The Truth Behind the War in Syria: The Qatari Natural Gas Pipeline – Obama’s War for Oil

September 10, 2013
(source Sharia Unveiled by  | Men’s News Daily) Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assadrefused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be“completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuiresummarized things quite nicely…

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determinesto be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would preventor deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…

I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane “leaders” in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?


#Feminism: Importing Islamic Nightmares — While Denying Them in #Norway

April 10, 2013


(Fjordman) A report prepared by groups in the various Nordic countries has proposed instituting a legal ban on anti-Feminist “hatred,” comparing this to “racism.” Representing the left-wing coalition government in Norway, Ahmad Ghanizadeh from the Socialist Left Party (SV), the State Secretary in the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, was positive towards the proposal, and promised that the government would look into it.

My initial thought upon hearing this is that Leftism is now officially a religion, and that its proponents desire a “blasphemy statute” to ban any serious discussion of left-wing doctrines and their consequences as “hate speech.”
Writer and fellow online dissident Takuan Seiyo commented that not even George Orwell could have come up with anything that tops this scenario. Yes, there is a serious proposal afoot in Norway to ban “anti-Feminist hatred”. Yes, the ministry really has the Orwellian name of Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion. And yes, this State Secretary in Norway really is called Ahmad Ghanizadeh, originally from Iran.
In 2013, Norway’s Minister of Culture is Hadia Tajik, whose Muslim family came from Pakistan. One must assume that Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of the Labour Party appointed her partly to remind the native population that they no longer have a culture, only “Multiculture,” but mainly in order to appeal to the Muslim and other Third World immigrant voters whose support his left-wing coalition depends upon in order to stay in power.
PM Stoltenberg in his prestigious New Year’s Speech for 2013 promised that his government would seek to ban “hateful utterances” on the Internet. The year before, Stoltenberg used his New Year’s Speech, always broadcasted on prime-time national TV and watched by a large proportion of his countrymen, to launch a frontal attack on alleged “totalitarian seducers” who use the Internet to spread unfounded “hatred.”
I was shortly afterwards contacted by the journalist Ragnhild Sleire Øyen from the state broadcaster NRK, the local equivalent of the BBC, who considered it obvious that the Prime Minister was referring to me personally. I’m sure many other citizens got the same message, and that may well have been intentional.
The PM didn’t mention any names explicitly, but then he didn’t have to, since so many others had done that dirty job for him. His right-hand man in Labour, Party Secretary Raymond Johansen, has singled me out for public attack by name several times, both before and after the Prime Minister gave this speech, as one of the individuals spreading irrational “hate” against Islam and therefore holding me partly responsible for the mental climate that allegedly created Anders Behring Breivik. I wasn’t the only name on that short list, but I usually topped it.
Norway is a small country, but I still find it unhealthy that a sitting political head of state uses his most prestigious annual speech addressing the nation to launch a thinly veiled attack on individual citizens who have done nothing criminal. An analogy for Americans would be if the President of the United States used his State of the Union speech to launch a thinly veiled attack on writers who use the Internet to publish ideas he dislikes, for instance the conservative author Michelle Malkin, or Glenn Reynolds with his major blog Instapundit. Even Obama hasn’t gone that far, at least not yet. The Social Democratic Prime Minister of Norway has.
Who gets to define “hate,” and do negative feelings always come out of nowhere? What if public anger, assuming it exists, actually has a cause that needs to be addressed? For example, being displaced in one’s own country by often hostile tribes? Should we simply ban any real discussions of this problem instead of dealing with the actual cause of public frustration? If so, what will be the long-term results of such a policy?
Elisabeth Skarsbø Moen is the debate editor and a regular columnist in VG, one of Norway’s two largest newspapers, and the largest one with a truly national readership. She writes in positive terms about Feminism, while at the same time championing the continued mass immigration of people from cultures that are extremely hostile to women. Like most other Western Feminists of her ilk, she sees no contradiction in this.
In October 2012, Skarsbø Moen wrote a deeply emotional column in VG entitled “Our children”, where she lamented that her society sometimes makes a distinction between “our” children and “other” children, that is, people born in other countries. She chastised her own country for not treating all children born anywhere on the entire planet as equally ours. The occasion concerned two young male Muslim asylum seekers from Afghanistan.
I don’t know these specific individuals, but it’s a fact that quite a few of the young asylum seekers who come to Europe from Afghanistan are actually young adults who lie about their age; so they are in fact neither children, nor are they “ours.” Skarsbø Moen thereby managed to tell two blatant falsehoods in just two words.
It also must be mentioned that these “children” usually bring with them an Islamic culture that is often violent and usually extremely hostile to women’s liberties. Yet this self-appointed Feminist does not seem to care much about that, or worry about the future consequences of allowing such a culture gain a foothold in her own country. Skarsbø Moen’s column was pure emotional pornography about how cruel and evil we are for not allowing potentially violent and generally hostile Muslims into our countries.
Neighboring Sweden has in little more than three decades metamorphosed from a safe country into being flooded by street crime and having one of the world’s highest recorded rape rates. Young blond girls in Stockholm suburbs are getting used to being called “whores” on a daily basis, and sometimes dye their hair in an attempt to avoid sexual harassment in the streets of what once was their own country.
Coincidentally, this transformation all took place at the same time as the largest wave of mass immigration in recorded history, much of it from brutal and repressive male-dominated cultures. Yet most of the left-wing or Marxist Feminist activists and journalists in Scandinavia strenuously deny that there is any connection between these two phenomena, and will aggressively attack as “racists” those who dare to suggest that the mass immigration they support has caused any of this.
In December 2011 a Swedish mother-of-two was subjected to a brutal gang-rape by perhaps a dozen young male asylum seekers from Afghanistan in a refugee camp in Mariannelund, Sweden — although only seven of them were convicted for this gruesome crime. Swedish newspapers such as Aftonbladet systematically conceal the ethnic identity of the perpetrators in cases involving immigrants, though, and only show photos featuring white criminals.
Reports stated that “The rape was oral, anal and vaginal sometimes with three rapists inside her at the same time while everybody was cheering and clapping. The gruesome rape marathon lasted for 7 hours. 11 suspects may have been involved, taking turns while drinking and getting high on drugs. The asylum seekers were cheering and clapping their hands during the rape marathon while calling the victim ‘whore’ and ‘slut’.”
The Swedish victim went into shock and has naturally become heavily traumatized. She is now subject to panic attacks and lives in a psychiatric clinic. She is also bound to a wheelchair due to the damage to her abdomen. The main perpetrator – Rafi Bahaduri, 25 – had already committed four other rapes in Sweden that we know of.
Despite this, Elina Gustafsson, a local member of the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League (SSU) who defines herself as a “proud Feminist,” thought it would be “racist” to expel these convicted Muslim criminals.
I’m reminded of another left-wing politician from Sweden. The Marxist Feminist Gudrun Schyman, then the leader of the “reformed” Communist party, in a speech in 2002 suggested that Swedish men are just like the Taliban. Fredrik Virtanen, a male columnist for the national newspaper Aftonbladet, immediately agreed with her that yes, Western men are just like the brutal Taliban regime and other Muslims from Afghanistan.
The young woman from Mariannelund, Sweden who just had her life ruined might disagree with this claim. Even native-born psychopaths rarely behave in this manner, yet such a treatment of women is unfortunately not rare in the most repressive parts of the Islamic world, whose primitive tribal cultures Western authorities insist on mass-importing to our cities.
Gang rapes and certain other types of violent crime were exceedingly rare in the Nordic countries a few decades ago, but are currently in the process of becoming routine. In Trondheim, Norway, on the 28th of May 2011, a young girl named Eva Helgetun took her own life. She was just 14 years old, and had been gang-raped by immigrants a few weeks before. Too many others share her fate.
In the 1960s when the so-called Second Wave of Feminism began, often with strong Marxist inspirations, Western women were relatively safe compared to women in other parts of the world. Half a century later, Western women have never had more Feminism, yet they and their children have also never been less safe.
Perhaps pointing out this fact constitutes “hate” in the eyes of some people, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
The problems caused by Third World mass immigration will not go away if we ban people from speaking truthfully about them. How hard can it be for members of the ruling elites to grasp this simple fact?


Iran says China ruining copies of the Quran

September 1, 2011
Several Iranian publishers have outsourced production of the Quran to China, only to have the Muslim holy book come back riddled with spelling errors, an official from the Organization of the Holy Quran told the Tehran Times, adding, “These tableaus are made quite cheaply in China but are sold for much more than they are really worth to make that much more profit.” – LOLZ Now Lebanon

…America had problems with Dogfood from China. Imagine if we had published our hate literature there? We might have had world peace!


ReAnalysis: HuffPo piece written about Islam and the State

May 26, 2011
catch this… Jefferson’s jurisdiction and limitation to government… i.e. many people is the equivalent to the self and “personal responsibility”? This is the argument here that we should tolerate the practice of Jihad and Islam? It can not make the distinction between the state and the individual.

As Jefferson wrote in 1802, “religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

Jefferson could have been paraphrasing chapter and verse of the Qur’an, like 6:94 and 164, 7:39, 17:15, 18:35, 19:95, 35:18, and many others which all emphatically confirm the individual personal responsibility of every Muslim for what she or he does or fail to do. All founding scholars of Islam agree that no act has any religious value unless done freely and without any coercion.

Just as Jefferson believed that the newly formed United States should not be a Christian state, for Muslims the notion that the state can be Islamic is false from a religious point of view, and has no support in 15 centuries of Islamic history. It is true that Muslims everywhere, whether minorities or majorities, are bound to observe Shari’a as a matter of religious obligation. Some practices are collective in form, but always individual in substance. Any observance of Shari’a can be best achieved when the state is neutral regarding all religious doctrines. Enforcing a Shari’a through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims.

I didn’t get it either. Besides disagreeing… it leads me to see some interesting characterizations of the writer and his faith.

Facebook page calls for beating Saudi women drivers

May 26, 2011

If we created a facebook page like this for Americans do you think they would allow it? I’m guessing Sheryl Sandberg would enact a double standard that we have come to expect.

Media_httpdyimgcomapa_efjzaA campaign has been launched on Facebook calling for men to beat Saudi women who drive their cars in a planned protest next month against the ultra-conservative kingdom’s ban on women taking the wheel.
The call comes as activists are demanding the release of Manal al-Sharif, a Saudi woman who was jailed for defying the ban.
The page, titled “The Iqal Campaign: June 17 for preventing women from driving,” refers to the Arabic name for the cord used to hold on the traditional headdress worn by many men in the Gulf, advocating the cord be used to hit women who dare to drive.
It has drawn over 6,000 “likes” on the popular social networking website.
Some on the page proposed distributing boxes of Iqals to youths and encouraging them use them to hit women who participate in the June 17 protest.
One joked about the price of Iqals going up due to men buying them before the protest. via news.yahoo.com

Allah made them do it:
JEDDAH: Women in the Kingdom, fatigued by repeated cases of Saudi sexual harassment, are calling for a help line number.
Nawal Bukhari, 45, called for more security measures on behalf of all her Muslim sisters, saying it is imperative the law derives a method to protect women in emergencies.

Facebook sued for negligence over
“Third Intifada” page

Facebook is an interesting organization. One of the key people in Facebook’s current corporate structure is the COO who had previously worked for Google, Sheryl Sandberg. A recent feature story entitled Why Facebook Needs Sheryl Sandberg, May 12, 2011, gives a great deal of pertinent background.

The article paints a picture of a very well-qualified COO, who is a caring and concerned person, well-liked by associates. From Page 4: via bytheearlylight.blogspot.com

image via reretlet.tumblr.com

Leave a Comment » | Arabs, dignity of women, facebook, Islamic, Mohammad, Saudi Arabia, Saudis, Sheryl Sandberg, social network tyranny of Scoble and Zuckerberg, social networking, Social Networks | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


New study debunks myth of American Islamophobia

March 29, 2011

H/T Elder of Ziyon
Of course, those who believe, with an almost religious intensity, that the United States is a hotbed of anti-Muslim bigotry won’t be moved by this study.
However, anyone with even the faintest interest in an empirical analysis of this issue might be interested in a new 40 page report by the Center For Security Policy which not only debunks the claim that Muslim Americans are disproportionately victimized by religiously inspired bias crimes, but clearly demonstrates Jewish victims are, in fact, far more likely to be the target of such crimes.
As such figures don’t affirm (CiF America blogger) Michael Tomasky‘s preconceived conclusions, we can expect him to ignore these findings.

