Hamas Charter

Friday, January 27, 2006
On the occasion of the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, Pastorius at CUANAS is calling on all bloggers to post the Hamas charter. Pastorius is using this excerpt from the Jerusalem Post:
"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times...

It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned...

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kassam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after...

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: 'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...'

Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Muslim, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission...

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with...

The day The Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies...

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion... It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions...

We should not forget to remind every Muslim that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that 'Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women.'

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people. 'May the cowards never sleep.'"
Pastorius notes that the paragraph beginning "The Prophet, Allah bless him..." is lifted straight from the Koran, official text of the religion of peace.

For the complete Hamas Charter, click here.

30 comments:

truepeers said...

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion... It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions...

-Why the Masons, Rotarians, and Lions? Because these Hamas guys, not being original thinkers, copy much of their antisemitism directly from the European tradition. And Hitler (and others) thought the Masons and Jews were in league in the secret conspiracy to control the world. But, if there are any scholars out there who can tell me whether the Nazis also had a thing for Rotarians and Lions, I would be grateful to know. Alternatively, perhaps the service clubs were added to the Hamas charter because some poor Palestinian kid came back from a Rotary exchange, or something, tried to get in a few rational comments in a debate with Uncle Ali about the outside world, and caused a s--t storm down at the Hamas cafe. Just guessing, of course.

Knucklehead said...

Oh, gotta watch out for those Rotarians!

They're a dangerous bunch if ever there was. Among their nefarious works over there years they even decided to admit WOMEN.

I suppose it is possible that the Lions are even more insidious and dangerous but it is hard to imagine how.

Skookumchuk said...

Yes, and I wonder what the Hamas line is on these guys.

Buddy Larsen said...

This reminds me of Milton somehow. His 'Paradise Lost' devil had a similar story: Service to others is simply a way to 'appear' to be 'good'. The more 'good' a person does, the more of this 'appearance of goodness'.

Bad people cannot 'be' bad if they cannot understood that this 'goodness' is real (and not just a set-up to prey on others, as it is in their own minds).

The problem of humanity is that this 'goodness' can change, it can fall, disappoint and betray. Badness can't do any of these things.

So in a devilish sort of way, badness is more honest, more reliable, less apt to mislead, disappoint, or betray.

Somehow this whole Koranic duality is similar.

markg8 said...

Hmmm...heard on PBS Newshour the night of the election a reason why the polls were so wrong. There was a national list and individual candidates. The reporter said one college educated woman told her she voted for Fatah on the national list because she didn't want Hamas jamming their religion down her young son's throat but for the individual rep from her district she voted for the Hamas candidate. Hamas barely won the national seats but far and away won the local rep races. Part of the problem is Fatah supported as many as 4 or 5 candidates per race per district with views from all over the political spectrum. Hamas had one per district and made sure they all stayed on message. There'd be no way to do accurate polls unless they polled every precinct. And my guess is Hamas supporters were as likely to talk to pollsters as your basic cranky Republican in Ohio.

Seeing as Hamas has gained much of it's good government reputation from providing social services and welfare maybe they think secular outfits like the Lion's Club would encroach on their turf.

I think it's stupid to use the stick instead of the carrot right off the bat with Hamas. They are arguably the most legitimately elected government in the Arab world. If given room to maneuver and staring the responsibilities of governing in the face they just might change their tune.

Impoverishing their people and escalating hostilities is not in their interests or ours. The West might think bringing down this government as quickly as possible is desirable but that just strengthens the jihadis. And it sure calls our devotion to democracy into question.

Fatah was a disaster for the Palestinian people. Their corruption destroyed their legitimacy long ago.

Israel now faces a legitimately elected government. Sharon claimed he had no partner for peace. Withholding tax revenues and Western aid will only breed more poverty and violence in the territories. We can probably undermine this government but the Izzies will be looking in vain for a partner for decades to come if we do.

Syl said...

