M. Cherif Bassiouni, distinguished emeritus yada yada, was there too. Sharif Sheikh Ahmed is part of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). In Fall 2007 I published an article in the Journal of International Security Affairs showing the ICU's bloodthirsty Islamic supremacism. Here is an excerpt:
[...] For its troubles, the regime received an endorsement from none other than Osama bin Laden. In a message circulated on the Internet in late June, bin Laden exhorted Somalis: "You have no other means for salvation unless you commit to Islam, put your hands in the hands of the Islamic Courts to build an Islamic state in Somalia." Meanwhile, foreign Islamists were hastening to aid the new regime in Somalia. The United Nations Security Council reported in November 2006 that the Islamic Republic of Iran was supplying weapons to the ICU in an attempt to obtain uranium in return.
Meanwhile, the ICU appeared to bear out Bashir Goth's fears. The Courts forbade music (which is prohibited according to strict Islamic law), dancing and soccer within days of taking power. Women began to don Saudi dress, which covered their faces, rather than traditional Somali garb, which did not. And ICU militiamen proved ready to enforce Islamic law with an iron fist: after banning all movies and television viewing, jihadists shot and killed two people who were watching a World Cup soccer match in early July.
That September, Mogadishu youth gave a hint that the new Islamic regime was not popular with all Somalis. They responded to an ICU attempt to break up their viewing of another soccer match by burning tires and throwing stones at ICU militiamen. But the implementation of the strictest sharia provisions remained high on the ICU's list of priorities both before and after this show of resistance. Raids in Mogadishu led to 60 arrests for the crime of movie-watching. Women were forbidden to swim at Mogadishu's Leedo beach.
The ICU also moved to muzzle the press, imposing "rules of conduct" on journalists. These included a prohibition on the publication or dissemination of "information contrary to the Muslim religion, the public interest or the interest of the nation," as well as "information likely to create conflicts between the population and the Council of Islamic Courts." Journalists were required to reveal their sources, "must not serve foreign interests," and "must not publish or disseminate elements of a foreign culture contrary to Islamic culture or promoting bad behavior, such as nudity on film." Finally, "the media must not employ the terms which infidels use to refer to Muslims such as 'terrorists,' 'extremists,' etc."
That last bit sounds like something that would very much appeal to Brave Ahmed. But the larger question is -- why would these putative moderates, Bassiouni and Rehab, go to a reception for the leader of a draconian Sharia regime that is waging bloody jihad?
Bassiouni and Brave Ahmed are welcome to contact me with explanations. But I won't be waiting by the phone.
"Executive Director Ahmed Rehab Attends Reception for Somalian President," from CAIR-Chicago, October 5:
CAIR-Chicago's Executive Director, Ahmed Rehab, today attended a private reception for Somali President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed at DePaul University. The event was hosted by the Univeristy in advance of the Somali President's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The Dean of DePaul University's Law School and Distinguished Professor of Law Cherif Bassiouni greeted the President's entourage. About 20 academics and civic leaders were in attendance.
President Ahmed thanked the University and expressed hope that it would help Somalia charter a brighter future in terms of educational and humanitarian opportunities.
Would that be this Somali President, interviewed with NPR? (all emphasis is this poster's):
...A. Most Somalis subscribe to the Sufi sect. Ahlu Sunnah particularly suffered at the hand of Al Shabab. They have the right to defend themselves. Going beyond that defense would be questionable or illegal.
Q. So what does that mean? They are going beyond self-defense. They are seizing new territory.
A. We see that as part of self-defense.
Q. Let’s talk about Shariah [Islamic law]. The Parliament has agreed to use Shariah as a guiding principle. But what form?
A. Shariah itself doesn’t change. What changes are the people who are interpreting it. The emphasis here has to be what is the best interest of the people, for this life and the life hereafter.
Q. But can you please provide some specifics. Will girls go to school with boys and be educated equally???
A. That’s one area where we don’t have a problem in Somalia. In Somali tradition, we had elderly women who were in charge of educating people.
Q. What about the veil? Will a Somali woman be allowed to walk around in public without a veil?
A. The interpretation of the veil is an item itself. In general, Islam ordains that a woman covers her body. The purpose of that is to prevent temptation and other problems.
Q. But is this something you are prepared to make a law? In Turkey, they don’t make women wear veils. In Saudi Arabia, they do. Where will Somalia come in on the veil issue?
A. The purpose is to get people to the point where they do this from conviction, say up to 80 percent of the people. The government would help the rest. The tradition of our prophet, peace be upon him, is not to give instructions or orders without first preparing the people.
Q. But today in Somalia what does that mean? Will the law say that women have to wear a hijab [a head scarf] or not?
A. If you look at the situation in Somalia today, this becomes a moot point. Hijab is the norm. And considering the difficulties we have in front of us, this does not become a major issue. We’re working on how to save people’s lives, which is much more of a priority than this subject.
Typical of NPR. Ask a somewhat pointed question, and get a non-answer.
But let's not follow-up the answer, for fear we might get an answer we don't want to hear.
