Farrakhan blames the Jews for slavery

In January of 2011 Charles Jacobs travelled to South Sudan to document slavery and deliver humanitarian aid


Nation of Islam boss Louis Farrakhan told an audience at Berkeley that black students should not befriend Jews before reading his book. A book that makes the case that Jews were behind slavery in the United States.

This from the same man who denies modern day slavery in Sudan where, as in Mauritania, the UN has documented its rampant practice.

His allegations infuriates Charles Jacobs, who received the Boston Freedom Award for his efforts in freeing slaves in Sudan. Slaves that, Jacobs notes, are being held in captivity by Muslims.

Farrakhan has been silent on the issue of slavery for sometime. He was muzzled after challenging reporters in Washington D.C. to go to Sudan for themselves and learn the truth about what he argued was the erroneous claim that slavery exists there.

The Baltimore Sun took him up on the challenge. Not only discovering slavery, but emancipating some of the slaves their reporters encountered.

But Farrakhan is being silent no more. His book, Jacobs acknowledges, makes a pervasive – but unfair – argument that Jews were responsible for slavery in the United States.

“There were Jewish slave owners,” Jacobs acknowledges. “But they were a minority of slave owners at a time.

What Farrakhan does in his book is document and magnify the few Jewish slave owners.

“If you read the book,” Jacobs says, “you hate Jews,” because it makes it seem like Jews led the South in enslaving blacks.

Jacobs believes Farrakahan’s job in life is to “break apart the black  Jewish civil rights alliance” while recruiting blacks to Islam. But he has a problem, Jacobs says. Because in Sudan, black people are being held as slaves by their Muslim masters.

Jacobs also believes that Farrakhan finds it infuriating that the modern anti-slave movement is led by Jews. So enter the book.

He gets away with it, Jacobs argues, because few are talking about the Muslim slave owners in Sudan because it’s politically incorrect. “The human rights movement,” he argues, “has actually abandoned the slaves of Islam.”

Read more about Charles Jacobs and his work at http://www.iabolish.org/.

The Third Jihad and the call for NYPD’s commissioner to resign


The Council on American-Islamic Relations is calling for the dismissal of New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and the appointment of an outside inspector-general to run the police.

CAIR and other “mainstream” Muslim groups have a long-standing grievance with Kelly and the NYPD arising out of a 2007 NYPD intelligence report entitled, “Radicalization in the West: the Homegrown Threat” and the NYPD’s ongoing surveillance of radical Islamic groups, including mosques.

But the immediate club being used to hammer Kelly is his participation in a documentary entitled The Third Jihad.The New York Times has devoted numerous news stories and two editorials so far to The Third Jihad, which is described as “a dark film on U.S. Muslims” and “anti-Islam,” whose producers, The Times implies, seek to advance a pro-Israel agenda.

The Times coverage failed to mention the long roster of authorities interviewed for the film, including the director of the CIA under President Clinton, James Woolsey,and the first Secretary of Homeland Security Gov. Tom Ridge as well as a host of former U.S. government intelligence officials. The title The Third Jihad was provided by the most eminent living historian of Islam, Professor Bernard Lewis.

I wrote a long feature article on The Third Jihad when it first appeared two years ago and interviewed the producer Raphael Shore and narrator Dr. Zuhdi Jasser at length. So I have taken more than a passing in interest in the controversy. Far from being an attack on Islam, the opening lines of the film state clearly: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.” Dr. Jasser, a devout Muslim of Syrian descent and former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He distinguishes between Islam as a private faith and Islam as a political doctrine mandating the imposition of Sharia law world-wide.

So far Kelly and his boss , New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ,have tried to get past the immediate controversy through now familiar public penance rituals expressing “regrets.” It has been left to others, most notably Woolsey and Ridge, to make the substantive case for the NYPD’s anti-terrorist policies.

In an op-ed in the New York Daily News (rejected by The Times),the two argue that the NYPD’s undercover terror prevention program, including intelligence gathering within the Muslim community, has been one of the prime tools allowing the NYPD to foil several credible threats arising from within the community. And given that even one successful terror attack in New York City could claims tens of thousands of lives, the NYPD cannot afford to decrease its intelligence gathering activities.

