview which Boland did with Saleem it all centred on this question

Saleem insisted that present Muslim violence and hatred of Christians and Jews comes from the prophet Mohammed and from the Koran itself. Saleem referred to the part where the Jews are hiding behind trees and the trees are shouting out etc etc. But he was insistent that the Koran itself was the problem

Boland took the opposite view totally. He said the Koran was good just that a minority was misinterpreting it. He seemed to have it in his mind that there is no difference in this regard between the Torah, Bible and Koran, thus between Jews, Christians and Muslims. So Boland was echoing the line of Bush when he appeared morning after 9.11 and amid the cinders referred to Islam as the “Religion of Peace”.

And that is where the issue was left.

So we can see now that there is little difference between Boland, who is Jewish and nominally pro Israel, and Ritson who appears (actually to me quite obvious) to be full of hatred for Israel.

But re the Koran that is Boland´s opinion, and nothing more. In order to test this opinion, that Islam is a Religion of Peace, just as much as is the New Testament with its main figure head Jesus for example, we have to actually test the Koran.

Rather than take Boland´s word for it, actually a prejudice and just his opinion, we  have to do some research on the Koran itself.

Is Saleem right, or is Maurice Boland who echoes Bush right? We will see.

What gets me re Boland is this. Boland obviously was hostile in the interview to Saleem. That is fine. But when the interview was over Boland had no right to say he thought Saleem was phoney in some way. Saleem had answered every question, notably one on statistics, when he referred Boland to the Pew website. Boland actually owes Saleem an apology and probably owes Ian O´Doherty an apology as well.

But let us not deflect from the central issue. What about the Koran and Islam. Is it really a religion of peace?

A COURAGEOUS ARAB SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE PLO

Last night on Talk Radio Europe Maurice Boland interviewed Kamal Saleem. The interview by Boland was a total disgrace.

In next articles on 4international we shall look at the “Boland Method” of interviewing and we shall show just what he did to this courageous Arab who has broken witht he Fascist PLO

For the moment readers can go onto the site of this courageous Arab man and can read something for themselves.

On the site there is an acknowledgement from another very courageous Arab who is not prepared to toe the Arab Fascist line of Jew hatred. This is Walid Shoebat.

[begin quote here from the Saleem site]
“The Blood of Lambs is a book that all Americans who love truth and freedom should read. Using guile, patience, intimidation, and violence, Islamic fundamentalists are trying to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Islamic law. Kamal is one of the few brave former terrorists telling the truths that most wish to close their eyes and ears to. I commend Kamal in his work to wake up America.”

[end quote from the Saleem site here]

http://www.kamalsaleem.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80&Itemid=58