Yuck. What a creepy picture. It looks like something that could turn up on Chris Hansen's NBC Dateline show.
I wonder if he and Obama are friends since they are from the same city? Shared some falafel?
Robert - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Photoshop a burqa onto that ugly gay mug...
You can see the double-talk in that interview. Sharia is eternal, but changeable? That is like saying that I am permanently committed to a cause, until I change my mind.
From the article -
"...a private reception for Somali President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed at DePaul University. The event was hosted by the Univeristy in advance of the Somali President's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
"The Dean of DePaul University's Law School and Distinguished Professor of Law Cherif Bassiouni greeted the President's entourage. About 20 academics and civic leaders were in attendance."
'About twenty academics and civic leaders were in attendance'.
*Which ones?*
Chicago jihadwatchers should make it their business to find out who exactly were those 'twenty academics and civic leaders' who attended that traitorous 'private reception' for the Somali Jihad Gang Boss, or Sharia-Pusher, or Current Somali Thug-In-Chief, at DePaul University. And those among the attendees who are, or who appear to be, non-Muslims, should be scathingly castigated.
Hahahahahaha!
What a perfect, picture-book example of where the "moderate" muslims sympathies lie when it comes to the cause.
That much for Western educated, suit-wearing, clean shaven muslims!
For my part, I prefer them primitive, illiterate, stoopid and poor....
I am certain that his picture is stimulating to some Islamists.
De Paul University of Chicago is the nation's Largest Catholic University and a DISGRACEFUL Leader in American Academic Dhimmitude.
The Islamic INFILTRATION of American Academia has never been greater than Right Now and Catholic Institutions,such as De Paul and Notre Dame have been in its forefront.
The Left-Wing FOOLS & Prostitutes receiving Arab/Muslim "Middle Eastern/Islamic" Studies
Grants , Endowments,and "Chairs" have happily been their WILLING Enablers & Allies.
De Paul is as Bad as they come.
Besiouni SHOULD NOT be Dean of the "De Paul School of Law', for he is an Islamist who would readily see Sharia replace the U.S. Constitution;
And ,he's in charge of developing future Lawyers?
What's REALLY a mind blower is how Catholic Universities in general,and De Paul in particular, are 'Bending' in SUBMISSION to another religion which is DEDICATED to their DESTRUCTION and who regards them as the "The Crusaders"
Bessouni can be DEAN of De Paul's Law School, but you can be certain a Roman Catholic Priest /Professor from De Paul CAN NOT be even a visitor to Al Azhar University in Cairo, and NEVER even a "Guest Lecturer" at ,oh say, "Tehran University" or any other "Islamic world" University.
CHOI's point about De Paul and Notre Dame could, alas, be multiplied to include thousands of other universities with Christian affiliations as well as with non-Christian affiliations throughout the West.
Modern Western Christians, by and large, are not special: they have been for the most part deformed by PC MC like most everyone else in the West.
CAIR rep Brave Ahmed Rehab attends reception of jihadist Somali President
....
M. Cherif Bassiouni, distinguished emeritus yada yada, was there too.
...................
My biggest concern is not that sketchy outfits like CAIR support the "Islamic Courts", but that the Western mainstream does, too.
And why would that be? Why, because the Islamic Courts is the "legitimate" government of Somalia, fighting against the "extremist" Shabab.
We in the West--Americans especially--love this paradigm--even when it makes no objective sense. We always figure one side has to be "the good guys". The Islamic Courts has shot young boys to death for the crime of watching the World Cup, and the Shebab stoned a little thirteen-year-old rape victim to death.
The Islamic Courts are not really "more moderate" than the Shabab--they are just brutal rival Jihadist gangs, both determined to turn Somalia into a Shari'ah hellhole.
“Q. But is this something you are prepared to make a law? In Turkey, they don’t make women wear veils. In Saudi Arabia, they do. Where will Somalia come in on the veil issue?
A. The purpose is to get people to the point where they do this from conviction, say up to 80 percent of the people. The government would help the rest. The tradition of our prophet, peace be upon him, is not to give instructions or orders without first preparing the people.”
“We’ll tell you what to think. Just go about your slave business until those who run the church of allah call upon you to spill your cheap blood. We will prepare you to receive the blessings of the prophet against all those who do not embrace his word (as interpreted by us bloody backward bastards).”
Yes, people are that dumb. Yes, people are that desperate to do anything for food, most of which has been brought on by…wait for it…you were going to say greedy capitalism weren’t you? But no…seems the mysoginistic cult of islam has been driving the need for exploitation all along…not…just an excuse used by the left to explain excuses by the right. Seems islam will use any resource to further the needs of the few and exploit the law of religion upon the many at any cost…conversely, seems capitalists will cut their costs and don’t care how far the needs “need” to go because the investment is finite and further exploit is finite. Blah, blah blah blah blah.
Seems, most islamist will kill to make their point. Conversely, seems economists, capitalists, and all others who don’t follow Allah, don’t seek death as a necessity to make things better for the community. Which argument do you think makes more sense?