web analytics
October 1, 2014 / 7 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Gatestone Institute’

What the West is Funding: Palestinian Suppression of Free Speech

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

The Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank [Judea and Samaria -ed.] has come up with a new method to silence its Palestinian critics.

From now on, any Palestinian writer or journalist who dares to criticize Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his policies or demand an end to corruption will be accused of “belittling the dignity of the state.”

Since the beginning of this year, at least 10 Palestinian journalists, bloggers and political opponents have been detained by various Palestinian Authority security services for writing about corruption and criticizing the Palestinian leadership.

Until recently, the Palestinian Authority, which is funded by the U.S. and E.U., used to throw its critics into prison.

But following condemnations from Palestinian and international human rights organizations, the Palestinian Authority decided to resort to a new method to silence its critics – this time by accusing them of “belittling the dignity” of a non-existent Palestinian state.

This charge is based on a 1960 Jordanian law still effective in the West Bank. Although the Palestinian Authority has its own laws, to achieve its goals it does not hesitate every now and then to resort to Jordanian laws.

But as the case of Jihad Harb shows, Abbas and his aides are more concerned about their own dignity than that of the imaginary state.

Harb, a Palestinian writer and political analyst, was summoned this week for interrogation by the Palestinian security forces in Ramallah and charged, on the basis of the Jordanian law, with “belittling the dignity of the state.”

Harb was told that the director of Abbas’s office had lodged a complaint against him for libel and slander because of an article criticizing Abbas’s policy of promoting public employees.

Entitled “Presidential Decisions Are Made In A Coffee Shop,” Harb’s article criticized Abbas’s decision to promote more than 500 civil servants over the past five years — noting that many of them were unfit to serve in their jobs.

Before he was summoned for interrogation, Harb received threats from from top Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah that he would be punished for hanging the dirty laundry in public.

The officials told the writer that he may would face trial for criticizing Abbas at a time when the US and Israel are “waging a fierce campaign” against the Palestinian Authority president because of his insistence on pursuing his request for membership in the UN.

Harb said that the decision to summon him for questioning was in the context of the Palestinian Authority leadership’s campaign to intimidate Palestinian writers and journalists and stop them from discussing internal issues.

Harb added that the decision was also in violation of Abbas’s recent statement that the “sky was the limit for freedom of expression” in the West Bank.

Palestinian writers and human rights groups have, meanwhile, expressed deep concern over the Palestinian Authority’s crackdown on freedom of expression in the West Bank.

International human rights groups, however, and countries that fund and support Abbas’s authority have yet to sound their voices.

Many Palestinian writers and journalists in the West Bank today live in fear of being harassed by the Palestinian Authority because of their views and writings. Some practice self-censorship, while others are writing under different names or have found themselves new and less dangerous professions.

There is no reason why those who are pouring millions of dollars on the Palestinian Authority should not demand an end to suppression of freedom of expression and the growing clampdown on writers and journalists in the West Bank.

Failing to hold the Palestinian Authority accountable for its actions will only drive more Palestinians into the arms of Hamas and the other radical forces.

Originally published at the Gatestone Institute.

Will the US Help the Muslim Brotherhood Take Jordan?

Wednesday, October 31st, 2012

It might be helpful now to start wondering what sort of ideas Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, and its leader, Controller General Sheikh Hamam Sai’d, will advance if they seize power in Jordan — possibly with the blessing and encouragement of the United States.

Sheikh Sai’d, of Palestinian origin, was elected to the leadership of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood in 2008 by its hardline faction. They support a partnership with Hamas and the overthrow of Middle Eastern leaders who side with the United States.

The prominent Jordanian journalist, Osama Al-Rantisi, published an article on July 14, 2011, in the Jordanian daily newspaper, Al-ghad, in which he alleged that Sai’d had held a meeting in Turkey with “recently-retired officers from the CIA and the internal counter-intelligence and security agency, the MI5.”

This was followed by Al-Arabiya TV Network, which also ran an article on its website on May 22, 2012, detailing allegations made by Al-Rantisi that:

Dr. Hammam Sai’d and former Egyptian Brotherhood leader Dr. Kamal Halbawi had met last June [of 2011] in Istanbul, Turkey with former CIA deputy director Steven Kappes, and former MI5 chief Eliza Manningham-Buller.

