Egypt accuses Army of Islam of Church Bombings

Re-posted from the BBC.

A small Palestinian group linked to al-Qaeda was behind the New Year's Day bomb attack on a church in Alexandria in which 23 people died, Egypt says.

Egypt has insisted from the outset that there was foreign involvement in the attack

Interior Minister Habib al-Adli said Cairo had "decisive proof" that the Army of Islam carried out the attack in the northern Egyptian city.

The Gaza-based group immediately denied any responsibility for the attack.

Officials in Egypt have so far released very few details how they believe the attack was carried out.

Shadowy group

"We have decisive proof of their (Army of Islam's) heinous involvement in planning and carrying out such a villainous terrorist act," Mr Adli said in a speech to mark Police Day in Egypt.

President Hosni Mubarak praised police, saying the development would help "set at rest the hearts of all Egyptians".

The Alexandria attack triggered days of rioting by Egypt's minority Christians, who accused the government of not doing enough to protect them.

A spokesman for the Army of Islam said on Sunday that the group "has no connection to the church attack in Egypt".

The attack triggered days of clashes between Coptic Christians
and Police

But he added: "We praise those who did it."

The Army of Islam has been blamed for kidnappings and other violence inside Gaza.

It is alleged that the group played a part in the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006.

But there is no record of it operating further afield, the BBC's Jon Leyne in Cairo reports.

Our correspondent adds that the Egyptian government early on stressed their belief that there was foreign involvement - rather than it just being a sectarian religious attack carried out by Egyptians.

Equal rights to worship...or...?

I've lived in Egypt for over four years now, and of the time spent here, I worked for three years with the Arab-West Report. Stories of attacks against Coptic Christians by Muslims, or visa versa, are unfortunately not uncommon to my ears. The underlying truth behind most of the stories is that most incidents are simply disputes among a group, which is then turned into a religious debate.

Today, reports have surfaced of two dead in clashes between police and Coptic protesters in Giza governorate, just outside of Cairo. While I'm sure that there is more to the story than Al-Masry al-Youm will let on, I think it is of utmost importance that people within Egypt come together to prevent such squabbles even arising.

Take it into perspective for a minute, how many Muslims around the world have stood up and proclaimed that the right to build a Mosque, or Islamic Cultural Center, should be guaranteed and permitted under the U.S. Constitution, particularly when you take Freedom of Religious Belief into consideration. The calls are echoed by statements of the peaceful nature of Islam, and how Islam itself promotes the three monotheistic religions and an individual's right to practice their own religious ideals (assuming, of course, that it falls under the three main monotheistic religions...).

Don't get me wrong, until I know more details about the specific events that happened in Giza, I do not want to pass judgement. However, bringing the broad spectrum into light, is it not about time that the Copts in Egypt are given the same rights to build houses of worship as Muslims are around the world? Seeing that we're living in a democratic nation, and Copts constitute roughly ten percent of the total population, why is their right to worship freely so suppressed? In Hurghada, I have seen a greater concentration of Copts than I ever did in Cairo, yet I have not seen one Church. Not one. Sure, they exist, tucked away in little back alleys so as not to disturb the flow of things. It saddens me greatly. Has it really come to such a point where Copts are being pushed to build their houses of worship under the guise of something else, lest their permissions to construct be immediately denied?

Below is the article from Al-Masry al-Youm. I welcome any and all comments!

Two feared dead in Coptic protest over church construction

Photographed by AFP

Two Coptic protesters are suspected dead and scores more wounded in clashes between police and Copts over a decision to stop construction of a church in Giza, eye witnesses said.

Approximately 2000 Copts attempted to break into the Giza Governorate headquarters, while others attacked police and security vehicles, according to security officials.

Security repulsed the attempted infiltration, the officials said, adding that police have arrested 100 protesters and dispatched thousands of forces to Omraneyya and Talbeyya in southern Giza to prevent the spread of unrest.

Thousands of Copts organized a protest on Tuesday in rejection of the Giza Governorate decision to stop construction of the church. Officials said the building did not possess the appropriate permit.

