Russian Nationalists attack plans to build more mosques in Moscow

 

Muslims pray at the Moscow Congregational Mosque in central Moscow on the Feast of the Sacrifice.

Moscow city authorities are about to announce the allocation of plots of land for three new mosques in the city, but ethnic Russian nationalists have voiced their protests saying that no one asked local residents before passing this decision.

"

We need to ask local residents. We should follow the European practice of taking local opinion into account in everything.

” Aleksander Belov of the Russkiye movement told the press. In his opinion such practice would ensure that everything goes in a peaceful and calm manner.

Belov’s statement came as a comment to a newspaper article that stated that Moscow city authorities will soon allocate land for the new mosques. The Izvestia daily referred to a representative of a public movement called Spiritual Directorate of Muslims of European Russia who said that the exact sites are already fixed and thanked the city for paying attention to his co-believers.

In the same article the newspaper quoted top city officials who doubted the efficiency of the step. Mayor Sergey Sobyanin said that the city needs no new mosques, adding that the majority of those who attend Muslim sites are unregistered labor migrants and once they are dealt with the need for new sites would disappear. The Speaker of the Moscow City Legislature Vladimir Platonov noted hat apart from discussing new places of worship with religious representatives, those responsible must poll local residents and base the decisions on the local mood.

Interestingly, after news agencies spread the report, the city authorities refuted it. The head of the city department for investment in construction wrote a letter saying that the land plots for new mosques have not yet been negotiated. The official added that the mayor’s office has a special working group determining the need for various religions in the city’s many districts, but this group has not yet taken any decisions whatsoever regarding mosques.

According to the latest poll, the proportion of Muslims among Russians has reached seven percent this year compared to just four percent in 2009. The share of Russian Orthodox Christians is now 74 percent compared to 80 percent in 2009.

Al-Qaeda leader calls for more anti-US protests

With the number protests outside US embassies declining, Al-Qaeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri urged “zealots of Islam” to “continue opposition.” He said a US-made Islamophobic film is “American crusader Zionist aggression,” and cannot be forgiven.

­Al-Zawahiri’s seven-minute address to "free and distinguished zealots for Islam" appeared on Islamic websites early Saturday. In the speech, Al-Qaeda’s new leader, who came to power after Osama Bin Laden’s death last year, hailed “the honorable people… who stormed the US embassy in Benghazi and those who protested outside the US mission in Cairo, where they replaced the US flag with that of Islam and jihad.”

An angry mob assaulted the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, the 11th anniversary of Al-Qaida’s 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other staffers were killed in the incident.

It was initially believed that the Benghazi violence was prompted by an amateur film made in the US that depicted Islam's Prophet Muhammad as a thuggish deviant. Later, however, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta revealed that the assault in Libya was a preplanned attack linked to Al-Qaeda.

Some protests were truly massive, but peaceful: Over 15,000 Pakistani protesters rally in Karachi on September 29, 2012, (AFP Photo / Rizwan Tabassum)

Some protests were truly massive, but peaceful: Over 15,000 Pakistani protesters rally in Karachi on September 29, 2012, (AFP Photo / Rizwan Tabassum)

Saturday was not the first time Al-Qaeda praised the Benghazi attack, but as in previous statements, Al-Zawahiri stopped short of claiming responsibility.

Al-Zawahiri also called for more global protests against the US and lashed out at Washington for its reluctance to ban the anti-Islamic video 'Innocence of Muslims.'

The White House, though condemning the 13-minute video uploaded to YouTube, said they could not ban the movie without violating the US constitutional right to free speech.

But many rallies turned violent: Yemeni protesters run for cover from tear gas fired by riot police during a demonstration against a film mocking Islam at a crossroad leading to the US embassy in Sanaa on September 14, 2012. (AFP Photo/Mohammed Huwais)

But many rallies turned violent: Yemeni protesters run for cover from tear gas fired by riot police during a demonstration against a film mocking Islam at a crossroad leading to the US embassy in Sanaa on September 14, 2012. (AFP Photo/Mohammed Huwais)

Al-Qaeda’s leader said Saturday that the US allowed the film's production and circulation under “the pretext” of freedom of expression, “but this freedom does not prevent them from torturing Muslim prisoners.” Al-Zawahiri was apparently referring to the Muslims imprisoned in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

Thousands rallied in Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran and across Europe to protests against the incendiary 'Innocence of Muslims' video. US missions and businesses were burned down, and over 60 people were killed and hundreds injured in the resulting clashes with police.

Arab monarchies: Muslim Brotherhood 'source of all problems in Islamic world'

The rulers of several major Arab nations have accused the Muslim Brotherhood of ambitions to seize power illegitimately. Several governments branded the organization a major threat to stability as the party’s influence grows steadily.