Al-Rantisi goes on to say that both Kappes and Manningham-Buller pledged in the meeting that, “The U.S. government and its intelligence services will support the Muslim brotherhood goals of coming to power,” and “urging them [Muslim Brotherhood members] to fight terrorism and to establish peace with Israel.”

Presumably, each side thinks it will co-opt the other, and neither side will budge. After all, if the U.S. has tolerated the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, why not also in Jordan?

Not surprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood dismissed Al-Rantisi’s claims and sued him for damages. Nonethless, Al-Rantisi stuck by the claims he had made when questioned by Al-Arabiya, alleging his information was based on “unofficial minutes of that alleged meeting” between Hamam Sai’d and the officers mentioned above.

Sheikh Sai’d’s son, Anes Sai’d, recently released a video on YouTube speaking of his woes with his father and with the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. The video provides a nightmarish glimpse of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top man in Jordan, and only intensifies the fears of the liberal and secular Jordanians of an Egyptian-like Muslim Brotherhood takeover.

In the video, Anes describes his father as “an unfair, licentious and corrupt person;” he also details cruelties to which his father allegedly subjected him. He goes on to describe the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan as “trading in religion.”

Anes starts by affirming his identity and exhibiting his academic qualifications:

Peace on all, my name is Anes Hammam Sai’d, an architect. I graduated top of my class from the University of Jordan in 1996; I run a design office with a partner and I have passed the qualifications exam of the Union [of Jordanian Engineers].

Anes then describes himself as a Baathist – from the secular pan-Arab nationalist movement, which shares the Islamists’ hatred for Israel, but opposes the establishment of an Islamist state.

Shortly after that, Anes starts criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization his father in Jordan controls.

The Muslim Brotherhood movement in Jordan is political child’s play; in Egypt they [the Muslim Brotherhood] were tortured, executed, beaten and imprisoned; here the Jordanian Muslim brotherhood uses the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the Jordanian regime’s tolerance for them, to gain popularity…In Egypt, the basic thing to do is either to stay at home or do something useful that changes things for the best. But here, joining a protest or a march to say, ‘I am the Muslim Brotherhood, I am the opposition,’ this is the utmost stupidity, nonsense and children’s play; it is trading with religion, they [the Muslim Brotherhood] are trading with religion, they have not been elected, they were appointed.

Anes concludes by affirming that he thinks he would be hurt by the Muslim Brotherhood:

All that I said here, they [the Muslim Brotherhood] know is true. I swear to God if I am to say this in public I would be hanged, they would hang me in downtown Amman; all the harsh conditions I have endured and the hard days I have been through have made me cling more to life, and God is my witness that I forgive the Muslim Brotherhood in this life and the afterlife.

To verify the video, the author contacted one of Hamam Sai’d’s family friends, who now resides in the United Kingdom, and who went to school with Anes. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, he confirmed that the person in the video was actually Hamam Sai’d’s son, Anes, and added that he was not shocked at all by the video: “His father has always been harsh and crude to him and everyone else who enters his circle, and he is indeed a very manipulative man who plays well on words.”

Freedom House Readies Downgrade of Israel, Based on Palestinian Deceit

Tuesday, October 30th, 2012

In a clear distortion of information, the once prestigious Freedom House, a not-for-profit organization that purports to monitor which societies in the world are truly free, appears deliberately to have omitted and misrepresented easily verifiable information in what can only be seen as an attempt to downgrade Israel from “free” to “partly free.”

This self-appointed, proclaimed monitor of freedom, itself only partly-free, not only cites Arab and radical propaganda taken as fact, with no checking, off the internet, to declare Israel as less free, but condemns it for protecting itself from daily bombardments of the terrorist organization, Hamas. Last week, in 24 hours alone, over 80 rockets were fired on a city in Israel’s south, “Can you imagine, one writer asks,” if even one rocket were fired on Washington, London, Paris or Moscow?”

While on the surface that might not seem a calamity, these falsehoods follow a pattern — as with Human Rights Watch [see www.NGO-Monitor.org for details] or the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) — maliciously and recklessly to distort the situation of human rights in the Middle East in general, and Israel in particular, apparently for no other purpose than to defame the only democracy in the Middle East, one which is daily threatened with eradication.