Mark

Sheesh. YES, Hamas was legitimately elected, and the current govt resigned. That's the FIRST time in history for the middle east this has happened.

But, it doesn't change the fact that Hamas is an officially labeled terrorist group. Which means we cannot support them in any way, shape, or form, until or unless they renounce terrorism. Neither can the EU or anybody else.

Mark, it's really simple. This election has brought clarity to the situation. The results are the absolutely worst outcome for Hamas who now have the responsibility for the whole shebang rather than the luxury of being the opposition.

And they will get NO help unless they assume their responsibility and actually govern--peacefully.

If any rocket is fired from Gaza now, nobody can say 'well, it's just Hamas getting frisky and we have no control over them, give us a break' because when that rocket is fired it will be fired by the officially elected goverment and will mean war.

What we CANNOT do is offer them assistance JUST BECAUSE they were elected. That's insane!

markg8 said...

Well syl you've just blown Bush's whole "democracy is the solution" to Islamist terrorism out of the water without so much of peep out of Bin Laden. That's not helping.

The fact of the matter is Hamas
has pretty much abided by the ceasefire for the last year and a half even though Israel has continued to assassinate their leaders. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a radical offshoot of Fatah has said for them the ceasefire is off. Those missiles are more likely to come from anybody but the ruling party. They have the most to lose in retaliatory attacks.

The aid money and tax receipts will be made up somewhere. With massive welfare programs standing between 60% unemployment in the terrritories and starvation Arab charities will probably step up their giving. Many of them will happily spread antogonism toward the West with their assistance. The big loser between Western intransigence and even more foreign Islamist influence in the territories? Democracy. Not only in Palestine but elsewhere in the Arab world. There's no point in advocating for the right to elect leaders if they're going to be punished en masse by the West when they do.

dag said...

Sebastien replied to "Masons and Sarkozy."

Buddy Larsen said...

Mark, put on your sunglasses first (or the pink'll blind ya), then head over to Alexandra's widely-linked-up discussion of "The Lesser of Two Evils". It'll help you dismount your selective manicheanism.

Pastorius said...

Mark,
In a way you are correct that Syl "blew Bush's whole Democracy is the solution" idea.

The thing that I haven't understood about our projects in Afghanistan and Iraq is that we haven't learned the lesons of WWII.

America is not simply a Democracy. America is a Democratic Republic.

It seems to me that we haven't been as insistent as we should have been on the principles established in the Bill of Rights.

I think we need to be clear that the preaching of violent Jihad is against human rights. The Burqa is against the Freedom of Conscience, and in our country, that would fall under Freedom of Speech, as in expression.

Sharia is against Freedom of Religion.

Violent Jihad, strict Sharia, and Burqas should all be banned outright.

In the aftermath of WWII, we banned aspects of Japanes Buddhism. We remade their religion. We banned Nazism.

Why are we not insisting on an outright ban of the worst aspects of Islam?

If we were, then these countries would be true Democracies as we define Democracy. Our kind of Democracy is not simple mob rule, which is what we see in Gaza.

truepeers said...

This is a good point Pastorius. Democracy without a republican or other constitutional system for guaranteeing and encouraging freedom is like having good form without content. What the republic represents are the conditions of freedom. Democracy is but a guarantee of equality. And Muslims already have that (at least among the men) as they bow down together at prayer, all submitting together to Allah's word and governing each other accordingly. But the limits of Islamic democracy in this world of global connectedness are already apparent.

I saw a woman at the mall today, covered from head to toe. I stared at the only thing showing, her eyes, trying to get her to see my anger at her slavery. But what good does that? We need to start thinking about getting in the face of the men who do this to their women and then have the nerve to parade them in *our* public places. We could all veil ourselves, make no judgments, and that would be perfectly democratic. But that's not enough. We must publicly defend a "constitution" whose essence is the necessity of freedom.

Pastorius said...

Truepeers,

"Good form without content." Well put. I like that.