­After the Muslim Brotherhood legally took power in Egypt’s elections, with Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi becoming President, several Arab Gulf states expressed concern. Monarchies that narrowly escaped the Arab Spring were taken aback when a popular Islamist party suddenly became a key player in the region.

United Arab Emirate Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah urged Gulf states to deal with an alleged Muslim Brotherhood plot to undermine regional governments. "The Muslim Brotherhood does not believe in the nation-state. It does not believe in the sovereignty of the state," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said at a press conference.

The Brotherhood is banned in the United Arab Emirates, and Abdullah claimed his country’s security forces had arrested some 60 people this year belonging to the local group Al Islah (‘Reform and Social Guidance Association’), a nonviolent political association advocating greater adherence to Islamic precepts.

The Sheikh claimed that Islamists – some of whom are connected with the Muslim Brotherhood – were planning to stage a coup in the UAE.

Al Islah shares a similar ideology with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, though it does not have direct links to the organization. The group claimed that it only supports nonviolent reform.

The accusation came the same day Kuwaiti lawmaker Saleh al-Mulla said that the Muslim Brotherhood is putting pressure on his country’s rulers by taking part in demonstrations “after losing their typical alliance with the government.”

Earlier, Saudi Arabian Interior Minister Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz denounced the Brotherhood, saying the organization is guilty of “betrayal of pledges and ingratitude” and is “the source of all problems in the Islamic world,” the Washington Post reported.

That followed Dubai's outspoken police chief Dhahi Khalfan’s claim in July that the Brotherhood was carting out an "international plot" against Gulf Arab states.

The UAE Foreign Minister’s statement came one day after thousands took to the streets of Jordan's capital of Amman over King Abdullah II’s decision to dissolve the country’s parliament. The move was seen as an attempt to compromise with the country’s Muslim Brotherhood branch, Jordan’s main opposition party.

The Jordanian wing of the Brotherhood urged the country’s leadership to undertake reforms that would result in the monarchy losing political power. Abdullah II conceded, allowing changes to the procedure by which the country forms a government, with more privileges granted to the electoral winners. The Brotherhood criticized the move as insufficient, and called on their supporters to protest.

Egypt – where the Muslim Brotherhood took power after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak last year – sought to reassure Gulf Arab states that it will not push for political change outside of the country. President Morsi said that the country has no desire to "export the revolution."

Most Arab Gulf states are hereditary monarchies with limited political representation, with only Bahrain and Kuwait having popularly elected legislatures. Their main sources of revenue come from oil and gas exports, which exist in abundance in their territory. Strong social welfare systems have largely shielded the monarchies from the Arab Spring unrest that has ousted rulers in other majority Muslim countries.

“The Muslim Brotherhood's primary goals have been expressed through welfare programs, and it’s a reason for its continuing popularity in places like Egypt, Jordan, Syria,” author and journalist Eric Margolis told RT.

The Arab Spring revolutions, most of which started as political rather than economic protests, demonstrated to the Gulf’s monarchic regimes what political Islam can do when it is supported by a mass popular uprising.

“Certainly the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt has made people nervous there,” Margolis said. In his opinion, the Brotherhood is little threat to the status quo in the Gulf, since the organization became very conservative over its long history.

The bloody civil war in Libya and overthrow of longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi served as an example to the Gulf monarchies that sponsored the uprising, who now see that “terrorist activity has drastically increased after the Gaddafi regime was removed by terrorist groups,” Ekaterina Kuznetsova of the Center for Post-Industrial Studies told RT.

“This is often the case with totalitarian regimes and the vacuum that remains after they’ve been eliminated,” Kuznetsova said.

Egypt’s new constitution – drafted by the Islamists who now dominate the parliamentary assembly – is expected to be finished in November.

However, the current draft does not meet basic human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said on Monday. The key problem areas mentioned by the New York-based group are the lack of full bans on torture, the trafficking of women and children and discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Army colonel threatens to sue top general for 'concealing truth about Islam'

A US Army Colonel who was suspended from a top military college for teaching an anti-Islamic course is threatening to sue America’s top general for “violating academic freedom” and “caving in to Islam.”

Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley’s attorneys have put Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey on notice for a possible lawsuit for “concealing the truth about Islam,” after his course was shut down for its strong anti-Islamic content.

Dooley’s lawyers issued a press release stating that “the final bastion of America’s defense against Islamic jihad and Sharia, the Pentagon, fell to the enemy in April 2012.”

The elective course, which was taught by Dooley at the Joint Forces Staff College in Virginia, was shut down by Dempsey in April. During his lectures, Dooley spoke of Islam being reduced to cult status, Mecca and Medina being destroyed, and Saudi Arabia being brought to starvation.