The ISM operates as a human shield for terrorist groups; it works cooperatively with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the PFLP. The Palestinians have found a formula of deception to put a good face on their terrorism sponsors’ irredentist movement. They now claim they represent humanitarianism and freedom when in reality they promote the takeover goals of totalitarianism, arresting journalists wholesale and inciting violence from government-controlled media. A vast number of websites — some have even crept into the classrooms of American colleges — now claim to have valid research and have reversed the facts behind just who represents genuine freedom, and who is seeking the destruction of a free and democratic state, Israel, to install a new totalitarian one in its place.

Among its many reports which explain the downgrade of certain states’ freedom rankings, the one about Israel not only distorts history but even reverses facts, when describing who has rights to pray on the Temple Mount.

According to the report, “Citing security concerns, Israel occasionally restricts Muslim worshippers’ access to the Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif, in Jerusalem. In October 2011, Jewish extremists burned and vandalized a mosque in the northern village of Tuba-Zangariya, leading to protests by hundreds of residents and minor clashes with police.”

The report makes no mention that Israel gave complete administrative control of the Temple Mount, the Jews’ holiest shrine, to the Waqf, the Muslim religious administration, in 1967. The Waqf does not allow any Jewish praying on the Mount, even arresting Jews who dare to move their lips or even close their eyes, for fear they might be praying. The Waqf also relies on the Israeli police, many of whom are Arabs and not Jews, to enforce this edict.

Muslims are not restricted from praying on the Mount, except on high Muslim holidays, when the police — after they had determined that younger males are more inclined to violence — sometimes admit males only over the age of 40 to prevent riots and attacks on the police. In any event, as on many earlier occasions, when Arab worshippers have attacked the police, the number of worshippers admitted on Muslim high holidays days would be restricted for normal crowd control.

For Freedom House to try and suggest that Jews are keeping Muslims from praying on the Temple Mount is disingenuous, if not libelous, and reveals at best a substandard level of competence.

As for the mosque burning incident, this was not a government-sponsored crime, but conducted by individuals who are being sought by the Israeli police for arrest and prosecution; yet Freedom House would have its readers believe this was a government-sanctioned attack. Prosecutors in Israel prosecute any Jews who attack or deface Muslim shrines and Jews go to jail. This is tantamount to falsely suggesting Klansmen who burned black churches in the Jim Crow South were carrying out US government functions.

Similar distortions also abound in the Freedom House report on educational matters. Two paragraphs in particular are disturbing; they state,

“Legislation passed in March 2011 requires the state to fine or withdraw funds from local authorities and other state-funded groups that hold events marking Al-Nakba on Israeli independence day; that support armed resistance or “racism” against Israel; or that desecrate the state flag or national symbols. Both Arab rights and freedom of expression groups criticized the law as an unnecessary and provocative restriction.

“In July, the Knesset passed the so-called Boycott Law, which exposes Israeli individuals and groups to civil lawsuits if they advocate an economic, cultural, or academic boycott of the State of Israel or West Bank settlements, even without clear proof of financial damage. Petitions filed against the law were pending at year’s end.”

The article does not explain that Al-Nakba in Arabic refers to the founding of Israel as a “catastrophe” for the Arabs living in Israel. The “Arab rights” and “freedom of expression groups” (unnamed) which opposed the new law all advocate the destruction and replacement of the Jewish state by an Arab-dominated one which would not have religious or gender-based freedom, the same as other Arab states in the region. The boycott of Israel is even opposed by the Palestinian Authority government-in-the-making; it is a continuation of the Arab League’s unending declared financial war on Israel, a war that began in 1922. Israel does not prohibit individuals from making such statements advocating destruction of the Jewish state, only the lawsuit rights of victims who pay Israeli taxpayer money to pay for it as a function of government.

Which Fatah Won the Palestinian Local Elections?

Monday, October 29th, 2012

Fatah leaders were quick to declare victory in the October 20 local elections in the West Bank [Judea and Samaria -Ed.]. But the results of the vote for 93 municipal and village councils show that the vote was anything but a victory.