The Times omitted any discussion of the thesis of The Third Jihad. Dr. Jasser holds up a 15-page document at the beginning of the film, which we eventually learn is a Moslem Brotherhood manifesto for “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” using front groups, mosques and Islamic centers to achieve that goal. The document in question was uncovered by the FBI in the course of its investigation leading up to the government’s successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding case.

Terrorism, intones Jasser, is only one tactic towards the Islamist’s goal of imposing Sharia across the globe – a goal that is shared by many groups who are not themselves involved in terrorist activity. CAIR, which is specifically mentioned in the document, is one such group. CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation caseand the FBI broke off all relations with the group at the time.

Abdul Rahman Alamoudi, the founder of the American Muslim Council, who was invited to speak at an ecumenical service in the National Cathedral after 9/11, is another “moderate” Muslim. He is shown in The Third Jihad boasting, “Either we do it now or we do it in a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

The current controversy could itself be a chapter in The Third Jihad which discusses the manner in which Islamist front groups constantly raise the specter of Islamophobia to suppress discussion of radical Islam. And it works.

Paul Berman writes in The Flight of the Intellectuals of how Western intellectuals have been induced to remain silent on such awkward matters as the historical link between the Moslem Brotherhood and the Nazis, and the Nazi inspiration for present day Islamists.

Concern for Muslim sensitivities prevents government officials from acknowledging the obvious.

After uncovering a plot to blow up the Canadian Parliament and behead the prime minister, a police spokesman described the plotters as being drawn from a wide cross-section of society, while neglecting to mention that all were Muslim. Similarly, Muslims plotting to blow up ten commercial aircraft over the Atlantic were described only as English nationals of southeastern Asian descent.

Political correctness skews analysis. Dr. Walid Phares, formerly of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, laments in The Third Jihad that policymakers treat every issue as discrete while failing to connect the dots. President Obama’s anti-terrorism advisor John Brennan, for instance, rejects any discussion of worldwide jihad. He speaks only of the battle against al Qaeda and its affiliates while failing to recognize that al Qaeda is but one of many Moslem Brotherhood offshoots sharing an ideology, not a single command structure. The 2010 National Security document pointedly omits any reference to radical Islam, speaking instead only of “violent extremists.”

The 80-page government report on the Fort Hood massacre laughably made no mention of the religious beliefs of Dr. Nidal Malik Hassan who murdered 13 while shouting “Alla-hu Akhbar.” It concluded that “religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor.” In congressional testimony, Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly refused to acknowledge any connection between the Islamic religious beliefs of the Ft. Hood assassin, the Times Square Bomber, and the Christmas airplane underwear bomber.

The Third Jihad details numerous ways in which America is being softened up for Islamic advance.

In his interview, Kelly states that 18% of the prisoners in the New York State prison system convert to Islam while incarcerated. Prison chaplains receive little screening. One former Muslim chaplain is filmed telling prisoners, “Brothers, be prepared to die, be prepared to kill. [T]his is history, this is the Koran, nobody can deny it. . . . Read it in . . . the Koran . . . . When you fight, you strike terror into the heart of the disbeliever.”

At least 30 compounds associated with Jamaat ul Fuqra, a radical Pakistani organization and mostly populated by prison converts to Islam dot the American landscape. In a video, obviously not made for public consumption, we watch practice in ambush tactics and bomb-making in one such compound.

Perhaps most chilling is the penetration of the American educational system, from the top down. The Saudis have provided $20 million a piece to Georgetown University and Harvard. Many of the Saudi gifts to prestigious universities are styled as promoting Islamic-Christian understanding which is ironic given that churches are banned in Saudi Arabia and even the possession of a Christian Bible is forbidden.

Saudi money funds many American mosques.

According to a 2005 report of the Center for Religious Freedom, “Wahhabism [an extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism and the official religion of Saudi Arabia] is dominant in many American mosques.” Much of the official Saudi-supplied literature could be considered hate speech. A Saudi-sponsored Islamic academy in Virginia, for instance, used textbooks that promote violence against “Christians, Shiite Muslims and Jews.”

Even more frightening is what is happening in American schools.

Daniel Pipes told me three years ago, “Among [the Islamists’ techniques] is manipulation of textbooks at both the high school and college level. They play on the politically correct impulse to say nothing negative about non-Western cultures to achieve an air-brushed picture of Islam.”

Last October, Tony Pagliuso, a parent in upscale Newton, Massachusetts, complained that the following statement in a text called The Arab World Notebook was pure propaganda: “Over the past four decades, women have been active in the Palestinian resistance movement. Several hundred have been imprisoned, tortured and killed by Israeli occupation forces since the latest uprising, ‘intifada,’ in the Israeli occupied territories.”

The school principal replied to Pagliuso’s complaint, “Next year we are planning to teach material that will be even more inflammatory to your sensibilities.” And the classroom teacher noted proudly the Notebook had been supplied by the Outreach Workshop of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard. The Outreach Center, which is recognized as a National Resource Center by the U.S. Department of Education, trains high school teachers on Middle East issues and provides free materials. Both the Center and the Outreach Program are heavily funded by the Saudis. The Outreach Program is headed by Paul Beran, a prominent supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel.

Among other whoppers in the Notebook being used in Newton was this one: “There is no basis in Islam for the subjugation of women or their relegation to a secondary role.” Textbooks dealing with Islam regularly cite Islamic doctrine as if it were factual and omit such qualifiers as, “Muslims believe.” Schools bend over backwards to show Islam in a favorable light, often spending two weeks of units of world religions on Islam, and a day each on Christianity and Judaism.

Fortunately, we do not have to follow The New York Times politically correct evasion of the issues raised by The Third Jihad. The documentary can be accessed for free at www.thethirdjihad.com.

Jonathan Rosenblum blogs at http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/.


Mosque desecration inexcusable


JERUSALEM  – Across the world, people were outraged by the news that mosques in Israel had been desecrated and racist graffiti scrawled across their walls. Israeli Jews felt ashamed. We asked ourselves: do the perpetrators have any understanding of Jewish history and theology, – which clearly teach respect for every human being and the necessity of standing up against injustice wherever we see it?

Growing up in the shadows of the Holocaust, I, a young British Jew, learned about Kristallnacht, the night in 1938 when dozens of German synagogues were attacked. In youth groups we discussed how the demonisation of people and the destruction of their religious buildings were a first step to genocide. We proudly proclaimed, “never again” – never again should this happen to Jews; never again should it happen to any other people.

We understood the Biblical requirement for a sovereign Jewish state to care for everyone, including those who do not share our heritage.

Exploring our relationship to other faiths, we discovered that from medieval times, great rabbis taught their followers that Islam is a monotheistic religion whose adherents must be treated with respect. When the great Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, pondered why God had created so many people whose faith differed from his own, he concluded that although God’s will is unfathomable, Islam and Christianity seemed to be part of the divine plan to spread ethical monotheism throughout the world.

This liberal approach to other religious traditions was put to the test when the modern state of Israel was declared in 1948. How would the Jewish state treat other faith communities? The first Chief Rabbis of Israel considered the question and ruled unequivocally that according to Jewish law, Muslims and Christians were entitled to full citizenship in the new state. This ruling was affirmed in the Declaration of the State of Israel, which proclaimed that the new country would “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions”.

Ironically, it was Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of the Holy Land and an icon of the religious Zionist movement, who warned that Jewish nationalism, like any other, contains the inherent dangers of xenophobia. He viewed the embryonic Jewish state as the fulfilment of ancient Biblical prophecies and he was convinced that it would be wondrous, creative and ethical. Still, he warned that unless the new country fulfilled its responsibilities to all its citizens, “it [would] eventually burst the bounds of morality when it oversteps its boundaries”.

His warning was apt. A xenophobic philosophy is breeding here which disregards the legitimate rights of Palestinians whose families have lived here for generations. It remains the preserve of a very small sector of Israeli society, but it is dangerous and must be stopped. Beginning with vile, triumphalist rhetoric, which led to attacks on Palestinian olive groves, it has grown into violence against people and mosques. Ironically, the violence is now turning inwards, morphing into attacks on Israeli soldiers whose job it is to maintain law and order, protect settlers and fulfil Israel’s commitment to remove illegal settlements.

Perhaps these developments are just part of a world phenomenon of increasing religious intolerance. Or perhaps they result from frustration at the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza which has not stopped the frequent rocket attacks over the border. Or perhaps it is Israeli fear that Iran has nuclear ambitions and wants to destroy Israel. These are the existential threats which frighten many Israeli Jews and destroy their faith in the possibility of peace. In the light of these, settlers resent the possibility that they will be removed from their homes in return for a chimera of peace.