Some of the material used in the class suggested that US President Barack Obama is a Muslim. It further instructed that there is no such thing as “moderate Islam.”

Documents used in the lectures show that Dooley insisted the US must engage in a “total war” against Islam to protect the United States.

When speaking about Muslims, Dooley said, “A staggering 140 million people…hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit [to Islam].”

He also cited Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden as examples of “taking war to civilian population wherever necessary.”

Several of Dooley’s students, who were all military servicemen, brought the material to his superiors at the college. They consequently ended the course and suspended Dooley.

Gen. Dempsey called the course “totally objectionable and against our values.”

Dooley’s high powered attorneys responded by accusing Dempsey of buckling under radical Islam and attacking a “subordinate Army officer who honorably served the nation.”

The Thomas More Law Center insists that Dooley’s academic freedom was violated by his suspension, though they do not lay the blame directly on Gen. Dempsey.

The spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman did not respond to the criticism, citing the potential for imminent legal action.

Increased numbers of 'foreign elements,' Jihadi groups operating in Syria

UN investigators confirmed that “foreign elements,” including jihadists, are operating in Syria. The independent panel also alleged that both the Syrian government and the rebels committed war crimes during the country’s ongoing conflict.

­The independent investigations panel appointed by the UN’s Human Rights Council reported that some of the foreign elements joined rebel groups, while others acted independently. “Such elements tend to push anti-government fighters towards more radical positions,” the head of the panel warned.

The investigators also presented a list of Syrian army units and individuals who should stand trial on suspicions of war crimes.

The team’s head, Paulo Pinheiro, said that their investigations yielded a “formidable and extraordinary body of evidence,” and called for the Security Council to refer the cases to the International Criminal Court.

"The Commission considers it improper to publicly release the names due to the lower standard of proof employed by commissions of inquiry as compared to a court of law," added Pinhiero.

The international community is unable to reach a consensus on solving the increasingly militarized conflict in Syria, which has raged for the past 18 months. The West and several Gulf nations are pushing for the removal of President Bashar al-Assad, while Russia and China argue that he should only step down if the Syrian people vote him out.

Russian Media RT - ‘US will think twice before supporting Islamic radicals’

The recent outbreak of violent anti-American protests in the Muslim world will make US politicians think twice before supporting Islamic radicals, political analyst and ex-jihadist Tawfik Hamid said in an interview with RT.

­The US has funded Islamists groups throughout the world for decades, and the death of the American ambassador to Libya is just one more example of how militants backed by radical Islamic ideology will eventually turn their weapons against their patrons in Washington.

In this light, Hamid believes that the idea of toppling Syria’s President Bashar Assad and replacing him with rebels known to have connections to Al-Qaeda should no longer seem like such a winning idea to the West.

­RT: What do you think of the events in the Arab world right now?

Tawfik Hamid: I see an expression of radicalism in the form of attacking embassies and killing ambassadors, and expressing this violence in the radical ways of thinking that proliferated in the last few decades in the Muslim world. It is expressing itself in this form as it also expressed itself in Afghanistan in beheading people. But that is a different kind of violence. It is based on the same thinking of accepting the use of violence to suppress others, and preventing them from saying their opinion or preventing them from saying things that you perceive as insulting.

RT: Do you think it is happening especially in the countries that have gone or are still going through transition?

TH: The general underlying cause is religious principles, that whoever says a bad word against the Prophet Muhammad must be killed, which is not in the Koran but it is one of the mainstream beliefs in some Islamic books. Also, the excess of love for Prophet Muhammad makes Muslims feel that [in case of] any insult towards him, they have the responsibility to defend him. Especially according to Islamic traditional teaching that sinners go to hell, and that the Prophet Muhammad is the one who will intercede to bring them from hell to paradise. It is not gold that will do this, it is the Prophet Muhammad’s intercession. So, there is an excessive emotional feeling toward the Prophet Muhammad because of this.

This is an underlying factor. But there are local reasons as well, in Egypt for example. In Egypt, you have the role model of Essam Sharaf, one of the former Prime Ministers after the revolution, who actually celebrated the young man who took the flag of the Israeli embassy and burned it while a mob surrounded the embassy. Instead of punishing him and considering him a criminal for such an act, for attacking the Israeli embassy, [Essam Sharaf] actually celebrated him in the media. This is providing a very bad role model.

In Libya, the situation is different: You have many well-trained radicals who have military power in their hands, who can make the decision to attack the embassy based on the movie [the US-made anti-Islamic movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’], or based on a prior arrangement.

RT: A lot of people, even US officials, are saying that this was a pre-planned attack and that the film may have nothing to do with this. Do you agree to this?

TH: It is a possibility, I cannot deny that it is one of the possibilities. But also, there is the possibility that this movie incited excessive hatred and a desire to use violence against the US. And [an attack] could then be easily implemented, because there are well-trained fighters with weapons, even artillery. So, it is not that difficult, if you have been fighting Gaddafi for more than a year, to take weapons and go attack the embassy. Both possibilities are valid.

RT: The groups that attacked the US embassy were funded and trained by the US – in some cases – during the revolution in Libya. Do you think that the US did not see this coming? Especially after what happened in Afghanistan back in 1970s to 1980s, and now we see the results with the Taliban?

TH: I think people do not learn from history very well. It is one of the problems of humans: They don’t learn from history and they follow advice without really going into enough depth of understanding of culture and mindset, the religious things. Some of these [Libyan] radicals who were probably supported by NATO may have access to such weapons, because when Gaddafi’s government and the whole system collapsed they had easy access. Really, there is a big problem in dealing with Middle East issues.

RT: Do you think the US expected the democracy that they were promising to Libyans and Egyptians and other nations in the Arab world, that this will be the result of the democracy they were promising?

TH: Obviously not. You see [US Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton, for example, clearly saying that ‘how can this happen in the country that we helped to get freedom?’ They are really shocked. The Americans and NATO helped them expecting that they will reciprocate by at least showing some liberties and respect for others, at least for America. But they underestimated the threat of radical Islam – as they did in Iraq. And the main factor in this threat is ideology. If you don’t deal with this ideology, you cannot win this game.

If you focus on two things, democracy and military power, it is like if someone who knows how to change a tire of a car thinks that fixing a complex electronic component of the car can be done by changing tires. No, it will not. You need to go to a completely different dimension here. That is to deal with religious ideology, whether you admit it or not – you have to deal with it.

RT: Especially because a lot of people were telling the US [the militants] are with Al Qaeda. In your articles you do talk about this.

TH: I’m one of the people who clearly stated that if you want to implement a democracy – avoid the ‘sudden democracy’ syndrome. It will bring the Islamists to power, and we will suffer

RT: Would you say that the US simply does not understand the nature of the Arab world? The fact is, the democracy they wanted to impose is a complete failure right now.

TH: There are [American] people who understand, and people who do not understand, and it depends on the balance of powers in certain times in history when the decisions are being taken. Unfortunately I don’t think the decisions taken here are very correct.

RT: Do you think the US will change its strategy in the Arab world and the countries going through transitions, in light of what is going on?

TH: Yes, absolutely. For example, there will be many voices that will start questioning if removing [Syrian President Bashar] Al-Assad is a good idea or not. Supporting the rebels can ultimately bring extreme radicals [to power in Syria], who will become enemies to America and attack it. It doesn’t work the way people think. The Libyan example of the killing of the ambassador in such a way, and the spread of the reaction in several Islamic societies, will make many people think twice before supporting rebels against Al-Assad. I cannot say it will be a game change in this respect, but I can say it will make many people think twice about the issue of supporting the rebels against Al-Assad.

RT: But will they actually make decisions that are different from those made before? Will they reconsider their strategy?

TH: It is likely; there is a 60 percent possibility that decisions may have some changes or modifications, especially now that the Syrian issue is hot. I know it was a policy to remove Al-Assad but I think with the Libyan issue it will make the voices of the people, who were against Assad’s removal, more prominent and better heard.

But it is very hard to guarantee an outcome, because it depends on different powers and ultimate intentions; it is not something where you can easily say ‘it will change’.

RT: How do you see relations between the US and the countries that are going through transition, Libya and Egypt in particular, especially after the latest protests?

TH: It will certainly create a new way of thinking in relations with these people. I think it might affect [American] donations that go to Egypt. The [US] Congress is supposed to allow $1 billion donations to support Egypt. I believe many people in Congress will think twice whether this is appropriate, without having guarantees from [current President of Egypt Mohamed] Morsi that he will really respect the values of democracy. The problem is that many societies understand democracy as just a ballot, while the West understands democracy as transparency, freedom of speech and respect for minorities. There are two completely different understandings of the same word. In the West, it is understood as these values, but elsewhere in the world it is understood as the majority suppressing the minority and dominating everything.

RT: If Congress is going to reconsider its aid to Egypt for preconditions – isn’t that another form of conditions the Arab world is sick and tired of, and the reason for the protests?

TH: I think if you’re giving donations, you have a full right to put conditions on it, because it is extremely unwise to give someone donations and at the end they will promote an ideology of hatred to you that can ultimately cause you damage. So, when the US is giving someone donations on that high level, it is fair to insist on certain conditions.

RT: Would you say the US will start working on its relations with the Arab world, with the peoples instead of governments?

TH: I think they will become more aware of fighting radical ideology, they cannot just ignore it. It is not simply a military solution, or using democracy to solve the problem.