True, in some cities and villages, Fatah did win a majority of seats.

But this is not the same Fatah that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and the old guard leadership of the faction had backed.

Boycotted by Hamas, this was an election where Abbas’s veteran Fatah leadership mainly competed with Fatah candidates who decided to run on an independent ticket.

In the end, the Fatah “rebels” scored major victories in important cities, such as Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah, as well as many villages.

Abbas and the veteran Fatah leadership tried up to the last minute to dissuade the disgruntled members of his faction from running as independents, but to no avail.

The Fatah Central Committee, a body dominated by Abbas loyalists, later decided to expel all the Fatah candidates who insisted on running in the election separately.

The results of the elections show that many of the Fatah candidates who were dismissed scored significant victories. Candidates who were expelled from Fatah defeated those who expelled them: Abbas and old guard Fatah leaders.

Even in places where Abbas’s Fatah candidates won, the vote was on the basis of clan affiliation. Many Palestinians voted for Abbas’s Fatah candidates not because they were satisfied with the old guard leadership of Fatah, but simply because the candidate happened to belong to their clan.

What is perhaps most worrying for Abbas is the fact that a large number of his policemen and security officers voted for the dissident Fatah candidates who ran against the Palestinian Authority’s nominees.

Moreover, low voter turnout in many cities and villages is seen as a sign of indifference on the part of Palestinians in the West Bank. Palestinian analysts are convinced that had Hamas participated in the elections, turnout would have been much higher and the Islamist movement would easily have defeated a divided Fatah.

The low turnout and the success of Fatah rebels in the elections should be seen as a vote of no-confidence in Abbas and the old guard leadership of his ruling faction.

For decades, Abbas and his veteran loyalists in Fatah have blocked the emergence of fresh and younger leaders – something that has seriously affected Fatah’s credibility. Failure to reform Fatah and get rid of corrupt officials has also driven many Palestinians away from Abbas and his loyalists.

Abbas’s term in office expired in January 2009, but this has not stopped him from continuing to cling to power. In wake of the results of the local elections, it has become obvious that Abbas does not have a mandate — even from his Fatah faction — to embark on any significant political move, such as signing a peace treaty with Israel or applying for membership for a Palestinian state in the UN.

Instead of going to New York next month to ask for Palestinian membership, Abbas should stay in Ramallah and work toward reuniting and reforming Fatah before his political rivals drive him and his veteran loyalists out of office.

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

When US Troops Leave Afghanistan

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

The Pakistani Taliban caused widespread revulsion when it recently gunned down 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai, whose “crime” was to ask for an education. Although assassinations and terrorism are common in Pakistan, what provoked such outcry is that Yousafzai was targeted because of her background as a campaigner for women’s rights.

Yousafzai lives in the Mingora area of Swat in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, where scores of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters have taken refuge. Yousafzai first captured their attention after launching a campaign against attempts by the Taliban to impose their version of Shariah law in the region, whereby men were forced to grow their beards and girls were prevented from attending school. She has campaigned against these demands since the age of 11.

For her efforts, Yousafzai was given a bravery award by Pakistani President Yousuf Raza Gilani last year. She was rightly celebrated and championed by politicians from across all sides of the political spectrum. Yet, not one of them ever bothered to question why a teenager needs to campaign for her right to an education. No one thought to question who would fear a small, young girl.

Herein lies the problem in Pakistan. The political class is simply unwilling to confront the Taliban which operates freely across much of the FATA region. Instead, they make political capital from criticising the drone program operated by the United States which targets terrorists in FATA. It is true that drones can sometimes be a blunt and clumsy tool, but in the absence of any will by Pakistani authorities to chase down the terrorists operating in FATA, this program is the only lifeline available to residents there who oppose the Taliban.

Two weeks ago the cricketer-turned-politician, Imran Khan, vowed to lead a “peace convoy” to Waziristan, another Taliban hotbed in FATA. Khan said he wanted protest drone strikes but, in the end, stopped short of entering FATA after the Taliban threatened to attack him. Without a hint of irony, Khan continued to blame the United States for the problems in Pakistan.

