As I mentioned a couple of days ago, the extremist animal rights organization PETA recently ambushed Beyoncé Knowles at a dinner date that she had auctioned off to raise money for charity. Several anti-fur zealots have since flooded the message board of Beyoncé's official website with personal attacks and demands that people boycott her products to protest her use of fur. What follows are three of the more outlandish posts:

Beyonce, i knever knew u r such a coward…sad
Original Message: ( Posted 05:45pm Jun 20, 2006 EST)

pyramid4 – 05:45pm Jun 20, 2006 EST

Cand she do anything herself? her dad is a manager, her mom is dresses her (mostly in laughable outfits – a clothing line? ph'lease!) AND talks for her???!! Beyonce, you are big girl now, learn how to use your brain and your mouth to defend yourself if you had enough (or NO) sense to promote torture and cruelty. No matter how much money u made it doesnt make you worth a single life of an animal slaughtered! (any) Life is DIVINE, money – is just PAPER. An please don't mention God anywhere now, you make Him sad…

---

How does it feel to love and cherish death? (BEYONCE= ANIMAL MURDERER)
Original Message: ( Posted 06:58pm Mar 25, 2006 EST)

NeEdLeZ – 06:58pm Mar 25, 2006 EST

Beyonce Knowles can answer that for you from her fashion line "House of Dereon":

The Mink Teddy Bear

Made from real mink fur, they're basically asking you to cherish the pointless death of an animal.

In the description it even said, "A teddy bear to love and to cherish. Makes a great gift!"

YAY!! LOVE AND CHERISH DEATH!!

not.

More ways to get mad at Beyonce – and here it is.

Who knows how many Chinchillas she would have had to kill to make that, especially since Chinchillas are pretty small animals….

(Just one more reason for me to want to sh.it on her grave)

scottlarson – 12:59pm Jun 20, 2006 EST

As a father, I entered my son’s bedroom last night, confiscated all his Beyonce and Destiny’s Child cds and told him that we will not allow violent evil propaganda in my home. When he grows up and moves out, he can support Beyonce, the Nazis, or any other hate monger, but in my home, supporters of genocide (be it the genocide of an animal species or a human one) are forbidden. Though I don’t enjoy watching “celebrity spotlights” that waste time talking about the J. Lopez baby (I want real human interest news), I am grateful for PETA for bringing this to light. Sometimes you don’t know what your kids are listening too.

Posters on the message board are anonymous so there is no way to prove that they are members of PETA. Some of them even deny being members of PETA. But I strongly suspect that most of them are affiliated with or are members of PETA since they suddenly started posting on the message board soon after PETA ambushed Beyoncé for dinner. And I really don't believe their denials. After all, PETA, like many extremist organizations, has been known to be less than truthful in the past. And they have been known to clandestinely infiltrate organizations they oppose. Why should I believe them when they say they don't belong to PETA? It is very hard, especially when some of the posters clearly are not what they represent themselves to be. Let's take a closer look at Scott Larson's post above. Scott had a beef with Beyoncé so he claims he took it out by punishing his son by removing all his Destiny Child and Beyoncé CDs.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Yeah, right. Sure. I believe him. Gee, I hope he doesn't ever see the CEO of Apple wearing fur. If he did then would he steal his son's IPOD???

I might almost have believed him if he had said that he had banned his son from purchasing any more CDs by Beyoncé or Destiny's Child. Not that I would agree with this approach, but there would at least be some logic behind it since it would prevent dollars from going into their pockets. But to take away CDs that have already been purchased??? This would only accomplish two things:

1)It would teach his son that its OK to steal from an innocent bystander if he has a problem with some other third party.
2) It would convince his son beyond a doubt that his father was a fool.

No, this story doesn't pass the smell test. The web site has clearly been infiltrated by some people with the intent of trying to pressure Beyoncé and Sony by inflaming public hatred toward them and hurting their CD sales.

So how should Beyoncé react to this attempt to sabotage her career? One poster was rooting for Beyoncé to sue PETA. I oppose this for several reasons.

First, PETA does have a First Amendment right to express their opinions, and I support their right to make assholes of themselves. I am not sure of the legal implications of videotaping Beyoncé and using the tape against her will. She is a public figure so a Court might rule that taping her is fair game.

It is possible that a Court might find them guilty of libel for making claims that Beyoncé supports torturing animals. But libel is difficult to prove, especially in a case like this where Beyoncé is a public figure. Not only would she have to prove that people associated with PETA were making false statements about her, she would have to prove that they were intentionally lying or were in reckless disregard for the truth when they made those statements. This is often hard to do.

It is also possible that a Court could punish PETA if it rules that they are intentionally trying to flood her board with so many posts as to make it unusable for marketing purposes. But I have my doubts about this because PETA’s First Amendment right to free speech will probably trump SonyBMG’s right to market their products.

Of course, if Beyoncé sues PETA in order to stop the pain-in-the-ass posters on her message board then she better be able to prove that the posters were acting under PETA's orders. This may be difficult to prove since most of them are posting anonymously.

The outcome of any lawsuit is uncertain. What is certain is that such a case would drag on for years and give the PETAzoids yet another public platform to push their agenda. It could take two, three, or even five years for Beyoncé to get the upper hand over PETA via the legal system. And in the meantime, PETA could gain public sympathy by portraying themselves as the victims of greedy rich people trying to crush their freedom of speech. I predict that if Beyoncé sues PETA then she will see a new influx of First Amendment advocates on her message board criticizing her for her heavy handed tactics.

So if Beyoncé shouldn't sue PETA then what she should do? There is a quick and classy way for her to turn the tables on them and open everyone’s eyes to the fact that they are nothing but whack job extremists. If you haven't already read it, please take a look at my previous post on the subject.

Beyoncé should study the issues involved in animal experimentation and then issue this challenge to PETA. Beyoncé should offer to give up wearing fur and to forgo the use of fur in her line of clothing if PETA will drop its opposition to the use of animal research for curing diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Cancer. She should also ask PETA to condemn the actions of extremist groups like the Animal Liberation Front which use vandalism and terrorist tactics to disrupt medical research. Finally, Beyoncé should make a cash donation (of say, $10,000) to an organization that sponsors medical research that may involve the use of animals. She should then challenge PETA to match her donation in order to prove that they support animal research to save human life. If I had my druthers, I would love to see Beyoncé support the ALS Association.

This is the leading organization in the fight against amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS is also known as Lou Gehrig's disease). I had a very good friend die from ALS about a year ago. It is a terrible, terrible disease that makes Alzheimer's Disease look like a walk in the park. It works by slowly destroying the neuromuscular system piece by piece. My friend was the warmest, most generous person you could know. She had a voice of an angel and she was well known in this community for her numerous theatrical productions and her operatic voice. ALS first manifested itself in her by making walking difficult and taking away her voice. It then destroyed control over every muscle in her body. She couldn’t dance. She couldn’t walk. She couldn’t sit up. She couldn’t raise her arms. Eventually, ALS destroyed her breathing and she died.

The ALS Association is sponsoring research that may one day lead to a cure of this horrible disease. It was announced just a few days ago that researchers sponsored by the ALS Association were able to use a new treatment to partially restore motor functioning to rats that had been paralyzed. This is still a long way from a cure, but it may be an important first step to getting there. Right now, the PETAzoids oppose research like this that could ultimately help people who are suffering like my friend Carol did. I hope Beyoncé will use her fame and wealth to challenge PETA to reverse their position on animal experimentation.

Challenging PETA would be a win-win proposition for Beyoncé. If they turn down her offer then she will immediately put them on the defensive in a public relations campaign. There would be no need to wait for years to win a victory in Court. And if they take her up on the offer she will be widely hailed as a humanitarian who was willing to give up fur in order to alleviate human suffering.

Beyoncé should bring several people to any press conference she uses to announce the challenge. First, she should bring Penn and Teller. I am sure Beyoncé has enough star power to make any news conference she calls well attended. But just imagine the coverage she would get if Penn and Teller were there as well. In addition, Penn and Teller were responsible for making this video so they are experts on PETA and its tactics. They won’t take PETA’s BULLSHIT.

Second, she should invite some scientists who actually use lab animals in their research to cure disease. Perhaps she could invite Douglas Kerr, M.D., Ph.D., at Johns Hopkins University, the lead researcher in the study that partially reversed paralysis in mice. Or she could invite someone from the Foundation For Biomedical Research, the oldest and largest organization in the U.S. that promotes health through a better understanding of the role animals play in biomedical research. Even if Beyoncé studies the issues, she is not going to become an expert in biomedical research methodology. These experts can provide her with the intellectual firepower to destroy any red herrings PETA may raise.

And finally, Beyoncé should invite some children who are suffering from debilitating disabilities that may one day be cured through animal research. If PETA continues its fanatical opposition to biomedical research then they will be seen for exactly the kind of loose screws that they are. If PETA refuses to accept Beyoncé's offer then they will be doing more than just turning down Beyoncé. They will be seen as a fanatics who spit in the faces of disabled children around the world.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is up to its sneaky tricks again. R&B singer Beyoncé Knowles volunteered to help VH1's Save The Music Foundation by agreeing to have dinner with the highest bidder on Ebay. Unbeknownst to Beyoncé, the highest bidders were members of PETA who were upset with her because she wears fur and because she uses them in the House of Dereon clothing line that she shares with her mother, Tina. The folks from PETA outbid everyone else and then used the dinner to confront Beyoncé as well as her mother and her sister Solange with an in-your-face video about the evils of the fur industry. You can see a video clip of the confrontation here.

This is hardly the first, nor even the most objectionable trick that PETA has played. Perhaps their most disgusting trick occurred in December 2003 when they stood outside of theaters where the Nutcracker Suite was playing and handed out comic book-like leaflets to children whose mothers were wearing fur. These were not just any comics. Oh no! These were comics specially designed to traumatize children at Christmastime and turn them against their mothers. Take a good hard look at the front of the leaflet ! There it is, a picture of a mother with a demonic look in her eyes using a bloody knife to slaughter an innocent rabbit. The cover tells its reader to

"Ask your mommy . . . How many animals she killed to make her fur coat. The sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner she will be safe."

Now, look at the second page of this PDF to see the back of the leaflet.

Do you have a puppy you take for walks or play with? Or a kitty who likes to chase string? Everyone knows that it's fun to love and play with our animal friends.

But how would you feel if someone took away your kitty or puppy, stomped on their head, and ripped the skin off their bodies? It would make you feel sad, wouldn't it? Why would anyone be so mean? But there are terrible people who cause our furry friends to die that way every day. And guess what? One of those people is your mommy. Your mommy kills animals. I bet you didn't know that. . . .

Ask your mommy how many dead animals she killed to make her fur clothes. Then tell her that you know she paid men to hurt and kill the animals. Everyone knows. And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy– she's an animal killer!

How would you like your 8 year old boy or girl to be the recipient of this leaflet? Anyone with a sense of decency would say this is despicable. You don't go traumatizing children because you don't like their parents behavior. You don't scare children into thinking their mother is going to kill their doggie or kitty. You don't try to sew seeds of hatred in children toward their parents.

I agree with child psychologist Dr. Carolyn Newberger, who said:

"It's using children in the worst possible way. . . If (the activists) want to legitimately work to protect animals from destruction for fashion, they have every right to. But to do so by targeting children and making them feel their mothers are murderers is absolutely unconscionable.''

Of course, decency is not PETA's strong suit. They truly believe that there is a moral equivalency between animals and human beings. In their world view, human cannibalism is no more odious than eating a hamburger. And they have trivialized the plight of Jews during the Holocaust by equating their extermination to the eating of chickens. In their Holocaust On Your Plate campaign, they claimed:

"like the Jews murdered in concentration camps, animals are terrorized when they are housed in huge filthy warehouses and rounded up for shipment to slaughter. The leather sofa and handbag are the moral equivalent of the lampshades made from the skins of people killed in the death camps."

I guess knowing a bit about PETA's callous attitude toward human life should immunize me from being shocked by their shenanigans. But even I was shocked to read a letter by PETA's president, Ingrid Newkirk, in reaction to an incident in which a bomb strapped to a donkey was exploded in Jerusalem. Fortunately, no people were killed but the donkey lost its life in the bombing. Newkirk was horrified at the incident and sent a letter to Yasser Arafat asking him to refrain from hurting animals in the conflict against Israel. I know, it is hard to believe, but I am not making this up. Newkirk didn't ask Arafat to make sure that no innocent civilians were hurt. She didn't even ask him to do everything possible to make sure future bombs didn't go off where schoolchildren were playing. No– Newkirk's only concern seemed to lay with the dead mule. And if you don't believe me then read her letter which is so proudly displayed on PETA's web site.

So we know PETA is crass, crude, obnoxious, and indifferent to human life. But PETA is also dangerous. PETA wants to stop the use of animals in medical research. If you read through their website you would get the idea that animal studies have done little to advance medical advances in the past. In fact, their website is highly misleading since animal research is instrumental to current medical research and has made important contributions in the past to research in AIDS/HIV, cancer, antibiotics, and organ transplants. Experiments using transgenic mice–i.e. mice inserted with disease-causing human genes– are providing models to help us understand how Alzheimer's disease develops. But PETA wants to stop this research even though it may help pharmaceutical companies develop new therapies against this deadly disease. The following is from PETA's web site:

“Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?”

No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn’t that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong to sacrifice one human for the “greater good” of others because it would violate that individual’s rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.

Well, if PETA doesn't want to experiment on animals then that's fine. They shouldn't do experiments on animals–AND they shouldn't be hypocrites by using new treatments that result from animal research. But they should get out of the way and let the scientists do their research in peace so that others can benefit from the fruit of their research. Instead, there is at least circumstantial evidence that they have aided and abetted more extremist organizations that are intent on sabotaging labs where animal experiments take place and intimidating the scientists who work there with terror threats. In 2004, the FBI estimated that extremist groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front were responsible for 1,100 criminal acts since 1976 with damage estimates over $100 million. (Not all the acts were directed against laboratories. Animal rights extremists have had a diverse range of targets including meat packing plants, lumber plants, a ski facility, and a car dealership.) Some may argue that I use the word "terrorist" too lightly since the animal rights groups have been attacking property and have so far avoided killing people. But I defy you to read Mark Blumberg's account of how the ALF destroyed the research facilities at the University of Iowa and tell me that the punks who did this weren't terrorists. Pay close attention to the email they sent Blumberg stating:

"Let this message be clear to all who victimize the innocent… We're watching. And by axe, drill, or crowbar — we're coming though your door. Stop or be stopped." Later in that document, the brazen and indiscriminate nature of their threat was revealed when, after noting "the established link between violence towards animals and that towards humans," they listed "as a public safety measure" our names, our spouse's names, home addresses and phone numbers, as well as information about our students.

PETA officially denies any relationship with ALF. And as I said before, the evidence tying the two organizations together is circumstantial. But PETA certainly doesn't condemn them either and I can only conclude from this passage on their website that they secretly condone ALF's extremist tactics.

What’s PETA’s position on the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?

Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law in order to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order to combat injustice. PETA is a legal activist organization, but we realize that other groups have different methods and we try not to condemn any efforts in behalf of animals in which no one is harmed. "The ALF," which is simply the name adopted by people acting illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. It burns empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF "raids" have provided proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise.

So with this in mind, I am hoping that Beyoncé fights back against PETA's underhanded tactics. Personally, I have no use for fur and I really don't care whether the fur industry survives or not. But I do not like seeing PETA's pressure tactics rewarded. If they make gains by accosting Beyoncé at dinner for her support of the fur industry will they next be emboldened to try to accost me for eating meat? (NOTE TO PETA: Expect a punch in the nose if you DARE try to remove a steak from my plate. You don't get my meat away from me unless you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.) And more importantly, will victory in their harassment campaign against the fur industry embolden them to take a more aggressive stance against medical research?

Here is my advice to Beyoncé on how she should fight back.

1. First, watch this video by Penn and Teller. It absolutely destroys PETA's credibility. Admittedly, the video is extreme, but Penn and Teller seem to take the position that they need to abandon subtlety to fight extremists. In any case, their video is brilliant in taking on PETA's BULLSHIT!. I especially loved the part where they took Mary Beth Sweetland, Senior Vice President of PETA, to task for using insulin developed from animal testing to save her life while trying to stop animal research that could save the lives of others.
2. Invite the people from PETA to have dinner with you again. Invite Mary Beth Sweetland to dinner also. But this time it is your turn to stage an ambush. Invite Penn and Teller to dinner. They won't take PETA's Bullshit and I can guarantee you they will rub Mary Beth's hypocrisy in her face.
3. Make a counteroffer to PETA. Tell PETA that you will stop using fur in your clothing line and that you will stop wearing fur as soon as they drop their opposition to animal research. Tell them that they must break any and all ties with the Animal Liberation Front and they must condemn the ALF's tactics on their web site.

This will put PETA on the defensive. Either they will have to give up their opposition to animal research or they will look like extremist whack jobs if they continue to harass you. I predict that they will become even more marginalized then they are if they continue their opposition to animal research in light of such an offer. Now if they are smart they will agree to make a deal with you and reverse their position on animal experimentation and you will have to give up your use of furs. You might not enjoy this sacrifice, but you will be widely hailed as the women who made it safer for scientists to conduct medical research. Who knows Beyoncé? Maybe, just maybe, a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's will be found more quickly because of your sacrifice.

There is more than enough evidence to believe that Iran is working its tail off to get nuclear weapons. When asked if he thought Iran had nuclear weapons, Pakistan's former army chief, Retired Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, "said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them."

I do not believe Iran currently has nuclear weapons. If they had them I doubt they would conceal it from the world. As Dr. Strangelove said, "the… whole point of the doomsday machine… is lost… if you keep it a secret!" And subtlety does not appear to be the Iranian Governement's strong point. Do you remember the bizarre nuclear dance that was staged when Iran successfully enriched uranium? If Iran had the bomb then its a sure bet that Ahmadinejad would be doing the Mullah Mambo.

No, they don't have it yet. But they will have it soon enough if things are allowed to go on as they are.

In December 2005 we learned that the NSA was conducting warrantless wiretapping of American citizens who were believed to be in contact with terrorists overseas. This program is in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which outlaws warrantless domestic wiretaps but which provides a mechanism to obtain a warrant in secret from a special FISA court. But getting a warrant from the Court can take time–a precious commodity in our war on terrorism. I say hooray for the Bush Administration for realizing that strictly following the law could lead to missed phone calls and missed opportunities to catch a terrorist plot to kill thousands of Americans! I don't want our security agents to sit around twiddling their thumbs while they wait for a FISA judge to sign a warrant. When an agent finds out that someone is in contact with a suspected overseas terrorist I want him to tap a phone, not waste his time asking a Judge "Mother, may I?"

BUT THE FISA LAW ALSO ALLOWS RETROACTIVE WARRANTS!

As the Electronic Privacy Information Center notes:

. . . FISA allows for retroactive warrant requests – up to 72 hours after they’ve begun. The standard of proof required for warrants from the FISC is low; applicants need only show probable cause that the subject is an “agent of a foreign power.” Also, historically, the FISC only has rejected a handful of requests; in fact, it rejected none of the applications for secret surveillance in 2004.

So while I am happy that our agents weren't waiting around to initiate a wiretap, there is no justification for their failure to get the FISA Court's seal of approval after the fact. Three days is plenty of time to request a warrant. The circumvention of the FISA law is disturbing because it was enacted to prevent the types of abuses that went on during the 1960s. There are only four reasons that I can see for circumventing the law.

1. As the Electronic Privacy Information Center stated: "Another justification administration officials have put forth for bypassing the FISC with the NSA domestic surveillance program has to do with the vastness of the operation. Because the number of telephone and Internet communications being monitored was so large, the officials did not believe that they could obtain fast approval for all of them." But even if officials were unable to ask for permission in a timely manner, that is no excuse for them not to even try. Better for them to take four days or six days or even two weeks for them to submit a request to the FISA Court rather than not submit any request at all. At least that way there would be some checks and balances in the process.
2. The Bush Administration in its arrogance thought it was above the law.
3. The Bush Administration didn't believe that the FISA Court would sign off on its requests despite the fact that they it approved all 1754 secret surveillance applications in 2004. If this was the case then the evidence the Administration had linking the surveillance target to overseas terrorists must have been very weak.
4. The Bush Administration knew it would never get approval for some of the wiretaps because the wiretaps were improper. Perhaps they were targeting political opponents or domestic troublemakers.

Up to now I never would have even considered the fourth possibility. I have seen lots of incompetence within the Bush Administration. I have even seen some hubris. But I have never seen mendacity.

Yesterday I heard the story that someone fairly high up in the U.S. Border Patrol has been (allegedly) informing the Mexican government about the positions and operations of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. The Minutemen are a group of courageous private citizens who are doing what they can to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. They should be getting praises for trying to help our government enforce its immigration laws. Instead, the government has allegedly betrayed them. Whoever tipped off the Mexicans has reduced the effectiveness of the Minuteman and possibly jeopardized their lives.

Spokesmen for the Customs and Border Protection agency at DHS have denied these reports, but Michelle Malkin has assembled some pretty convincing evidence that rips the denials to shreds.

I have no idea how far up this goes, but if President Bush approved of a program to inform the Mexican government about the activities of private citizens then this is an impeachable offense. And if President Bush doesn't put an immediate halt to such a program (assuming it exists), then this would be negligence that comes very close to being impeach-worthy.

Whoever approved of this program (assuming it exists), was mendacious. I hope the President has not signed off on this mendacity. At this point I have no evidence to accuse him of doing so. But if it turns out that the President was aware of, and approved of this, then I have to wonder if there could be a relationship between the two mendacities.

Is it possible that Administration officials didn't try to get a warrant for domestic wiretapping because they were targeting Americans who were simply annoying them? Is it possible that the Administration is unhappy with the Minutemen for interfering with its anything goes attitude toward immigration from Mexico? Is it possible that some of the domestic wiretaps were aimed at the Minutemen?

I have not got a scintilla of evidence to connect these two scandals. This is nothing more than wild speculation on my part. But I remember that back in the 1980s officials in the Reagan Administration illegally funded the Contras in Nicaragua. And they sold arms to Iran. And the two scandals merged into one.

There is unrest in the Egyptian blogosphere today, and deservedly so Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt with an iron fist since 1981. That is when Emergency Laws went into effect in order to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood for the assassination of Anwar Sadat. The emergency laws are still in effect and Egyptians don’t have many of the freedoms that we take for granted.

Fifty judges protested against the Egyptian government with the goal of obtaining independence from Mubarak’s regime. The judges are angry that the Mubarak regime allegedly forced them into giving their seal of approval to what they believe were fraudulent elections last year. Egyptian police responded to the judges's peaceful protests by beating one of the judges and arresting 15 of his supporters. A small protest movement developed as a result of this and Last week the government responded by arresting 49 activists, including a blogger named Malek. Today the Egyptian government arrested Alaa Ahmed Seif el Islam and another 11 others for their support of the judges protests. I haven't read Alaa's blog before–it is in Arabic, but I do read the blogs of the Egyptian Sandmonkey and The Big Pharaoh and they seem very alarmed by this turn of events. This is from the Sandmonkey

Alaa, blogger, co-founder of the egyptian blog aggregator Manalaa and democracy activist, got arrested today during a protest to support the Judiciary's branch fight for independence. He, and about 10 others, were rounded up in the street, beaten up and thrown in a police car. Amongst those who got arrested were at least 3 girls, and the police beat up at least another 2 girls as well.

The way it worked, the police made sure to press the demonstartors close to the egyptian musem, where they cordoned them and wouldn't let them leave, while continiously hurling insults at them. The demonstartors tried to get the police to let them go for half an hour, but no avail. The Police cordon then opend where a group of plainly dressed police officers and thugs rushed in and started beating up the demonstartors and dragging them on the asphalt till they threw them in the police vehicles. The Police also made sure that none of the satalite news channels would be able to get video footage of what they did by not allowing the press to come close and keeping them away the entire time.

The Sandmonkey continued:

As you can read here Alaa has been arrested , and the situation is turning bleaker by the minute. Given what the egyptian police is like , and how they wanted to hurt Alaa for quite a while now, I don't think it's wise to wait until they decide what THEY want to do with him. The fight should start immedietly.

The contact information for the Egyptian embassy is below:
The Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt
3521 International Ct. NW
Washington DC 20008
Phone (202) 895 5400
Fax (202) 244 5131
(202) 244 4319
Email: embassy@egyptembdc.org

E-mail them, send them letters, harrass them. The last time you did that we got Abdel Karim released. I am not joking when I tell you that I had information from a source inside that this is the only reason they released him. Too much pressure by the average american and european. The egyptian government is cowardly, they will sucumb to pressure. Tell them that you find his detainment and arrest unacceptable. That you will not set foot in this country, and will tell every friend of yours never to visit Egypt, unless Alaa and the other detainees are released immedietly. That a government that throws people in jail for freedom of speech is not one that will get your money. Tell everyone you know and spread the word. In the words of Tigerhawk: Release the Hounds.

I think this is about to get big. Reporters Without Borders are about to get involved on Alaa's behalf.

The Big Pharaoh made did a good job explaining why cutting off aid to the Palestinians is a bad idea.

This is what I have warned against. Cutting off aid from the Hamas government without providing an alternative to financing the Palestinians will portray Hamas as a victim and turn it into a “cause” that Muslims around the world will rally behind. This is exactly what will happen especially afterhigh profile religious clerics are about to issue a fatwa urging Muslims and their governments to aid the Hamas government.

I agree with BP. We must aid the Palestinians but the aid must not be through the Hamas government. For just three cents a day we could aid the Palestinians in such a way that suicide bombing will lose its glamor.My plan would put pressure on Hamas to halt the bombings. If my plan were enacted then Hamas would have two choices: either abandon their quest to drive Israel off the map or be driven from office.

I) The Danger We Face

Those who would rule out an attack against Iran are naively and dangerously wrong. With his desire to "wipe Israel off the map" and his apparent desire to usher in the return of the 12th Imam, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just too dangerous a man to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Amir Taheri, former Executive Editor of Iran's largest newspaper, explains why Ahmadinejad is so dangerous and why we can't trust him, even if he temporarily suspends production of uranium and starts to talk about signing the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Taheri's article is must reading. Read it now!

Even if Iran really doesn't intend to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, once they get nuclear weapons then Israel will be on hair-trigger alert. Do you think the Israelis will practice restraint if tensions escalate between the two countries and if they think they are imminent danger of nuclear attack? Or might Israel attack first using its nuclear weapons in the hope that they could knock out Iran's weapons before they are launched? Even if Ahmadinejad were just a poor cuddly soul who didn't really mean what he was saying, Israeli misperception of his intentions combined with his possession of nuclear weapons could set the stage for disaster. And Israel is not the only country that will be uncomfortable with a nuclear-armed Iran. How long will it be before Saudi Arabia and Egypt feel compelled to build their own nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from bullying them? So many nuclear matches clustered tightly in a region loaded with dynamite can only lead to disaster.

Iran must be stopped from getting nuclear weapons at all costs. But does that mean we should bomb them? We may have to as a last resort. But we must make sure that it is a LAST resort, especially since some Iranian leaders may want us to bomb them. Military action could carry a heavy price:

1. There is no telling how many Iranians could be killed in such an action.
2. Right now, most Iranians have a favorable opinion of American people, even if they don't like our government. Many Iranians don't like their government but there is little they can do about it because the government controls the police and the military and they are willing to use it to stifle dissent. However, if we attack militarily then the people may rally around the government to resist what they see as "U.S. aggression." An attack could turn a somewhat sympathetic populace into a populace that thoroughly hates America.
3. Iran could cause us no end of headaches in Iraq. Militias with Iranian ties could launch an all-out assault on our soldiers with Iran's help.
4. Iran could drastically reduce the world's oil supply by mining the Straight of Hormuz or blocking the Straight by sinking an oil tanker. This could drastically cut the oil flow from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (and Iran) by up to 20 million barrels of oil a day. Iran has a choke hold on the world's economy should they choose to use it. Of course, this is a worst case scenario and it is possible that our air and naval forces could keep the Straight clear. But even in a best case scenario, Iran will withhold its oil from the market if it is under attack and this alone could disrupt global markets.
5. The rest of the Islamic world will be watching us and they will be enraged if we attack. The leaders of the Arabic countries in the Middle East might be secretly happy about such an attack because an Iran armed with nuclear weapons poses a threat to their countries. However, Al Qaeda's recruitment office will have a field day with the rage this produces on the Arab street. Rand Corporation analyst Seth Jones elaborated on this point in an editorial he wrote for the April 11, 2006 Christian Science Monitor.
   

   In the final analysis, the most significant cost of an attack would not be a result of Iranian military or economic retaliation. It would be a worsening of US relations with Muslim nations that would severely impact America's global war on terrorism.

   The reaction to the cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad starkly illustrates the speed and explosiveness of anti-Western and anti-American sentiment among Muslim populations in the Middle East, Asia, and North Africa. In several countries, such as Afghanistan, jihadists took advantage of the situation to stir up crowds, incite violence against Westerners, and recruit members. An attack against Iran would create another opportunity to accomplish these objectives.

   Anti-Americanism is already high in the Arab world, according to opinion polls conducted by Zogby International. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two major allies of the US, 85 and 89 percent of the populations respectively view the US unfavorably. More than 60 percent of those from Morocco, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon also view the US unfavorably.

   Iran's foreign policy behavior and nuclear program are deeply troubling. But a preemptive attack against Iran today would go against US political and strategic interests in the Middle East. As US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently noted, the US is faring poorly in its effort to counter ideological support for terrorism. If America is serious about countering this support and winning hearts and minds in the Middle East, it needs to continue pursuing policies that encourage support rather than further hostility, in the region.

We could see even more nasty surprises from a war with Iran than than we have seen with our war in Iraq. Still, the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran is so great that we MUST go to war if nothing else changes the situation.

II) My Solution

However, I think Iran can be defanged if we follow a clever strategy of offering carrots and sticks. I will lay out a plan in a moment that may help us avoid war. And if my plan fails to deter Iran and if we have to attack Iran because their development of a nuclear weapon is imminent, then my plan will make an attack more feasible by reducing the international outcry against us and by reducing the anger that it will generate in the Muslim world. But before I lay out my plan you should read these important and surprising observations from the Strategy Page about Iranian-U.S. relations.

America and Americans are generally viewed quite favorably by most Iranians, and trendier people open flaunt American cultural icons; Iran was the only Moslem country in which there were spontaneous mass public demonstrations of sympathy for the U.S. following the 911 attacks. . . .

Iran was one of the main sources of funding for the warlords who were fighting the Taliban during the 1990s. When the U.S. jumped into Afghanistan in late 2001, Iran encouraged its pet warlords to cooperate with American efforts and supported the formation of the Karzai government. Relief supplies were permitted to move across Iranian territory. And, most surprisingly, Iran raised no objections when American aircraft occasionally (or not so occasionally) violated its airspace. At the time, many Iranian leaders apparently believed the effort in Afghanistan would lead to some improvement in ties with the U.S. Instead, Iran found itself included in "The Axis of Evil." This had a major effect on the following elections; political and religious leaders who had been urging a rapprochement with the U.S. were discredited and barred from running for office, which led to a resurgence of ultra-conservatives in the religious leadership, which in turn led to the election of the nearly maniacal Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. . .

While nuclear arms might bring Iran some prestige, their possession would not necessarily greatly enhance the country's overall power and influence. Indeed, reportedly some Iranian military leaders have argued against acquiring nuclear weapons, on the grounds that . . . (several arguments omitted) . . .they are apparently terrified that if Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group were to employ a nuclear device or even a radiological weapon, Iran would suffer immediate consequences, whether or not it had any ties to the incident. Surprisingly, some important religious leaders are apparently backing these military arguments with the claim that the late Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution, issued a fatwa condemning nuclear arms. Despite this, of course, the country is moving forward. Just how "imminent" possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon is difficult to assess. Nevertheless, despite often hysterical predictions, it seems unlikely to happen within the next couple of years.`

This should leave plenty of room for diplomatic jawing

With that in mind, I present my mix of carrots and sticks.

1. We should declare that we will never use nuclear weapons against a country that does not possess nuclear weapons, even if a nuclear weapon explodes on U.S. soil. If a nuclear weapon is exploded after being smuggled into our country we will try to figure out where it came from and who is responsible. We will do our best to make sure that our counterattack is against only the responsible party. We would not want to use a nuclear weapon against the wrong country, but intelligence mistakes can happen (Ask Iraq). It is always possible that we could screw up and mistakenly identify Iran as the culprit, even if they are innocent. The only way the Iranians could guarantee that they will not be subject to a mistaken U.S. nuclear counterattack would be to give up their nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, if a report by Seymour Hersh can be believed, we may be planning an attack against Iran that includes the use of bunker busting tactical nuclear weapons to ensure destruction of Iran's main centrifuge facility. This is moving us in the wrong direction. We should be trying to assure the Iranians that we will not use nuclear weapons against them if they give up their program. It will be hard to convince them of that if we are drawing up plans that will use nuclear weapons–even tactical nuclear weapons–against them in a first strike.
2. We should declare that our long-term goal is a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. Announce that we will use our influence to pressure Israel to give up there nuclear weapons–but we will take this step only after a lasting peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israeli's have been arranged. My Marshall Plan for the Middle East could be an important building block toward such a peace. (See also my Questions and Answers about the Marshal Plan.)
3. Iran may be worried about a U.S. attack against it. President Bush has listed Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as countries belonging to an Axis of Evil. Iran has witnessed a U.S. led attack against Iraq– a country that did not have nuclear weapons. It has also watched us treat the North Koreans ever so carefully– undoubtedly because it has nuclear weapons. I think Iran wants nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. I believe Ahmadinejad when he says that his goal is to destroy Israel. But Iran's apologists and enablers may argue that after Bush called them evil, the Iranians really want nuclear weapons for defensive purposes to deter a U.S. attack. We can allay those fears and cut the ground out from under the apologists by pledging not to attack Iran provided that they halt their nuclear weapons programs and that they refrain from aggression against their neighbors and Israel. We should state loud and clear that they have nothing to fear from us provided that they behave properly in the international arena. And if Iran continues with their nuclear weapons program despite this pledge it will be harder for China and Russia to ignore the program's offensive nature. By making this pledge now we will be showing the world our desire to walk the extra mile for peace. We may eventually have to attack Iran if they thumb their nose at this offer and continue the reckless development of their nuclear program. But if we do have to bomb Iran someday then having made this offer will make it easier for us to garner international support than would otherwise have been possible.
4. The Iranians have a long memory. They still remember that the CIA, in response to prodding by the British, overthrew their democratically elected Prime Minister,
   Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. This set the stage for the highly unpopular dictatorial reign of the Shah of Iran. Our role in bringing the Shah to power and our subsequent support of his reign has been an important factor contributing toward Iranian hatred of the United States. Madeline Albright gave a tepid apology six years ago for our role in the overthrow of Mossadegh, but it was too little, too late to impress anyone in Iran. We should give some sort of compensation as a symbolic gesture of our regret. The compensation should only be a token one. We can not give too much to a country that has a government as hostile to our interests as Iran has. The hated Shah of Iran was in power for about 26 years between 1953 and 1979. Let us set up a foundation that would give $3,000 to each of 10,000 of Iran's poorest citizens each year for the express purpose of enabling them to go on a Hajj to Mecca. This should be done unconditionally, whether Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions or not. For $30 Million a year we could buy a program that could generate goodwill toward the U.S. within Iran, and it could make recruiting for radical Islamic extremists more difficult throughout the world by making it harder for them to paint the U.S. as anti-Muslim.
5. The Iranians might think that $30 Million a year for 26 years is insufficient compensation for the years of brutality that they suffered under the Shah. We should tell them that we are ready to sweeten the pot with billions of dollars of further aid, but receiving that aid will be contingent upon Iran's giving up its nuclear weapons program. Iran claims that it needs to develop a nuclear energy program because it will run out of oil in the next 30 years. (Of course this could just be an excuse for developing the infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program under the guise of a nuclear energy program.) We could help alleviate some of their energy concerns by giving them several billion dollars a year to develop a solar power industry. (According to one report from June 2005, Iran is building its first solar power plant, but it is doing it on its own since "no country was willing to provide Iran the technology.") Such an investment could also end up helping us in the long run by making solar power more affordable as new breakthroughs are made in solar technology and economies of scale are introduced to the manufacture of solar energy panels. Though Iran's climate makes it an ideal candidate for the development of solar energy, this technology will not be sufficient to supply all of Iran's energy needs. For this reason we should encourage Russia's proposal to supply Iran with Russian-made uranium to be used in a closely supervised Iranian nuclear energy program. Or we could supply this uranium ourselves.

We should not be shy about using Voice of America to broadcast our "peace initiatives" to the Iranian people. Many of them already feel uneasy about their government's confrontational stance toward the West over their nuclear weapons program. We must make them realize that we are trying to meet them half way and that their government will be squandering a golden opportunity for them if it continues its nuclear defiance. This may generate further hostility toward Ahmadinejad and the Mad Mullahs who back him if he does not veer from his current path. In a best-case scenario, this could lead to massive protests in the streets that would sweep the Ahmadinejad regime away. That is the best-case scenario. It is also, unfortunately, the least likely scenario. As the Strategy Page points out, "People Power" is not likely to work in Iran because the regime is so ruthless that it will use its military to crush any popular protest.

We need a plan B if our "peace initiative" doesn't work, and the Big Pharaoh presented an interesting proposal. He suggested that we should clandestinely arm separatist minority groups within Iran and let them hassle the Iranian government. He further explained his idea about arming Iranian Kurds and Arabs in this post. While this would not be my first option, it is better than a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran that would only cause the Iranian people to rally around their government and inflame further hostility against us in the Muslim World. We should take this initiative if Ahmadinejad does not radically change his path within a month or two of our presenting our peace initiative. Then we should sit back for a few months and see what happens. We should not wait too long after offering our peace initiative before arming potential rebels because time is not on our side. If Ahmadinejad wants peace then it should not take him long to seize the opportunity. More likely, he will try to delay, delay, delay by floating counterproposal after counterproposal in order to make it appear like he is looking for a peaceful way out of the situation. And he will be using this time bought by pseudo-negotiations to continue to strengthen his nuclear capabilities.

With some luck, the armed rebels could distract the military enough to enable a population enraged by the Mullah's thug-ocracy a chance to rebel against their government. But if that does not happen then we should attack Iran's nuclear installations before they have a chance to build nuclear weapons. This scenario is to be avoided if at all possible, but it must be undertaken if the Peace Initiative and Plan B fail to halt Iran's nuclear progress. Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote a lengthy but well-thought out article in the April 24, 2005 edition of the Weekly Standard examining the various reasons given to avoid bombing Iran as a last resort. His rebuttals of each of these arguments is worth reading. In another article of the April 24, 2005 Weekly Standard, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) discussed how a massive air strike could effectively reduce the Iranian threat.

III) Questions And Answers–Weaknesses In My Plan

Q: How could the U.S. government, using taxpayer money, possibly give money to help poor Iranians go on a Hajj to Mecca? Isn't this an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state?

A: I am not a lawyer and I won't pretend to have a definitive answer for this. However, I will note that the primary purpose of this funding is not to promote a particular religion–though undoubtedly it will do this to some extent. The primary purpose for this funding is to win friends amongst the Iranian people and to drive a wedge between the Iranian government and its people should the Ahmadinejad regime stupidly refuse to allow its citizens to accept American generosity. The Iranian government might even want to prevent the people from learning about this offer, but we should use the Voice of America to broadcast are offer loud and often to the Iranian people. I also note that President Bush pledged to help the Iraqis rebuild the Samarra mosque after it was bombed in February. If this doesn't violate the Constitution then I think setting up a fund to help poor Iranians go on a Hajj will pass Constitutional muster. The key point is that U.S. money isn't being spent to promote a religion within the United States.

Q: It is obscene for us to be paying a single penney to the Iranians when they haven't even apologized, much less compensated, the Americans they held hostage for 444 days in 1979.

A: I agree– it is obscene for us to be helping the Iranians out when they have yet to apologize for the disgraceful way they treated our embassy personnel. But it is even more obscene if we don't do everything we can to avoid a war that could further inflame anti-American passion in the Muslim world. We may have to go to war with Iran, but we must not forget we are also in a long-term, World War with Islamic extremists. Even if we could be assured a relatively quick and painless victory in Iran (which I doubt), it could be just a temporary victory if it inspires tens of thousands of terrorists to renew their efforts to punish the United States. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to pay the Iranians a single penney considering what they did to the hostages. But the world is far from perfect and it will be in our best interest to make this offering.

Q: What about economic sanctions against Iran? That's what is being talked about now, and you haven't even mentioned them in this article.

I am all for imposing sanctions on Iran if they refuse to cooperate. I believe in both the carrot and the stick. My program is intended as a complement to sanctions, not a replacement for them. I am concerned that Russia and China's might block any effective sanctions. Russia needs to be reminded of what happened when they last got in bed with the devil. Stalin (who was Satanic himself) made a non-aggression pact with Hitler in August 1939 and the two countries agreed on dividing the rest of Europe into "spheres of influence" (i.e. Germany and Russia decided who would get to mercilessly invade which country.) Things were going just fine for the Soviets until they were caught flat-footed when the Germans attacked them in June 1941. Moral of the story: if you get in bed with a snake, don't be surprised when you get bit. If we can get the Russians to focus on their history then perhaps we can get them to change their stance.

This would leave China isolated as the only nation blocking sanctions. George Bush should then meet with President Hu and explain to him that the Taiwanese have presented us with a wish list of high-tech weapons that they want us to sell them. We would like to turn down their request out of a desire to maintain friendly relations with China, but friendship works both ways. Bush should further explain that support for sanctions against Iran is as important to us and the rest of the world as the issue of Taiwan is to the Chinese. This meeting MUST take place in secret behind closed doors to avoid putting the Chinese in a position of having to choose between sticking with Iran or loosing face by knuckling under our pressure. But if China does not have to worry about losing face I doubt they would want to be seen as Iran's only friend under these circumstances.

Q: But this is crazy!!! You are out of your mind, offering to sponsor 10,000 poor Iranians to go on a Hajj to Mecca! And you are rewarding Iran's poor behavior by an offer of nonaggression against them and by pledging not to attack them with nuclear weapons. This is appeasement and it will encourage other countries to start a weapons program in order to squeeze as much as they can get out of us.

A: This is a valid objection and I must admit that I am somewhat uneasy about this possibility. However there are these mitigating factors:

• We really did do Iran dirty by sponsoring the overthrow of Mossadegh. Not every nation can make that claim against us and we should explicitly state that the Hajj sponsorship is a gesture of goodwill to compensate for past wrongs. We may be able to diminish the perception of a nuclear quid pro quo by making our sponsorship an unconditional offer. The offer will be on the table whether Iran curtails its nuclear program or not.
• Our pledge of nonaggression against Iran will be a highly conditioned one. If Iran continues down the nuclear path then the pledge is null and void. Ditto if Iran acts aggressively against its neighbors or Israel. If Iran behaves itself then it should have nothing to fear from us. And that is how it should be.
• We should pledge not to use nuclear weapons against any nation that does not have nuclear weapons, regardless of the situation in Iran. Leaving aside the morality of using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nuclear nation, any attack against a non-nuclear nation is bound to incite outrage against us throughout the world.

Q: How can we make a blanket pledge against attacking non-nuclear nations? What about a country that does not have a nuclear program that allows itself to be used as a base for a terrorist organization that puts together a nuclear bomb?

A: A rogue nation could take advantage of this pledge by allowing a non-governmental terrorist group to have a base which it could use to assemble a nuclear weapon, provided it was able to acquire enriched uranium through the black market. I concede that there is a valid reason for refusing to make this pledge–we want to deter rogue nations from harboring potential nuclear terrorists and making such a pledge could diminish this deterrence. However, I think the benefit of this pledge outweighs the risk by providing enemy states with an incentive not to develop their own nuclear weapons programs.

Besides, there need not be a total loss of deterrence. We need to make it clear that we will engage in an all-out war using conventional weapons against any country that harbors a terrorist group suspected of assembling a nuclear weapon that is detonated on our soil. This should be our policy whether the weapon exploded on U.S. territory is the deadly mushroom cloud type bomb or the far less lethal but more probable dirty bomb. And we need to announce that if a mushroom cloud ever goes off on American soil then we will not be too concerned about keeping enemy civilian casualties low in our counterattack. There have been times that our military planners have forgone attacking potential targets if our strikes were likely to produce excessive civilian casualties. The civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been tragic. One controversial study concluded that there were more than 100,000 civilian deaths caused by the Iraq invasion. Others believe that this figure is an exaggeration. But whatever the figure, it would almost certainly have been higher had we not weighed the probable number of civilian deaths against the military value of a potential target before deciding what to bomb. Let us announce that we will change our policy to go after ALL military targets, no matter how many civilian deaths occur, should we be attacked by a nuclear bomb assembled by a terrorist organization being harbored by a non-nuclear enemy state. Let THAT be our deterrent.

My plan is not perfect. It has its drawbacks as discussed above. But I think it is the least bad of a number of terrible options.

The good news: Abdul Rahman has been released. The judge decided there was "problem with the evidence" so they are letting him go for the time being.

The bad news: the odds of him staying alive in Afghanistan is about as
great as the odds of President Bush being re-elected. The clerics
in Afghanistan are threatening him with "street justice". They're going
to incite the mobs to go after him, evidently, because they
believe his very existance is too much of an insult for Allah to bear.

I hope our government invites him to come to the U.S. and provides a fast-track toward citizenship for him.

The Sandmonkey provides an excellent analysis of the broader ramifications of this case.

I’d like to think that CAIR was reading my mind as I was writing my last post. But I really can’t take credit for it. CAIR did the right thing today by issuing a Press Release calling for Abdul Rahman’s release.

Here is the text of their PR:

CAIR Calls For Release Of Afghan Christian

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CAIR CALLS FOR RELEASE OF AFGHAN CHRISTIAN
Islamic civil rights group says conversion a personal, not state matter

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/22/2006) – A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the government of Afghanistan to release Abdul Rahman, a man facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says the man’s conversion is a personal matter not subject to the intervention of the state.

SEE: Afghan Christian Could Face Death
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/22/world/main1428951.shtml

In its statement, CAIR said:

“Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual’s choice of religion. Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, a position supported by verses in the Quran, Islam’s revealed text, such as:

1) ‘If it had been the will of your Lord that all the people of the world should be believers, all the people of the earth would have believed! Would you then compel mankind against their will to believe?’ (10:99)
2) ‘(O Prophet) proclaim: ‘This is the Truth from your Lord. Now let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it.’’ (18:29)
3) ‘If they turn away from thee (O Muhammad) they should know that We have not sent you to be their keeper. Your only duty is to convey My message.’ (42:48)
4) ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion.’ (2:256)

“Religious decisions should be matters of personal choice, not a cause for state intervention. Faith imposed by force is not true belief, but coercion. Islam has no need to compel belief in its divine truth. As the Quran states: ‘Truth stands out clear from error. Therefore, whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks.’ (2:256)

“We urge the government of Afghanistan to order the immediate release of Mr. Abdul Rahman.”

Before issuing its statement, CAIR consulted with members of the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Muslim religious law.

CAIR, America’s largest Muslim civil liberties group, has 32 offices, chapters and affiliates nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

- END -

]]>