Officials added that building authorization was approved for a service center, not a church.

Protests resumed on Wednesday with demonstrators hurling stones and bottles at security personnel. Security used tear gas to disperse the Coptic protesters.

Rally leaders called on authorities to stop intervening in the construction of churches and their restoration. Church building and restoration has been a controversial issue since both require approval from a governor. 

A government report published last year stated that Egypt has 2000 churches, compared with more than 93,000 mosques.

Copts constitute roughly ten percent of Egypt's total population of 79 million.

A security source said police are keeping the situation under control and have tightened security at the entrances and exits of Giza.

And on a lighter note

Now this article I will whole heartedly comment on. In this day and age of black and white when it comes to acceptance and hatred, I find it more and more prudent to be able to make light of a negative situation. In this case, the suggestion fronted by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, who are in full swing in attempting to slap censorship on the Blackberry phones. Reason being?

Well...that's quite simple. The Blackberry has heralded itself as being capable of encrypting messages, one of the reasons it is so popular a device for business people to use. Not only can you safely view and send emails via your Blackberry, the infamous BBM is also encrypted to ensure no possible interception of your messages. Of course, this does not fly too well with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, whose media ("censorship") authorities distrust the encryption capability. Translation --> we don't like not being able to read everything and anything that you are sending. So the ideal result? Banning the Blackberry's ability to access the Internet/Email/BBMs within Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

This article puts such a great spin on this ridiculous suggestion, that I have to share it.

Gulf states order Blackberry users to cover their phones in a tiny burqa

New laws in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will require that every Blackberry user dress their phone a miniature burqa and face veil.

‘The Blackberry burqa means that people can still use their phones,’ said a Saudi government official, ‘but the tiny niqab that covers the screen will stop them from reading emails or accessing the Internet.’

The introduction of the burqa is intended to conceal the Blackberry from unwanted attention. With the veil in place only a tiny slit remains revealing just the time and date, thus preserving its modesty.

‘This is not about censorship or oppression,’ said UAE telecommunications regulator Mohammed al-Ghanem, ‘this is about preserving the essential purity of the Blackberry and protecting it from being corrupted.’

ome businessmen believe that making their phone wear a burqa can be very liberating. ‘It’s great,’ said one, ‘with the veil in place I am free to walk about with my Blackberry in public without the feeling that people are staring lustily at my multi-media application. It also covers my shame for not owning an iPhone.’
Some religious groups have welcomed the policy. ‘If Allah had meant us to freely access the Internet He would have given us web browsers in our heads,’ said a local imam, adding ‘There is absolutely no mention of instant messaging in the Koran and at no point did Muhammad, or any of his eleven wives, ever say LOL, ROFL or PMSL.’

If the Blackberry burqa is successful it may spread to other countries. However, experts say that dressing your phone in a burqa could result in poor reception, especially in France and Belgium.
The British government has yet to declare an official line on phone burqas although Immigration Minister Damian Green said that to ban them would be ‘very unBritish’. He went on to explain that, ‘the British thing to do, as always, is to grumble and tut.’

The Saudi government have promised that anyone who refuses to dress their Blackberry in a burqa will face harsh punishment. ‘I am not saying exactly what we will do,’ said their Minister for Justice, ‘but suffice to say that it isn’t so easy to text with your toes.’

Spreading Tolerance, or further animosity?

I shall leave my own personal comments on this article aside. Rather, I feel that it is important to reflect upon the message in this article, and consider what the implications for such an action truly are.

A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else'

By Neda Bolourchi

Sunday, August 8, 2010


I have no grave site to visit, no place to bring my mother her favorite yellow flowers, no spot where I can hold my weary heart close to her. All I have is Ground Zero.

On the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, I watched as terrorists slammed United Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, 18 minutes after their accomplices on another hijacked plane hit the North Tower. My mother was on the flight. I witnessed her murder on live television. I still cannot fully comprehend those images. In that moment, I died as well. I carry a hole in my heart that will never be filled.
From the first memorial ceremonies I attended at Ground Zero, I have always been moved by the site; it means something to be close to where my mother may be buried, it brings some peace. That is why the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero -- or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol -- troubles me.

I was born in pre-revolutionary Iran. My family led a largely secular existence -- I did not attend a religious school, I never wore a headscarf -- but for us, as for anyone there, Islam was part of our heritage, our culture, our entire lives. Though I have nothing but contempt for the fanaticism that propelled the terrorists to carry out their murderous attacks on Sept. 11, I still have great respect for the faith. Yet, I worry that the construction of the Cordoba House Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site would not promote tolerance or understanding; I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world.

When I am asked about the people who murdered my mother, I try to hold back my anger. I try to have a more spiritual perspective. I tell myself that perhaps what happened was meant to happen -- that it was my mother's destiny to perish this way. I try to take solace in the notion that her death has forced a much-needed conversation and reevaluation of the role of religion in the Muslim community, of the duties and obligations that the faith imposes and of its impact on the non-Muslim world.

But a mosque near Ground Zero will not move this conversation forward. There were many mosques in the United States before Sept. 11; their mere existence did not bring cross-cultural understanding. The proposed center in New York may be heralded as a peace offering -- may genuinely seek to focus on "promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture," as its Web site declares -- but I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not.

The Sept. 11 attacks were the product of a hateful ideology that the perpetrators were willing to die for. They believed that all non-Muslims are infidels and that the duty of Muslims is to renounce them. I am not a theologian, but I know that the men who killed my mother carried this message in their hearts and minds. Obedient and dutiful soldiers, they marched toward their promised rewards in heaven with utter disregard for the value of the human beings they killed.

I know Ground Zero is not mine alone; I must share this sanctuary with tourists, politicians, anyone who chooses to come, whatever their motivations or intentions. But a mosque nearby -- even a proposed one -- is already transforming the site from a sacred ground for reflection, so desperately needed by the families who lost loved ones, to a battleground for religious and political ideologies. So many people from different nationalities and religions were killed that day. This site should be a neutral place for all to come in peace and remember. I believe my mother would have thought so as well.

The Iranian revolution compelled my family to flee to America when I was 12 years old. Yet, just over two decades later, the militant version of our faith caught up with us on a September morning. I still identify as a Muslim. When you are born into a Muslim family, there is no way around it, no choices available: You are Muslim. I am not ashamed of my faith, but I am ashamed of what is done in its name.

On the day I left Ground Zero shortly after the tragedy, I felt that I was abandoning my mother. It was like being forced to leave the bedside of a loved one who is dying, knowing you will never see her again. But I felt the love and respect of all those around me there, and it reassured me that she was being left in good hands. Since I cannot visit New York as often as I would like, I at least want to know that my mother can rest in peace.

I do not like harboring resentment or anger, but I do not want the death of my mother -- my best friend, my hero, my strength, my love -- to become even more politicized than it already is. To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother's grave, and let her rest.

Neda Bolourchi lives in Los Angeles.

Warning, you may actually lose brain cells from reading this stupidity.

This is a story that I was pointed towards via facebook. I had to share it. For anyone who has ever lived in a Muslim country, or who has ever gotten to know the Islamic religion, or who has even gotten to know a Muslim, this article just screams blatant ignorance.

Honestly, have some people in our world become so entrenched in hatred and ignorance that it's all black or white? There's no longer any grey areas in between? Either your an extremist Muslim, or a law-abiding, God-adoring Christian? And lord forbid you even think of swaying your sexual orientation. :S

All I can say to these people, is be thankful that your church is in a country that protects the freedom of speech, or in this case, freedom of hatred.

(CNN) -- In protest of what it calls a religion "of the devil," a nondenominational church in Gainesville, Florida, plans to host an "International Burn a Quran Day" on the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The Dove World Outreach Center says it is hosting the event to remember 9/11 victims and take a stand against Islam. With promotions on its website and Facebook page, it invites Christians to burn the Muslim holy book at the church from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

"We believe that Islam is of the devil, that it's causing billions of people to go to hell, it is a deceptive religion, it is a violent religion and that is proven many, many times," Pastor Terry Jones told CNN's Rick Sanchez earlier this week.

Jones wrote a book titled "Islam is of the Devil," and the church sells coffee mugs and shirts featuring the phrase.

Muslims and many other Christians -- including some evangelicals -- are fighting the initiative.

The church launched a YouTube channel to disseminate its messages.

"I mean ask yourself, have you ever really seen a really happy Muslim? As they're on the way to Mecca? As they gather together in the mosque on the floor? Does it look like a real religion of joy?" Jones asks in one of his YouTube posts.

"No, to me it looks like a religion of the devil."

The Islamic advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations called on Muslims and others to host "Share the Quran" dinners to educate the public during the monthlong fast of Ramadan beginning in August. In a news release, the group announced a campaign to give out 100,000 copies of the Quran to local, state and national leaders.

"American Muslims and other people of conscience should support positive educational efforts to prevent the spread of Islamophobia," said CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper in the release.

The National Association of Evangelicals, the nation's largest umbrella evangelical group, issued a statement urging the church to cancel the event, warning it could cause worldwide tension between the two religions.
"The NAE calls on its members to cultivate relationships of trust and respect with our neighbors of other faiths. God created human beings in his image, and therefore all should be treated with dignity and respect," it said in the statement.

Dove's Facebook page, set up for the September event, has more than 1,600 fans.
"Eternal fire is the only destination the Quran can lead people to, so we want to put the Quran in it's [sic] place -- the fire!" the page says.

But another Facebook group with more than 3,100 fans says it stands "against the disrespect and intolerance that these people have for the Muslim people" and encourages people to report Dove's page to Facebook.
Targeting another group it calls "godless," the Dove center is also hosting a protest against Gainesville Mayor Craig Lowe, who is openly gay, on Monday at Gainesville's City Hall. The group previously fought -- unsuccessfully -- to derail Lowe's election campaign.

"We protest sexual perversion because the Bible protests it. ... What is acceptable to today's leadership becomes acceptable to tomorrow's society," the church says in its blog entry about the event.

Lowe and other government figures and media outlets received e-mails from the church about the event, The Gainesville Sun reported. Lowe isn't concerned with Monday's event.
"I've got other things to do," he said, The Sun reports.

On the outreach center's front lawn, alongside a sign reading "Aug. 2 Protest, No Homo Mayor, City Hall," stands not just one, but three signs bearing the slogan "Islam is of the Devil."
One of the signs -- one reading "Islam" on one side, "Devil" on the other -- was vandalized. On its blog last week, the church said the sign will be replaced.

"This is private property and vandalism is a crime here in America," the blog says. "In Islam, many actions that we consider to be crimes are encouraged, condoned or sheltered under Islamic teaching and practice, though. Another reason to burn a Quran."

France and Veiling

It's been a parliamentary debate well over one year in the making, and this week, the French Parliament is finally set to discuss the issue of the niqab (face veil) and its permissibility in public areas in France. Last year, I wrote a blog which highlighted the situation in France, and the rising tide of Islamophobia that was accompanying cries to ban the niqab entirely. In May, the French cabinet approved a bill dealing with the niqab in public places, however before it can be enforced as law, the French Parliament must also approve the bill. The debate is set for this week, and should the French Parliament pass this bill, it will change the face of France, and potentially ignite a domino effect in the rest of Europe.

Should France outlaw the bill, it will join Belgium as the only other country in Europe to have banned the face veil, but the trend will surely not end there. Spain has already expressed a rising interest in banning the niqab in the country also, and were France to make this ruling, it will spur forward the notions of other nations who have mentioned they may take the same action.

So what does this really mean?

Firstly, many people greatly misunderstand what the Islamic veil really is, and why women wear it. There are many variations of veiling, while the two that people are generally most familiar with are the hijab, or head scarf, and the focus of debate in France, the niqab. The BBC has provided a great article detailing what the hijab is and its history in Islam, as well as advocates for and against veiling. The niqab is interpreted as a more extreme version of veiling for women, whereby the entire face save the eyes is covered. The Burka is even more extreme, with women covering their entire face, with a small netted area for her to see through. The question often raised by scholars and individuals alike, is whether or not Islam actually call for a woman to cover her face entirely; for that matter, does it even call for a woman to cover her hair?

The answer is unfortunately not a case of Yes or No. Islam, and therefore Muslims, does not have a ruling religious figurehead such as the Vatican for Christianity. This leaves verses (surahs) in the Qu'ran open for individual interpretation, and various interpretations of the versus dealing with women exist. There are Islamic advocates that believe the Qu'ran explicitly directs a woman to cover at least her head and neck to conform with the Islamic requirement of modest dress. More extreme interpretations see that the Qu'ranic surahs direct women to cover their entire body's, including face, when in the presence of men that are not directly related to them or their family. For many women raised in the West, the mere idea of covering one's entire face seems extreme. However, for women that choose to wear the niqab of their own volition, they truly believe that they are following the will of God, and abiding by Islamic doctrine. A simple explanation for this reasoning can be found here.

Now this brings us to France, and Muslim women in France.

France has always boasted about being a secular nation, and one that respects an individual's freedom of expression and human rights. Despite this, France has previously ruled that religious

symbols and iconography should not be explicitly displayed, lest it offends those of different believes or secular ideology. This seems fair enough, no outright religious iconography. But does the niqab fall under this umbrella definition? Many would disagree, however French President Nicolas Sarkozy sees the niqab not as a religious symbol, but as a symbol of the segregation and suppression of women. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon even went as far to say that Muslims who wear the niqab are "highjacking Islam,"while providing a "dark sectarian image" of the religion. Quite an extreme statement to make, and certainly an assertion of the underlying French views on the niqab and full face veils on women.

Having lived in an Islamic country for four years now, I still cannot wrap my mind around a woman's decision to wear a niqab of their own volition, but I still advocate that as a Muslim woman, it is her right to make that choice, particularly if she believes it strengthens her commitment to God. There is no doubt that the Islamic religion advocates modest dress, but does this modesty extend to entirely covering your body and face? I don't believe so. It should, however, remain a choice that Muslim women are free to make.

The self-proclaimed secular state is preparing to pass a law that will strip women of the right to this decision. The legislation will also include fines for brothers and husbands found to have forced women in their family to don the niqab. All well and good, a woman should never be forced to wear something, but isn't forcing her NOT to wear something essentially the same thing?! One party that opposed banning the niqab in public places, the opposition Socialist Party, has now announced that they will abstain from voting this week, meaning the one party that opposed this grievous violation of a woman's right to free expression is sitting back and keeping their traps shut. Congratulations on solidifying your government's efforts to hinder free expression and right to religious doctrine.

Studies in France document that there are approximately 5 million Muslims living in the country, and of this, only 2000 or so wear the full face veil. Is it really so offensive to the "open minded" European nations to permit these women to wear the niqab? Now I understand that one point for banning the face veil is a level of security, as if a woman has her entire face concealed, how can her identity be verified, or how is it even possible to know that it really is a woman hiding underneath. For these cases, such as when re-issuing ID cards, or employment and security checks, by all means outlaw the face veil. But to do it merely because of the belief that it is further segregating women shows an arrogance that far supersedes security.

It would seem, particularly if this bill passes this week, that secularity is out, and Islamophobia is in. Only time will how if this trend will continue to spread throughout the rest of Europe, and how long it will take for governmental officials to finally realise that this is not a matter of protecting the rights of women, it is a matter of stripping followers of one religious doctrine of their human rights, and right to free expression. A right, that many in our history have died to preserve, upset by the ruling of the elite in France for the "greater good."

For more reading on this subject, see: What is the final ruling on Hijab, Studies on the Surah's detailing modest dress and France's campaign against the Niqab.

To veil or not to veil. That is the question.

So it's been a while since I've last updated my blog, I've been swamped with work! One of the main issues that I have seen in the media at the moment came after French President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed his opposition to the niqab [Full face veil] in France, noting that it further segregates society. Sarkozy has done his utmost to ensure that his statements are not taken from a religious perspective, pointing to the fact that he is not attacking Islam, but rather the dignity of women that he sees as being jeopardized in donning a niqab.

I have read many varied responses to this issue, and thought that I would clarify my perspective on the entire subject. Western Europe, and France in particular, pride themselves on their policies of secularism and a democratic society. Freedom to practice one's creed is considered a cornerstone to any truly "democratic society." Of course, France has been notorious for their attempts to maintain an entirely secular approach, with debates having brewed about the permissibility of wearing a crucifix in public. Don't you DARE let me see that piece of wire around your neck! My intolerant atheist brain cannot handle it! I'm clearly FAR smarter than you are, as I know that when we die we just rot in the ground, keep your silly mumbo-jumbo religious iconography to yourself. Pfft.

France's close geographical location to a blend of various cultures, Mediterranean, Arab, and Anglo-Saxon, and its role in "exploring" these territories however, has resulted in a melting pot of cultures that reside both within Western Europe and France. This has lead to many "indigenous" Europeans to beg the question “at what point does assimilation end, and maintaining your own cultural identity begin?” The population of Muslims throughout Europe is increasing, and with this increase many are seeing shifts in their country's demographic. Veiled women are becoming more and more frequent on the streets, which has brought with it a wave of mis-understanding and heightened Islamophobia. I would just like to add as a side note here, that this increase includes European Muslims, and Muslims that have emigrated from the Arab peninsula.

While the origin of the veil in Islam has no definite answer, Islamic scholars agree that modesty is elemental for any Muslim, male or female. It is the interpretation of this modesty that has brought with it a variety of solutions. The hijab, a covering just for a woman's hair, is a popular form of veiling. The niqab however is a growing phenomenon. An increasing number of women are choosing to wear the niqab in Egypt, with an estimated 17 percent of women in the country opting to don the niqab. Women are said to be attending mosque classes, and are there being convinced to wear the niqab. While this form of covering a woman's body is not seen as a part of Islam, its popularity surged in the 1970s with the rise of the Islamic groups, and continues to stir debates among Islamic scholars. If the issue of the niqab can create such heated debate within a Muslim country, it is easy to see why it is creating such a buzz in Western Europe.

President Sarkozy has been spearheading a campaign against the niqab in France. He has expressed his belief that it is a sign of a woman's “subservience” to men, stressing “that is not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity.” A belief shared by many is the difficulty that issuing a law that can enforce a certain dress code would bring, as it will indirectly end up isolating certain groups, in this case the Muslims. "Sorry madam, you cannot have your face covered, but please feel free to remove your shirt and walk around in your bra and panties...that's completely acceptable." Of course, should the niqab interfere with legal proceedings, such as the issuance of identity cards etc, then there should be legal parameters in place to overcome this problem (such as female security at airports to search female passengers...one plus one is two - very good!). While the niqab is seen as an extremist interpretation of a religious conviction, fair enough, intolerance alone should not be the basis of outlawing it.

Sarkozy however, has repeatedly noted that he is not targeting Islam directly, that he is rather addressing the social cohesion of French society. Surprisingly, this belief is echoed by many French youth online, who see the niqab as an immediate factor of isolation, and an obstacle to true cultural assimilation, without any reference to the religious element whatsoever. [I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this belief rather laughable, as France has proven to be one of the main hotbeds of Islamophobia in Western Europe] Other opinions stress that should a woman choose of her own free will to wear a niqab, that no governmental institution should hinder her decision. There has not yet been open Muslim opposition in France to Sarkozy's statements; some expressed the belief that it may in fact help weaken the extremist movements in France. This is a topic that will certainly be one to watch in the future.

Ultimately, if you chose to wear a niqab, knock yourself out. As long as it's your choice. As a woman however, I cannot understand this decision, as I would agree with Sarkozy that it is a sign of a woman's subserviance to men. Why is it that we, as females, are the one's responsible for controlling the sexual urges of any male that we pass on the street? And lets be serious here, if a man is already a pervert, and already has those thoughts on his mind, no amount of flowly black material is going to prevent him from his little mental picture show....