After the attempted assassination of Yousafzai, Khan was again directing his rage at America – rather than those who pulled the trigger. He told a press conference (available in Urdu here) that the Pakistani government has antagonised the Taliban by launching a crackdown in the tribal areas. Worse, he said that Taliban fighters who targeted coalition forces in Afghanistan are fighting a “legitimate jihad.”

The Afghan government reacted angrily to these comments, telling the Guardian:

Either [Imran Khan is] profoundly and dangerously ignorant about the reality in Afghanistan, or he has ill will against the Afghan people.

Our children are killed on daily basis, civilians killed, and our schools, hospitals and infrastructure attacked on a daily basis. To call any of that jihad is profoundly wrong and misguided.

Although Yousafzai was shot in the head she has survived the Taliban’s attempts to kill her, and is now in Britain where she is receiving special medical attention. Yet the spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, Ehsanullah Ehsan, has vowed to try again to kill her.

He has branded Yousafzai an “American spy,” who spread “Western ideas.” In a statement to the Pakistani press,Ehsan said:

She was pro-West, she was speaking against Taliban and she was calling President Obama her idol. She was young but she was promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas.

In a subsequent statement, he added:

In Islam and Pakhtun traditions there is absolutely no room for an attack on a woman of pure virtues. But in cases where a woman is seen as a clear sinner who stands in defiance of Shariah, such a woman is not only allowed to be attacked but there is an obligatory instruction for such an action.

She not only spied against Mujahideen but also created propaganda against them. The Gul Makai diary [an online diary Yousafzai wrote for the BBC about life under the Taliban] is an embodiment of anti-Taliban views. She has received the punishment for her sin.

The attack on Yousafzai perfectly encapsulates all that is wrong with Pakistan today. The Taliban arrogate for themselves the role of arbiters of public morality and conduct. They kill anyone who disagrees with them and are allowed to operate with impunity.

Qatar Strengthening Hamas in Gaza

Thursday, October 25th, 2012

The U.S. Administration has sought to downplay the significance of this week’s visit to the Gaza Strip by the Emir of Qatar, Hamad al-Thani.

“We have seen the reports that Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa visits Gaza today on a humanitarian mission,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. “We share Qatar’s deep concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people, including those residing in Gaza.”

Many Palestinians, especially the Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank [Judea and Samaria -ed.], do not share the U.S. Administration’s position regarding the emir’s visit.

Palestinian Authority leaders do not see the visit as a “humanitarian mission,” but as an attempt to strengthen Hamas.

In fact, the high-profile visit of the emir and his wife to the Gaza Strip was anything but a “humanitarian mission.”

This was a visit that has political and economic implications, not only for the Palestinians, but for the entire region as well.

True, the emir promised to invest $400 million in various projects in the Gaza Strip. It remains to be seen if the Qatari ruler will fulfill his promise.

The timing of the visit raises many questions and sheds light as to the emir’s true motives.

Qatar has always been supportive not only of Hamas, but Muslim Brotherhood and many jihadi organizations.

If Qatar really had “deep concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people,” where was the emir during the past seven years?

As the emir himself pointed out during the visit, it was the so-called Arab Spring — which has seen the rise of Islamists to power in a number of Arab countries over the past two years – that paved the way for his visit to the Gaza Strip.

“Were it not for the Egyptian revolution and President Mohamed Morsi,” the emir said, “the visit would not have taken place.”

The emir came to the Gaza Strip to offer not only financial aid to Hamas, but also moral and political backing. The visit, the first of its kind by a head of state to the Gaza Strip since Hamas seized control over the area in 2007, was aimed at helping the Islamist movement break the state of isolation in which it has been since then.

The emir did not come to the Gaza Strip to try to persuade Hamas to abandon terror and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Nor did he come to the Gaza Strip to tell Hamas to endorse democracy and stop its oppressive measures against Palestinians, particularly women.

The emir’s visit is a huge diplomatic victory for Hamas and a severe blow to moderate Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority.

Palestinian leaders in the West Bank were quick to express deep disappointment with the emir’s visit, rightly arguing that it would only enhance Hamas’s standing and empower the radical camp among the Palestinians.

The emir’s visit also means that the Gaza Strip has become a separate Palestinian entity that has no link to the West Bank’s Palestinian Authority, and which is capable of conducting its running its own economy and foreign policy.