Regardless of these fears, vigilante actions against innocent civilians, their property and places of worship are immoral, un-Jewish and unacceptable. They stain the name of religious believers and they stain the name of God.

We must denounce religious intolerance and work harder for dialogue and peace. We must urge our leaders to reach a fair settlement with the Palestinians, hastening the time when every inhabitant of this land can live with peace, justice and dignity. This is the vision of our prophets: “They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2: 4).

Rabbi Gideon D. Sylvester is the British United Synagogue’s rabbi in Israel and directs the Rabbis for Human Rights Beit Midrash program, which studies Jewish perspectives on human rights, at the Hillel House of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service.

The rise of radical Islam in the Middle East

After the overthrow of Mubarak, Egyptian security forces and Muslims clashed with Christians


With Egypt, Tunisia and Libya having fallen into the hands of radical Islamists and with Yemen and Syria close on the way, the argument coming from the Obama administration is that this is a good thing. OK. Let’s analyze that.

It is now becoming obvious to anyone observing the various revolts occurring throughout the Middle East that radical Islamists will be taking over the various countries that had their despots overthrown.

There is some truth behind the hate filled venom of these Islamists that the West supported these despots. Perhaps not for the reasons they claim, namely, to destroy Islam and make the Middle East a garden of freedom and liberty. But rather to keep a lid on its roiling political and violent mayhem so that the oil will keep flowing.

George W. Bush was a wishful thinker when he proclaimed that all humanity desires freedom and liberty and attempted to provide the Iraqi and Afghani people the opportunity to grasp that golden bowel.

However depressing the reality of the Middle East which now confronts the West, in particular the United States, since it has paid so much in blood and treasure, there is possibly one good thing that may yet come out of this Islamist takeover. There is a military term called “fixing the enemy” which refers to preventing the enemy’s withdrawal thereby allowing the attacking force to be confident that it will not escape. In our war against the Islamists we have been chasing them from one mountain to the next from one corner of the world to another never quite able to gather them in one spot. Well now we know where they are. Don’t we?

Ahead of Bibi’s DC visit, Obama asks for Muslim moderation, PA TV lauds martyrdom


The Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee report, “President Barack Obama is preparing a fresh outreach to the Muslim world in coming days, senior U.S. officials say, one that will ask those in the Middle East and beyond to reject Islamic militancy in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and embrace a new era of relations with the U.S.”

“Mr. Obama is preparing to deliver that message in a wide-ranging speech, perhaps as early as next week, these officials say,” Solomon and Lee write.

“The president intends to argue that bin Laden’s death, paired with popular uprisings sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, signal that the time has come to an end when al Qaeda could claim to speak for Muslim aspirations. . . But the push for democracy appears to have stalled in some countries. The street protests against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi have morphed into a civil war, with North Atlantic Treaty Organization backing the rebels. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Bahrain’s ruling Khalifa family have both met demonstrations with violence.”

The timing of this outreach speech is significant because it comes the week before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to address Congress. By reaching out to Muslims the question becomes: Is Obama undermining Israel in favor of what many see as radical shariah Islam rising in the Middle East?

It is interesting that Obama wants a “new era of relations” with the Muslim world. As if killing Osama bin Laden, one of its newly minted martyrs, will somehow change shariah Islamist minds.

The question is at what price is Obama willing to pay to get this new era of relations? Obviously, the Arab League, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Hamas, Fatah and others are calling for the U.S. to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, something that has never been part of our foreign policy since the birth of Israel.

To put things into perspective, Obama must convince shariah Islamists that peace is preferable to everlasting conflict and jihad. If this is his message he has centuries of agreed upon shariah Islamic law to overcome. Just one example of how deeply embedded martyrdom is in Islam watch the below video made by Palestinian Authority TV about the “model woman.”

According to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) the “model woman” is a jihadi terrorist or shahid. They point out in their column, “The Model [Muslim] Woman is a Terrorist.”:

“When PMW first reported on the White Hands Campaign, its website listed the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) as part of the campaign’s organizers and carried the organization’s logo. Following PMW’s exposure of UN’s supposed involvement in the campaign, UNFPA issued a press release ‘disavowing’ its involvement in the campaign. The campaign has since then removed the UNFPA logo from its website.”

Read Richard Swier at http://www.redcounty.com/rich-swier