Hey, are you with me that Burqas should be banned in all countries? I'm serious, I think they should be made illegal in the United States.

I saw a woman in a Burqa in, of all places, and, get ready for this,

DISNEYLAND.

Like you, I stared at her eyes. She looked terrified. Her husband looked like a triumphant jailer. I stared at him with hatred.

Anyway, would love to hear if you agree with me.

Buddy Larsen said...

That Shinto ban was on the public practice of Emporer deification--not the believe itself. The idea being that no break with the past was possible otherwise. Looking back on it from today, it looks like extreme ethnocentricism--until you examine the effect, a free Japanese people, wealthy, happy, energetic, interested in the world, productive, peaceful, and in full control of their own destiny. What was imposed upon them was not so much the conqueror's values, as the logical values of liberty--the sensible way to run a country. The liberal west just happens to've found it a little sooner than some other regions of the globe. Everybody would've--or will-get there on their ownj sooner or later--provided evil can be kept at bay.

Pastorius said...

Yeah, Buddy, but we have to have the courage of our own convictions.

Are we following through with the same kind of policies today?

Are we articulating them to the American people today?

Look at what Mark said: Hamas' win proves Bush's policy is wrong." Yeah, if you think the totality of Bush's policy is Democracy, and not Human Rights.

truepeers said...

I went to a toga party once, and a western woman showed up in a burqua, as a kind of political statement i guess. That shouldn't be illegal, but i agree there is something wrong with allowing the abuse of women that is symbolized and realized in the form of the burqua. It would be very tough to write a law however. If you ban something, it becomes a symbol of the law's attempt to control a big and problematic situation with a token gesture, an attempt to control what is not entirely possible to control by legal means. For example, what people do at home, no one can control if no one complains or sees. So how do you pressure Muslims to liberate their women, if the women go along with their slavery? I don't know. There would have to be a lot of infrastructure put in place to support women willing to leave their families.

Banning the burqua might be a first step; but it might also drive Muslims to a greater sense of separation and opposition to the rest of society, which might not be good.

But yes, there should be a law against a religoius practice in which women are generally slaves. We have a law against polygamy in Canada, and there is a group of radical, excommunicated, Mormons in BC who flaunt this law and there is a columnist in the paper who is continually harping on the Crown prosecutors to prosecute this law. But they don't because they are afraid it will show up their impotency, or perhaps because they think the courts will throw out the law as unconstitutional, against the Canadian Charter of Rights.

So how to write a law for the liberation of Muslim or other women in a way that can be effective, and not just a hopeless law? The French are talking about banning the burqua. Maybe we should try it and engage the larger fight on that ground. If it doesn't work it doesn't work. Or maybe the law should stay out of it, but western men should find the courage to confront the husbands when they are seen together with their wives in "public". It's easy to talk about doing that, a lot harder to do. Some problems cannot be solved without violence. This may be one of them.

Syl said...

Well syl you've just blown Bush's whole "democracy is the solution" to Islamist terrorism out of the water without so much of peep out of Bin Laden.

I don't see that at all. Democracy is a process not an event. We will treat the democratically chosen leaders as we would treat them anyplace else. The Palestinians voted to be ostracized.

And this brings clarity to the Palestinian situation. No more can excuses be made for the desires of the majority of its people. I'm afraid the Palestinians seem to be the most dysfunctional society on the planet.

The process will play out between this election and the next. If we, in sticking to our principles of not rewarding bad behaviot, do not reward Hamas, the Palestinians will kick them out.

If Hamas denies the people another election, we'll cross that bridge then.

Pastorius said...

Syl,
You are correct in what you are saying, and in a sense, the vote for Hamas brings clarity, and that is good, but it is not the kind of Democracy that Bush speaks of. And, it is not the Democracy of Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy.

Have you read that book?

markg8 said...

Dictating dress codes is hardly a function of any democratic republic or parlimentary democracy. Your disgust for the burqua is mirrored by the Islamist disgust with short skirts or shirtless men for crying out loud. Women who choose to wear a burqua or cover their heads are no more slaves than women who wear miniskirts are sluts.

Might I also remind you the UK has no written constitution.

The Palestinians may very well be the most dysfunctional society on the planet. It doesn't help that to be a politician in the Territories is to be branded a collaborator with the Israelis on one side and
a terrorist by the Israelis.
It's not an easy job. Hamas might evolve with the political room and time. They know giving up the fruitless destruction of Israel dream is the crux of any land for peace deal with Israel. By slamming the aide door immediately it makes it much harder for calmer heads to prevail.

Syl said...

pastorius

Yes, I agree it's not what Bush has in mind. But, remember, democracy for the Palestinians is a policy that pre-dates Bush.

Syl said...

Mark

By slamming the aide door immediately it makes it much harder for calmer heads to prevail.

What calmer heads? Hamas is no better than Arafat, the terrorist, who himself was elected to power and couldn't handle it. State? Peace? What will I do with it? Fuggedaboudit. Let me play the international community for all it's worth and keep this situation going in perpetuity for myself, my wife, and my bank account.

Hamas is already talking about forming an army, drawing its military wing into it. Fatah is going nuts saying it refuses to cede responsibility for policing.

And Hamas is instituting Sharia. It's already said it's going to revert the schools to a 'purer' curriculum and separate the boys and girls. The Palestinians aren't going to like that much.

We have a situation here somewhat akin to that in tal afar, Iraq. Al Qaeda came into the village, took over, instituted strict Sharia, killed anyone who objected. Finally the tribal leaders and sunni insurgents called on the Americans to get rid of them.

Who will the Palestinians call on? Most likely the fatah members with guns.

This ain't going to be pretty.

But you and the rest of the internationalists will insist on giving Hamas billions 'to keep the peace'. Are you nuts?

Hamas is radical Islam, Mark. It's not Sein Fein.

markg8 said...

Poverty and hopelessness makes a fertile breeding ground for instability and terrorism. You can pretend to wash your hands of the matter and hope a civil war amongst the Palestinians you seem to be certain is coming if not outright hoping for doesn't overflow to Israel but I doubt it could be contained.

The Palestinian people voted against the old guard of Fatah because of corruption more than they voted for Hamas. They didn't vote for Islamist schools or a shooting war with Israel anymore than Americans voted for Bush to dismantle Social Security or interfere in end of life decisions.

Hamas knows that. If they're smart they won't overreach as Bush did last year. But to turn on a dime right after the election and change the platform they ran on would be political suicide. Palestinians put up with Fatah's cronyism for decades in return for the promise of statehood. It's gotten them nowhere. Hamas promises clean government. If they deliver they will be in a much stronger position to push the rest of their agenda. The part of the agenda that includes the overthrow of Israel is a deadend. I hope they don't get so politically weak they turn to it to rally support.

truepeers said...

Women who choose to wear a burqua or cover their heads are no more slaves than women who wear miniskirts are sluts.

-I guess I agree with those who are arguing that Mark must be a paid troll. How could someone devote so much of his free time to such idiocy? Imagine the situation in the average burka wearing home. Is it 1)Hubby: "Wear whatever you like dear, miniskirt or burka, i don't care."
2) Hubby: "You are wearing a burka, woman; if you think you can go out in just a head cover and show your face, you won't have a face you'll want to show once my brothers and I are finished with you. I know this is just what your father always told you."
3) Nothing needs to be said; woman knows there'll be shit to pay on so many levels if she doesn't wear a burka; or maybe she really "believes" all the religious crap, like an Aztec "believes" in mass human sacrifice or a Muslim believes in polygamy, or a drug addict believes in heroin.

Dictating dress codes is hardly a function of any democratic republic or parlimentary democracy.

-this is only generally true; at the extremes of commonly accepted dress codes, the state does indeed intervene. Try going around nude, or in the skin of an endangered species, or a police uniform. Certain things are deemed unacceptable to certain public values, and are outlawed; and there are lots of things i can "choose" to do to myself, like say serious mutilation, or descending into depression, that can get me an interview with a state official, and possibly incarceration for my own protection.

The problem with burkas, Mark, is that some of us don't want to live in a society where anything goes in the name of some ill-conceived multiculturalism that erodes the basis for any or all of our freedoms and social technology. E.g., we don't like pagan sacrificial rituals, or cult mass suicides, even if people choose to do it because of religious beliefs. We don't like children who can't get an education, desire, or personality necessary to do many a job; we don't like wife abuse, and we don't like our children seeing women dressed in an obviously submissive pose, whether the submission is to hubby or Allah, it really doesn't make a difference. A nun's habit is ok, a burka is not. Why? In large part because of the nature of the religion that enforces the burka dress code, a religion that is in so many respects anti-woman, in ways Christianity simply is not and has never been. The question cannot be reduced to tokens of dress.

And we especially don't like assholes that would deny the need to assert and defend people's human rights because they are too damned stupid to get it.
You, Mark, are simply the worst kind of dirty liar if you explain Burquas to children as just something that these women choose to do.

Might I also remind you the UK has no written constitution.

-no. Who was talking about the UK, anyway?; and the idea that there is no written constitution there is an old grade school chestnut, to allow comparison with the frankly covenantal nature of the American constitution, a chestnut that no longer holds, if it ever did, much water. There are all kinds of written laws and charters, from the Magna Carta on to the EU charters that could be considered constitutional.

truepeers said...

BTW Mark, women who wear miniskirts are not sluts. Any comparison of men and women should show you that sexual selection has had a greater role in modifying women's bodies over time than men's. To recognize and work with this fact is only to be in touch with the natural order. There may be times to restrain the natural impulses, but men who call women sluts for accenting their natural beauty are just assholes who probably never get laid, which means they are just resentful, nasty, bastards who get a kick pretending to like and defend women when they defend their right to wear a burka. Double asshole. Should be forced to wear a burka for life, along with all the other feminists who defend the burka. One reason not to outlaw it entirely.

Buddy Larsen said...

Yep, rather than take the slightest chance of slipping a scintilla out of BDS dogma, better to simply assert that one has knowledge that in their own minds the Taliban women were just fine, thank you, didn't mind in the least being whipped, imprisoned, stoned, amputated, and/or executed on their menfolk's whim.

Buddy Larsen said...

These folks seem to understand!

truepeers said...

Pastorius has a good post on the Burka business

In Germany, you can wear a Star of David but it's illegal to wear a Swastika. On the surface, these are just two similar symols, hence potential grist for the moral equivalency mill. But for anyone attentive to lived historical reality, and not abstract intellectual games, the two symbols take on quite different weights, and one is rightly banned. This is the way to look at the Burka in comparison with other forms of religious dress. And, re my earlier comment, I should have pointed out that a nun chooses to become a nun - and has to do a lot to realize the choice - unlike most Muslim women.

Peter UK said...

The EU is threatening to withhold funding from Palestine unless Hamas renounces violence.

truepeers said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
truepeers said...

Peter, but what will it take for the Saudis to threaten to renounce funding our Mark? Seriously, if the west were to stop funding the Palestinians, would the Saudis and Iranians make up the difference or would the world let the Palestinians starve? And starve much of the Muslim world would if we ever had to seriously isolate them due to violent fanaticism. Who has the stomach to let that happen?

Peter UK said...

Truepeers,
Well if Riyadh quality control goes round checking the blogs,Markg8 will end up with stumps if he ever visits SA.In fact Markg8 is so bad that he can only be a Mossad plant.

As to your other question, it will be Arab countries who will get the starving Palestinian refugees if we stop funding,so it is their interests to create a functioning society and economy in Palestine.