The visit has actually solidified the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, turning Abbas’s effort to establish an independent Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines into a fantasy; if he tried to establish a Palestinian state on the West Bank alone, would be accused of “abandoning” the dream of creating a full, united, Palestinian state, and of dividing Palestine into two states.

Finally, the emir’s visit to the Gaza Strip also serves Qatar’s wish of becoming a major player in the region as well as in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Syria, Iran and Egypt, countries which once used to have enormous influence over Hamas, have been pushed aside by Qatar’s ruler and his promise of big checks.

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute.

‘I Will Answer Only to Allah’

Wednesday, October 24th, 2012

An Islamist radical convicted of stabbing two German police officers during a protest against “offensive” cartoons has been sentenced to six years in prison.

Murat K, a 26-year-old German-born Salafist of Turkish heritage from the western state of Hessen, openly admitted that he had attacked and wounded the two police officers with a kitchen knife during the cartoon riots in May. He showed no remorse, however, during his trial at the district court in the city of Bonn; he said he had been morally obligated to follow Islamic Sharia law.

Murat, whose last name has not been made known to the general public due to German privacy laws, claimed that the attacks on the police officers were justified because the German state had allowed offensive images of the Prophet Mohammed to be shown in public. Many Muslims believe that according to Islamic law, it is forbidden to depict Mohammed in images.

During his trial, the judge — who allowed Murat to wear a black jihadist headband in court — asked the defendant whether it was necessary “to use violence to defend Islamic values.” Murat, who was born in the German town of Eschwege, and whose family has been living in Germany for decades, replied: “Yes, of course.”

The judge then asked him to “imagine you are a policeman and it is your job to ensure order. In your view, would you be a justified target?” Murat replied: “Yes. The German state allows caricatures of Mohammed to be shown, so the police are automatically involved.”

The judge continued: “What if a court said it was all right for the caricatures to be shown?” Murat replied: “Your values make it possible to insult the prophet. Islam prohibits that. The price for doing that in Islam is the death sentence. You have your freedom of opinion, but as a Muslim, a believer, Islam must be my opinion.” Murat added: “One cannot expect from a Muslim that he remain calm when the prophet is being insulted.”

On October 19, the district court in Bonn found Murat — who is unemployed and lives on state welfare benefits — guilty on charges of causing grievous bodily harm, disturbing the peace, and resisting a law enforcement officer. The court sentenced him to six years in prison, in line with demands by state prosecutors, who had asked the court to sentence Murat to at least five years and nine months.

The Interior Minister of the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Ralf Jäger, applauded the conviction. “The verdict is a clear signal that in our constitutional state, brutal attacks against our police officers will be consistently punished.”

Murat’s defense attorney, Johannes Pausch, said he had asked his client if he would at least be willing to apologize to the policemen, not as state employees but as human beings. Murat refused. “It was not possible for him to show remorse,” Pausch said; “he believes he is right.”

Murat responded to the verdict by declaring German courts to be illegitimate. He said: “I do not accept this court as legitimate. I am not sitting here voluntarily. Only Allah alone has the right to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, what is moral and what is immoral.” Murat added: “I will answer only to Allah.”

The stabbings occurred on May 5, when more than 500 radical Muslims attacked German police with bottles, clubs, stones and other weapons in Bonn, the former capital of West Germany, to protest cartoons they said were “offensive.”

The clashes erupted when around 30 supporters of a conservative political party, PRO NRW, which is opposed to the further spread of Islam in Germany, participated in a campaign rally ahead of regional elections in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW).

Some of those participating in the rally, which was held near the Saudi-run King Fahd Academy in the Mehlem district of Bonn, had been waving banners depicting Mohammed (see photo here), to protest the Islamization of Germany.

The rally swiftly disintegrated into violence (photos here and here) when hundreds of angry Salafists, who are opposed to any depiction of their prophet, began attacking the police, whose job it was to keep the two groups apart.

In the final tally of the melee, 29 police officers were injured and more than 100 Salafists were arrested, although most were later released. Murat is the first Salafist to be tried for the violence; 22 other Salafists are still waiting for their trials to begin.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/i-will-answer-only-to-allah/2012/10/24/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: