militant muslim
NYT: Militants Kill More Than 235 People at Sufi Mosque in Egypt
Islamist extremists set off a bomb at a mosque in the Sinai Peninsula during Friday Prayer, then sprayed gunfire at worshipers as they fled.
By Declan Walsh

Absolutely horrible. Also a reminder that Muslims are more heavily impacted by global terrorism than any other group of people, and that we need to remember that when we respond to horrific attacks like this one. Heartbreaking.


Prayers said for Japanese hostages held by Islamic militants

(Japan domestic Muslims approximately 100,000 people)



i am so extremely devastated. i began the daily obituary entry of Muslim deaths caused by the Taliban/AQ/LeJ/Saqib-e-Sahaba in Pakistan to showcase the plight of Muslims at the hands of extremists and today’s entry consisted of 61 Muslims bombed to death in their place of worship at the hands of a Taliban linked militant group. Muslims are murdered every day by the same people the world wrongfully accuses us of supporting. 


Drone killings case thrown out by US; victims convicted ’posthumously based solely on the government’s say-so’
April 6, 2014

A US federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the government by the families of three American citizens killed by drones in Yemen, saying senior officials cannot be held personally responsible for money damages for the act of conducting war.

The families of the three – including Anwar al-Awlaki, a New Mexico-born militant Muslim cleric who had joined al-Qaida’s Yemen affiliate, as well as his teenage son – sued over their 2011 deaths in US drone strikes, arguing that the killings were illegal.

Judge Rosemary Collyer of the US district court in Washington threw out the case, which had named as defendants the former defence secretary and CIA chief Leon Panetta, the former senior military commander and CIA chief David Petraeus and two other top military commanders.

“The question presented is whether federal officials can be held personally liable for their roles in drone strikes abroad that target and kill U.S. citizens,” Collyer said in her opinion. “The question raises fundamental issues regarding constitutional principles and it is not easy to answer.”

But the judge said she would grant the government’s motion to dismiss the case.

Collyer said the officials named as defendants “must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the US constitution when they intentionally target a US citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress. They cannot be held personally responsible in monetary damages for conducting war.”

Awlaki’s US-born son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was 16 years old when he was killed. Also killed was Samir Khan, a naturalised US citizen who had moved to Yemen in 2009 and worked on Inspire, an English-language al-Qaida magazine.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Centre for Constitutional Rights, both based in New York, represented the families. They had argued that in killing American citizens the government violated fundamental rights under the US constitution to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizure.

“This is a deeply troubling decision that treats the government’s allegations as proof while refusing to allow those allegations to be tested in court,” said ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi. “The court’s view that it cannot provide a remedy for extrajudicial killings when the government claims to be at war, even far from any battlefield, is profoundly at odds with the Constitution.”

Centre for Constitutional Rights lawyer Maria LaHood said the judge “effectively convicted” Anwar al-Awlaki “posthumously based solely on the government’s say-so”. LaHood said the judge also found that the constitutional rights of the son and of Khan “weren’t violated because the government didn’t target them”.

“It seems there’s no remedy if the government intended to kill you, and no remedy if it didn’t. This decision is a true travesty of justice for our constitutional democracy and for all victims of the US government’s unlawful killings,” LaHood said.

Collyer ruled that the families did not have a claim under the Constitution’s fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable seizures because the government did not seize or restrain the three who were killed. “Unmanned drones are functionally incapable of ‘seizing’ a person; they are designed to kill, not capture,” she wrote.

Collyer wrote that the families had presented a plausible claim that the government violated Awlaki’s due process rights. “Nonetheless the court finds no available remedy under US law for this claim,” the judge wrote.

“In this delicate area of war making national security and foreign relations the judiciary has an exceedingly limited role.”

Allowing claims against individual federal officials in this case “would impermissibly draw the court into the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation”, she wrote. It would “require the court to examine national security policy and the military chain of command as well as operational combat decisions”.

Nasser al-Awlaki, father of Anwar al-Awlaki, said he was disappointed in the American justice system and “like any parent or grandparent would, I want answers from the government when it decides to take life, but all I have got so far is secrecy and a refusal even to explain”.

Drone attacks have killed several suspected figures in al-Qaida’s Yemen-based affiliate including Awlaki, who is accused of orchestrating plots to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and US cargo planes in 2010.

The United States has faced international criticism for its use of drones to attack militants in places such as Pakistan and Yemen. A UN human rights watchdog in March called on the Obama administration to limit its use of drones targeting suspected al-Qaida and Taliban militants.

Barack Obama’s administration increased the number of drone strikes after he took office in 2009 but attacks have dropped off in the past year. The US has come under pressure from critics to rein in the missile strikes and do more to protect civilians.


January 30th, 2015. Shikarpur, Pakistan.

An attack on a Shia Mosque in Shikarpur in the southern Pakistani province of Sindh has claimed the lives of 40, 47, 54, 61 people. Militants linked to the Taliban set off an explosion in the mosque, causing the roof to cave inwards, killing 61 Shia Muslims. 

The militant group responsible has published this letter with regards to the explosion and threatening future attacks on the Shia population: 

“Your days are numbered. To attack Imam Baraghas (Shia mosques) is an obligation upon us, which we have to carry out at any cost. Imam of a Shia mosque and owners of Imam Baraghas and all neighbours have to come on the right path. Accept Islam and leave kufr. You have two days. On Friday we will not show any leniency. We are aware of everything. 

Zakir Amir (a targeted Shia local) and his entire family, Maulana and his neighbours, correct your Qibla (give up your faith). There is still time. 

We know everyone and where everyone works. The neighbours of the Imam Baraghas this is our message: come to the true faith, give up your kufr. Remove the flags (alam of Al-Abbas) from your houses. Only fly the flag of the Taliban.” (x) 

11 reasons the Islamic State (ISIS) might be more dangerous than al-Qaida

The Islamic State is not just the terror group de jour. It is a hugely successful movement with an apocalyptic, nihilistic philosophy. When its members say “convert, join us, or die”, they not only mean it, they follow through with horrific effect.

But let’s look deeper. What else makes them such a real security threat, to Iraq, to the region, to the world and to the U.S.? Here are 11 reasons.

1. The Islamic State is more media sophisticated than al-Qaida and excels in using social media as a tool of terrorism. The group’s Twitter and YouTube postings in English show that the West is often their target audience.

2. The Islamic State is flush with cash. Its territorial control allows for consistent stream of funding. They’ve also developed an extensive extortion racket, as well as selling electricity and exporting oil and gas.

3. Because of The Islamic State’s rise to prominence, many al-Qaida-linked groups are now pledging allegiance to it, including elements of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al-Dine (Tunisia) Boko Haram, and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, giving The Islamic State access to a global network of terrorists.

4. The Islamic State controls territory the size of Maryland in the heart of the Arab world, which is important for a predominantly Arab revolutionary terrorist group. The al-Qaida core group along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border controls no territory and is dependent on Afghan and Pakistani Islamist militants who act as hosts.

5. The Islamic State has evolved into a proto-state, with its own army, civil administration, judiciary and a sophisticated propaganda operation. Al-Qaida core leaders, by contrast, are fugitives forced to live a clandestine existence under the constant threat of drone strikes or commando assaults.

6. The Islamic State is the most heavily-armed Islamist extremist group in history, having captured huge amounts of military weapons and equipment in Iraq and Syria.

7. The Islamic State is out-recruiting al-Qaida. It is estimated that 80 percent of the foreign militants that flock to Syria join the Islamic State rather than al-Qaida’s franchise, the Al-Nusra Front. The Islamic State appears to have success with recruitment of Westerners as well.

8. The leader of the Islamic State, who goes by the nom de guerre of Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, is a charismatic leader who claims descent from the Prophet Mohammed. This will help recruit young, impressionable Muslims. He has much more personal appeal for young Muslim militants than al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, a dour and didactic theoretician.

9. The Islamic State is better placed to not only attract recruits from the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and the United States, but get them into the fight. It is much easier to travel across the dissolving borders of Iraq and Syria than it is to travel to Pakistan or Afghanistan.

10. The Islamic State has declared the rebirth of the Caliphate and the leader of the Islamic State has proclaimed himself to be Caliph Ibrahim.

11. The Islamic State is the richest terrorist group in history. It looted at least five banks in Iraq, including Mosul’s central bank, which yielded more than $400 million in gold and Iraqi currency. It controls oil fields in Syria and Iraq that generate income, and it has pocketed millions of dollars in ransoms for hostages.

In summary, the Islamic State is an army, not just a terror group. The Islamic State is the biggest terror group ever. The Islamic State is actually established as a state, a caliphate at that, and it’s richer than al-Qaida. It holds more territory than al-Qaida, it’s drawing more recruits than al-Qaida, and it’s more brutal than al-Qaida.

This group must be forcefully addressed and stopped.

It’s sickening to think Muslims aren’t safe anywhere, especially in the Western world. In our own countries, we’re still plagued by groups who were born thanks to the US, we’re plagued by sectarianism, and we’re plagued by wars fought in the name of “defeating terrorism”. Not to mention, even our resistance groups are called terrorist groups (because Muslim militancy is “bad”) no matter how oppressed the people in question are.
Somalia bans Christmas celebrations - BBC News
Somalia's government bans the celebration of Christmas, warning that such Christian festivities could threaten the nation's Muslim faith.

Somalia’s government has banned the celebration of Christmas, warning that such Christian festivities could threaten the nation’s Muslim faith.
“Those celebrations are not in any way related to Islam,” an official at the religious affairs ministry said.
Security agencies have been directed to stay alert to stop any gatherings.
Foreigners are free to mark the Christian holiday in their own homes, but hotels and other public places have been prohibited from marking the day.

“Having Muslims celebrate Christmas in Somalia is not the right thing, such things are akin to the abandonment,” local media quote Mohamed Kheyrow, a top official at Somalia’s justice and religious affairs ministry, as saying.
Correspondents say as the country recovers from years of civil war, a growing number of Somalis who grew up in the diaspora are returning home, some of them bringing Western customs with them.
Christmas is not widely celebrated in Somalia, which officially adopted Sharia in 2009, but the odd event was held - especially as an excuse to hold a party.
Mogadishu’s mayor, Yusuf Hussein Jimale, told the BBC that such gatherings might also be a target for the Islamist al-Shabab group that has targeted hotels in the city in the past.
Celebrations will be allowed at UN compounds and bases for African Union peacekeepers, who are in the country to back the government’s fight against the al-Qaeda-linked militants.

“Having Muslims celebrate Christmas in Somalia is not the right thing, such things are akin to the abandonment,”  

No one is forcing Somali Muslims living in Somalia to celebrate Christmas and also they may think that they’re being tolerant by allowing foreigners living in Somalia to celebrate Christmas but that’s obviously not the case. This is just another way to oppress the small Somali Christian community. Also Christmas isn’t just a “Western custom” the erasure of non Western Christianity is so irritating, I cant stand ignorant people like that (I know that most Christian Somalis practice Western Christianity and are Protestant so of course they practice  a lot of western Christian customs but that doesn’t mean Christmas should be labelled a western thing. I’m pretty sure that there are Somalis who are part of the Eastern church as well and other sects) Its a shame that many can’t practice their faith freely and I wish Somali Christians a Merry Christmas especially those living in Somalia. May God protect them


Tony Benn. 1925 - 2014. “He encouraged us”.

This is probably the wrong place to put this, but I was wondering if you could post this today. The most principled man in British Politics died today, at the age of 88. He was a socialist who, over time, moved more and more towards the left.

He fought tirelessly against war, poverty, and for better conditions for working people. He spoke passionately and articulately on behalf of workers in struggle. He marched on the streets with the people against Poll Tax and in support of the Miners Strikes, which very few MPs, even Labour MPs, refused to do. He fought for the NHS, “If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people”. Check out what he said on Michael Moore’s “Sicko” for more on that. He was far more eloquent than I could dream to be.

He spent 50 years in Parliament, elected again and again. Apart from a few years when he had to sit in the House of Peers when he inherited the title of Viscount Stansgate. Even then he fought, he fought for the right to renounce his hereditary peerage, and instead return to the ‘Commons (his constiuency had voted for him even though he wasn’t allowed to sit). He achieved this in 1963, saying “The House of Lords is the British Outer Mongolia for retired politicians”.

He opposed war after war, pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy of nations like the US and the UK. When talking about the Gulf War in the '90s, he asked why do we support Saudi Arabia and then denounce Iraq for being undemocratic? It’s because “The Americans want to protect their oil supplies”. It’s weird watching videos of him speaking on foreign policy in the early '90s, because he could be talking today - nothing has changed. “Are we to live in a world where the sum of morality is a product of Parliamentary majority?” Well, evidently so. Just in the 21st century, he opposed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, describing them as imperialistic, and even travelled to Baghdad to interview Saddam Hussein (which is on Youtube). He became the president of the Stop the War Coalition, and compared the insurgents to his own role in 'Dad’s Army’ in WW2, saying “If you are invaded you have a right to self defence, and this idea that people in Iraq and Afghanistan who are resisting the invasion are militant Muslim extremists is a complete bloody lie. I joined Dad’s Army when I was sixteen, and if the Germans had arrived, I tell you, I could use a bayonet, a rifle, a revolver, and if I’d seen a German officer having a meal I’d have tossed a grenade through the window. Would I have been a freedom fighter or a terrorist?”. When the BBC refused to air the contact details for charities to aid Palestine when it kicked off between Israel and Palestine, he did it himself.

A great man died today. He should be remembered, because “he encouraged us”.