 

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | Creeping Sharia, down with the hate, hate, hate crime, Islam, Islamic, Islamophobia | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Obama Uses UN to Push Homosexual Agenda

March 25, 2011

The UN is, as always, eager to oblige:
The US Constitution protects our freedom by affirming natural rights. This is why our liberal rulers reject its authority in favor of the United Nations, which attacks our freedom by inventing unnatural rights that are not rights at all but arbitrary dictates and special privileges handed down from on high. One example is the use of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to attack the Second AmendmentHere’s another example:

Obama Uses UN to Push Homosexual Agenda (Moonbattery)

10 Reasons Gay Americans Should Fear ‘Islamofascism’ (ROP)

An excellent article on Islam’s current state of war against homosexuals. (NewsReal)

(Turkey) Gay Soccer Referee Fights to Keep Job…
Radio Netherlands
He’s a threat to Islam. He must die. But also: Bravo, what courage! Radio Netherlands Worldwide has received many responses to the portrait of Mushin Hendricks, the gay imam from South Africa. Hendricks doesn’t feel under pressure from death threats, and insists “I’ll keep on asking questions.”
Homosexuality in Muslim countries

Arab countries: In many Arab countries there are severe punishments for homosexuals. In some countries the death penalty is imposed: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Mauritania and parts of Somalia and Nigeria. In those countries, sharia law applies. Gay men risk lashings, long prison sentences or stoning. Egypt has no death penalty for gay men. But even there the authorities sometimes react harshly. Homosexual acts are seen as displaying ‘contempt for religion’. In the past, gay men were tortured.
Iran: The Islamic Republic of Iran is considered the most gay-unfriendly country in the world. In 2005, two young gay men aged 17 and 18 years were hanged. It caused a storm of international criticism. Lesbians get 100 lashes.
Indonesia: Homosexuality is permitted in principle. Moderate Muslim scholars believe that, under Islam, there is no reason to reject gay men. Some regions of Indonesia – such as Aceh – are less liberal. There, gay men face 100 lashes and eight years in prison.

Mostly from the Arab world, but also from Indonesia, came reactions to the article about Imam Hendricks.
Reinhard Luhulima from Indonesia writes: “Hendricks’ utterances reflect his own beliefs. If each person expresses his own beliefs about the teaching of God, this can lead to chaos in the world. Hendricks should be hung for his beliefs, which are misplaced.”
And this is on our Arabic site: “What I know is that there is no place for homosexuality in Islam. Whoever claims that is a jihadist. Could this be a jihadist imam? ”
Two invitees:
But even in the Netherlands there is still little sympathy for the story of this imam who maintains that there is indeed room in Islam for homosexuality. When Hendricks recently gave a lecture in the Netherlands, only two of the 50 invitees showed up.
“I feel that the Muslim community in the Netherlands is not yet ready to openly discuss sexuality, let alone homosexuality. I don’t think an imam is willing to take a position about it. They avoid the subject.”
The article on the gay imam was used by RNW partner stations and many other websites. 1,200 readers responded on one South African forum and 400 Senegalese gave their opinion on the news site seneweb.com. Everywhere the story led to confrontations between supporters and opponents.
Middle Ages
The proponents: a reader from Indonesia cannot imagine that Allah punishes gay people for something they have not asked for themselves: “They are born with it. It is not fair if God punishes them, when we consider God the Merciful. Another reader praised Hendricks for his battle against fundamentalism in Islam: “Good to finally see Islam  – albeit slowly – trying to move out of the Middle Ages!”
But the vast majority of the reactions are negative. For example, Hendricks is a danger to Islam “because he interprets his faith the wrong way. The Qur’an and the Hadith – the traditions of the Prophet – offer this reader simply no room for homosexuality.”
The right to ask questions
Hendricks sees himself as a practicing Muslim who wants to discuss the subject within the Muslim community. He has spent many years in Pakistan studying Islam. He is no longer afraid of death threats:
“The Qur’an calls on Muslims to ask questions. And I’m making use of that right. I don’t think that Allah, who has given me that right, will punish me at the same time because I’m making use of it. Some Muslims react too emotionally to the subject. Many innocent people are dying because of the misconception that Islam is against homosexuality.”

Leave a Comment » | Allah, death penalty, Egypt, Gay, Gay Islam, Gay Issues, Gay Nazis, Gay Palestine, Islamic, Islamic feminism, Mauritania, Muhsin Hendricks, Netherlands, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon