خطيب جمعة طهران: محاربة ولاية الفقيه السبب الرئيسي لسقوط المنافقين

اكد خطيب جمعة طهران المؤقت آية الله سيد احمد خاتمي ان السبب الرئيسي لسقوط المنافقين كان محاربتهم لولاية الفقيه.

واشار آية الله خاتمي الى ذكرى حادثة اغتيال قائد الثورة واستشهاد 27 شخصية على رأسهم آية الله بهشتي واستشهاد آية الله صدوقي امام جمعة مدينة يزد من قبل زمرة المنافقين في عام 1981، قائلا: ان السبب الرئيسي الذي ادى الى سقوط المنافقين هو محاربتهم لولاية الفقيه حيث حاربوا الإمام الراحل، وفي الحقيقة فانهم تخلوا عن الإمام ووقعوا في فخ افراد منحرفين.

وخاطب عضو مجلس خبراء القيادة، الشباب قائلا: ان الولي الفقيه هو الحجة الشرعية اي ان الولي الفقيه هو نائب الامام صاحب الزمان (عج) وكل من لا يصغي لامر الولي الفقيه ويتجاهله، فهو بالحقيقة يعصي امر الإمام صاحب الزمان (عج)، ولذا من الافضل اخذ العبر ونرى ماذ حدث لاولئك الذين حاربوا ولاية الفقيه حتى لا تكرر وقوعها.

واشار في جانب آخر من خطبته الى انتخابات رئاسة الجمهورية العاشرة وخطبة قائد الثورة الاسلامية في الاسبوع الماضي قائلا: ان خطبة قائد الثورة الاسلامية في صلاة الجمعة الاسبوع الماضي كانت شاملة وكاملة تماما، حيث اوضح سماحته جميع ابعاد القضية، وفي الحقيقة يمكن القول ان توجيهاته كانت كلمة الفصل.

ووصف خاتمي مشاركة نحو 40 مليون ناخب في انتخابات 12 يونيو بانها ملحمة عظيمة جدا، مضيفا: ان هذه الملحمة كانت رصيد واقتدار وعظمة النظام وتمثل افضل مظهر لسيادة الشعب الدينية، بالرغم من ان الاستكبار العالمي حاول من خلال مخططاته التي اعدها سلفا وليست مرتبطة بوقت الانتخابات فقط، حاول ان يسرق هذه الحلاوة من الشعب من خلال تصرفاته الخاطئة.

ودعا خطيب جمعة طهران جميع المرشحين في انتخابات رئاسة الجمهورية الى مراعاة الاخلاق وان يتحلوا بالحلم والتسامح.

واشار الى ان الجمهورية الاسلامية الايرانية قامت باجراء انتخابات متعددة طول العقود الثلاثة الماضية مما يبين انها كانت رائدة سيادة الشعب الدينية، مشيرا الى ان الاعتراض احد وسائل سيادة الشعب الدينية وينبغي متابعتها عبر الطرق القانونية.

واضاف: ان مجلس صيانة الدستور ومن خلال اجراءاته اثبت انه يبت بالاعتراضات، لذا لا يوجد احد لديه مأخذ على حق الاعتراض.

وتطرق خاتمي الى التصريحات الاخيرة لقائد الثورة الاسلامية، مضيفا: ان سماحته اكد في هذه التصريحات على اهمية الاعتماد على سيادة القانون، ويجب ان نقبل ان البلد الذي لايسوده قانون هو غابة، لذلك يجب على الجميع اطاعة القانون.

واشار عضو مجلس خبراء القيادة الى كلام الإمام الخميني (رض) موضحا ان الامام الراحل اكد انه لايمكن عدم قبول مجلس صيانة الدستور لان الشعب صوت على الدستور من اجل تطبيق القانون، وينبغي على الجميع اتباع القانون حتى ولو كان مخالفا لوجهات نظرهم.

واستنكر خطيب جمعة طهران، اعمال الشغب والتخريب وحرق المساجد وممتلكات المواطنين وتعكير الامن والحاق الاذى بالمواطنين واعتبرها اعمالا منافية للقانون، وان من مسؤولية القائد الاسلامي التصدي لهؤلاء المشاغبين حتى القضاء عليهم.

وطالب خاتمي السلطة القضائية بمحاكمة المسؤولين عن اعمال الشغب باعتبارهم محاربين حسب الفقه الاسلامي والذين يتلقون الاوامر من امريكا واسرائيل، والتصدي الحازم لهم ليكونوا عبرة للآخرين.

وندد آية الله خاتمي بوسائل الاعلام الاوروبية والامريكية والبريطانية ووصف تغطيتها للاحداث الاخيرة بانها خبيثة وتصب الزيت على النار مضيفا: استغرب كيف يتجول هؤلاء بحرية في بلادنا، واطلب من الحكومة ان تراقبهم.

ووصف خطيب جمعة طهران، قادة امريكا وبريطانيا وفرنسا والمانيا والامين العام للامم المتحدة بانهم منافقون، قائلا: الآن يشعر الامين العام للامم المتحدة بالقلق، وانا اقول له ايها البائس لماذا لم تشعر بالقلق عندما قتل 400 طفل و100 امرأة بريئة في غزة ؟ ولكنك تشعر بالقلق هنا؟ يجب القول ان منظمة الامم المتحدة هي منظمة الدول المستكبرة، ويتعين على الشعوب ان تؤسس منظمة امم حقيقية.

واوضح ان امريكا وبريطانيا وفرنسا والمانيا انتهكت حقوق الانسان ولكنها مازالت تتحدث عن احترام حقوق الانسان، مشيرا الى التعذيب الذي مارسته امريكا في معتقلات ابو غريب وغوانتانامو والتعذيب الذي مارسته بريطانيا في سجونها، وتزويد فرنسا والمانيا لجيش صدام المقبور بالاسلحة والقنابل الكيمياوية اثناء الحرب المفروضة على الجمهورية الاسلامية الايرانية، مؤكدا ان الشعب الايراني لن ينسى هذه الممارسات العدوانية وسيرد عليها في الوقت المناسب.

http://arabic.irib.ir/pages/news/detailnews.asp?idn=43291

Advertisements

Obama: Bush redux

U.S. grants support Iranian “dissidents”

Caption: the product of U.S-funded “dissidents’ ” “peaceful protests”?

Caption: has this “dissident” received U.S government funding?

.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which reports to the secretary of state, has for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to “promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran,” according to documents on the agency’s website. The final deadline for grant applications is June 30.

U.S. efforts to support Iranian opposition groups have been criticized in recent years as veiled attempts to promote “regime change,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American advocacy group. The grants enable Iran’s rulers to paint opponents as tools of the United States, he said.

Although the Obama administration has not sought to continue the Iran-specific grants in its 2010 budget, it wants a $15 million boost for the Near Eastern Regional Democracy Initiative, which has similar aims but does not specify the nations involved. Some of that money will be targeted at Iran, said David Carle, a spokesman for the appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign affairs.

“Part of it is to expand access to information and communications through the Internet for Iranians,” Carle said in an e-mail.

President Obama said this week the United States “is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs,” rejecting charges of meddling that were renewed Thursday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Asked how the democracy promotion initiatives square with the president’s statement, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said, “Let’s be clear: The United States does not fund any movement, faction or political party in Iran. We support … universal principles of human rights, freedom of speech, and rule of law.”

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said, “Respecting Iran’s sovereignty does not mean our silence on issues of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to peacefully protest.”

The Bush program “was a horrible idea,” Parsi said. “It made human rights activists and non-governmental organizations targets.”

Not so, said David Denehy, the former Republican political consultant and State Department official who used to oversee the spending. “To say that we were the cause of repression in Iran is laughable … Our programs sent a message to the people of Iran that we supported their requests for personal freedom,” he said.

The State Department and USAID decline to name Iran-related grant recipients for security reasons.

After Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a major expansion of the program in 2006 — Congress eventually approved $66 million — the Iranian government arrested activists and closed down their organizations. Several Iranian dissidents, including former political prisoner Akbar Ganji, denounced the U.S. funding as counterproductive.

Some in Congress are happy the program is continuing.

“As the Iranian regime cracks down on its people, I strongly believe that we should be prepared to extend our hand in help and support to any Iranian civil society group that reaches out for it,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY.

Most of the money likely hasn’t reached Iran but went instead to Washington-based groups, said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert who reviewed applications for the democracy program before leaving the State Department for the Brookings Institution. The United States lacks the insight to influence Iran’s internal politics, she said.

“We have such limited penetration of Iranian politics,” she said. “We are so poorly positioned to add any value.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-25-iran-money_N.htm

(من أدعية الصحيفة السجادية – الإمام السجاد (زين العابدين

وكان من دعائه ( عليه السلام) في استكشاف الهموم

يَا فَارِجَ الْهَمِّ وَكَاشِفَ الغَمِّ، يَا رَحْمنَ الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَرَحِيمَهُمَا، صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّد وَآلِ

مُحَمَّد، وَافْرُجْ هَمِّيَ، وَاكْشِفْ غَمِّيَ، يَا وَاحِدُ يَا أَحَدُ، يَا صَمَدُ، يَامَنْ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ، وَلَمْ

يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُواً أَحَدٌ، اعْصِمْنِي وَطَهِّرْنِي، وَاْذهِبْ بِبَلِيَّتِي. [وَاقْرَأْ آيَةَ الْكُرسِيّ وَالْمُعَوِّذَتَيْنِ

وَقُلْ هُوَ اللهُ أَحَدٌ وَقُلْ:] أَللَّهُمَّ إنِّيْ أَسْأَلُكَ سُؤَالَ مَنِ اشْتَدَّتْ فَاقَتُهُ، وَضَعُفَتْ قُوَّتُهُ، وَكَثُرَتْ

ذُنُوبُهُ، سُؤَالَ مَنْ لاَ يَجِدُ لِفَاقَتِهِ مُغِيْثاً، وَلاَ لِضَعْفِهِ مُقَوِّياً، وَلاَ لِذَنْبِهِ غَافِراً غَيْرَكَ، يَا ذَا

الْجَلاَلِ وَالإكْرَامِ. أَسْأَلُكَ عَمَلاً تُحِبُّ بِهِ مَنْ عَمِلَ بِهِ، وَيَقِيناً تَنْفَعُ بِهِ مَنِ اسْتَيْقَنَ بِهِ حَقَّ

الْيَقِينِ فِيْ نَفَاذِ أَمْرِكَ. أللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّد وَآلِ مُحَمَّد، وَاقْبِضَ عَلَى الصِّدْقِ نَفْسِي،

وَاقْطَعْ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا حَاجَتِي، وَاجْعَلْ فِيمَا عِنْدَكَ رَغْبَتِي، شَوْقاً إلَى لِقَائِكَ، وَهَبْ لِي صِدْقَ

التَّوَكُّلِ عَلَيْكَ . أَسْأَلُكَ مِنْ خَيْرِ كِتَاب قَدْ خَلاَ وَأَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ شَرِّ كِتَاب قَدْ خَلاَ أَسْأَلُكَ

خَوْفَ الْعَابِدِينَ لَكَ، وَعِبَادَةَ الْخَاشِعِينَ لَكَ، وَيَقِيْنَ الْمُتَوَكِّلِينَ عَلَيْكَ، وَتَوَكُّلَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَيْكَ.

أَللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْ رَغْبَتِي فِي مَسْأَلَتِي مِثْلَ رَغْبَةِ أَوْلِيَآئِكَ فِي مَسَائِلِهِمْ، وَرَهْبَتِيْ مِثْلَ رَهْبَةِ

أَوْلِيَآئِكَ، وَاسْتَعْمِلْنِي فِي مَرْضَاتِكَ، عَمَلاً لاَ أَتْرُكُ مَعَهُ شَيْئاً مِنْ دِيْنِكَ مَخَافَةَ أَحْد مِنْ

خَلْقِكَ. أللَّهُمَّ هَذِهِ حَاجَتِي، فَأَعْظِمْ فِيهَا رَغْبَتِي، وَأَظْهِرْ فِيهَا عُذْرِي، وَلَقِّنِي فِيهَا حُجَّتِي

وَعَافِ فِيْهَا جَسَدِيْ. أللَّهُمَّ مَنْ أَصْبَحَ لَهُ ثِقَةٌ أَوْ رَجَآءٌ غَيْرُكَ، فَقَدْ أَصْبَحْتُ وَأَنْتَ ثِقَتِي

وَرَجَآئِي فِي الأُمُورِ كُلِّهَا، فَاقْضِ لِيْ بِخَيْرِهَا عَاقِبَةً، وَنَجِّنِيْ مِنْ مُضِلاَّتِ الْفِتَنِ، بِرَحْمَتِكَ

يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِينَ. وَصَلَّى اللهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّد رُسُولِ اللهِ المُصْطَفَى، وَعَلَى آلِهِ الطَّاهِرِينَ.ا

Morocco: we can’t stop the march of Islam (Shi’ism), so we blame the Shi’ites (and Iran)

Press TV reports :

The Moroccan Foreign Ministry on Friday accused Iran’s Embassy in Rabat of trying to “alter the religious fundamentals of the kingdom” and threaten the religious unity of the Sunni Arab kingdom.

By “religious unity” they mean the predominance of Sunnism, and not actual unity between different (Religious) groups/sects. They are talking about the astronomical “conversion” rates from “Sunnism” to true (Shi’ite) Islam. They cannot stop it because they have lost the Religious debate before it even started. They never had an argument to begin with. And this is precisely why they refuse to accept being challenged to a debate. They know they will lose. They know they have lost. And because they know this, and because they know the only way to stop the march of truth is through crackdown and violence and terrorism and mass-murder, they engage in it. But, ironically, their actions only confirm their weakness and fabrications. Whatever they do, they only strengthen us, and bring more people to our side. Islam is winning. Us Shi’ites are the true Sunnis, because WE are the ones who are the PEOPLE OF THE SUNNAH.

The fact that so-called “Sunnis” are more worried about Shi’ism winning the hearts and minds of people than about ‘israeli’ mass-murder, the fact that they are busy killing Shi’ites instead of firing a single bullet at the zionists or american occupiers, shows how desperate they are, and shows that us Shi’ites, despite enduring centuries of oppression, persecution, and mass-murder at the hands of oppressors who claimed to be persecuting us in the name of Islam, have won. Blood has won over the oppressors’ sword.

Allahu akbar fawqa kaid al-mu`tadi!!!

Background on Swiss schizophrenia

Some religions are more welcome than others

If you’re a Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist in Switzerland and want to build a temple, no problem; if you’re a Muslim and want to put up a minaret, you’d better start praying.

For while some non-native religions have proved easy bedfellows for the Swiss, others – notably Islam – have found it more difficult to be accepted.

So much so in the case of Islam that Swiss Muslims currently face the prospect of seeing the construction of minarets put to a nationwide vote.

The rightwing campaign to ban minarets, launched with October’s parliamentary elections in mind, follows local opposition in a handful of Swiss-German towns.

One of these, Wangen in canton Solothurn, lies just a few kilometres from the Wat Thai centre, home of the Buddhist faith in Switzerland. Four years ago a new Buddhist temple costing SFr9 million ($7.35 million) opened on the site.

Even closer to Wangen, the commune of Trimbach last year approved plans for the construction of a Hindu temple for the local Tamil community.

A similar sense of schizophrenia exists in neighbouring canton Bern where plans to construct a minaret in Langenthal ran into trouble. The same commune is home to a sizeable Sikh temple, built in the traditional style.

While there were a few “obstacles” along the way, notes the temple’s website, there were no problems when it came to erecting the domes.

Islam a threat?

For Samuel-Martin Behloul, research assistant at the department for the study of religions at Lucerne University, this disparity is principally down to perception: Islam is seen as a threat.

“Islam is presented as the absolute opposite in religious and cultural terms to the fundamentals of Swiss and European society. There is a problem of perception post-9/11, and it is seen as a threat unlike other non-native religions,” he said.

The current state of play is a source of great sadness for Hisham Maizar, president of the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland.

Maizar, who sits on the Swiss Council of Religions, has lived in Switzerland for 40 years and says discrimination towards Muslims has never been as strong.

“It makes me feel very sad. People are not being open-minded,” he said. “They are afraid of Islam and afraid of Muslims, but it is not we who are responsible for these terrible events in other parts of the world. We are not extremists.”

“Before 9/11 we were welcomed here and there was good interfaith dialogue. But afterwards the picture changed completely. We felt we had to justify that we were not terrorists.”

Integration

Alfred Donath, president of the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities, says a big increase numbers, coupled with a failure to fully integrate, also goes against the country’s Muslims.

The 2000 census showed their numbers had more than doubled over the previous decade to 310,000. It is estimated that this figure now stands at around 340,000.

“There are so many more [Muslims] than in other non-Swiss religions. This is part of the reason why the Swiss have a certain fear of Muslims: that too many could change the demographic balance,” said Donath, who also sits on the Council of Religions.

This is not the case with other non-native religions, he says, because their numbers are so small. At the last census there were 18,000 Jews, 21,000 Buddhists and 28,000 Hindus.

Maizar, though, believes the numbers game is a red herring. He argues that Switzerland welcomed refugees from the Balkans and now has a duty to look after them. He dismisses as “utter nonsense” claims that Muslims have failed to integrate.

“More than 50 per cent of Muslims here are under 25. These are the second generation and they differ completely from their parents in that they are assimilated,” said Maizar.

“All they want is to be accepted as human beings and to be integrated as Swiss citizens. But what we are seeing at the moment can only serve to alienate them.”

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/specials/religion_in_switzerland/Some_religions_are_more_welcome_than_others.html?siteSect=22081&sid=8120545&cKey=1233661260000&ty=st

Switzerland: Minarets as “claims to political dominance”

So after the so-called “conference” in Germany against the building of Mosques, which was really a meeting to formulate a genocidal agenda against Muslim citizens of European countries, another one is making the rounds, this time having to do with the desire to ban Minarets. Boy, are the zionified neo-nazi westerners obsessed with Islam and Muslims….!!! That this even gets “debated”, let alone voted on, is quite telling about the true nature of the western world, which claims it is “civilized”, “freedom-loving”, and “secular.” Civilized, freedom-loving, and secular only when there is no difference of opinion, no “challenge” to prevailing mindsets, no “competition” with the dominant Religion. Westerners’ understanding of “freedom” is as peculiar as that of Saddam Hussein’s, Stalin’s, Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, to name just a few dictators who have at one point or another claimed to represent the people’s interest, needs, and aspirations. Just imagine the House of Representatives in ANY European country debating a ban on Synagogues, claiming they are symbols of political dominance (which they are, aside from being symbols of [Jewish] racial supremacism), and urging intensification of the fight against “Judaization” of the “western world.” ADL, and zionazis would be screaming murder at the top of their lungs, if such a thing ever happened, which it never would. But I bet this has the blessing of most (zionist) Jews in Europe. After all, the neo-nazis and zionazis are the best of friends these days. Arguably, zionazis and nazis were the best of friends. They had a shared interest. 6 million less Jews served Hitler’s interests, and also those of the zionazis, who would create a Holocaust Industry out of it. And now, the zionazis are setting the stage for the persecution and (possible) genocide against Muslims in Europe, at the same time as they kill and maim Muslims all over the region, and take over our lands.

So now, under the cloak of such ridiculous arguments as “Muslim extremists could use Mosques (Minarets????) for ‘criminal activities'” (I guess next in line will be a proposal to ban Muslims from buying or renting apartments or houses, or opening up shops or buying clothes or food or chocolate, because they could be used for “criminal activities” too), they (zionists and their best friends the european neo-nazis) pursue their plans of ethnically cleansing Europe and parts of the Middle East of Muslims.

The Swiss House of Representatives debates and votes on Minaret ban proposal

The House of Representatives has come out against a proposal by rightwing political parties to ban minarets, Urs Geiser writes for swissinfo.

A majority also rejected calls by the centre-left to declare the people’s initiative invalid. The other parliamentary chamber, the Senate, still has to discuss the issue.

The initiative, launched by the rightwing Swiss People’s Party and a small ultra-conservative Christian party, was handed in with 113,540 valid votes last year. It will be put to a nationwide vote at a later date.

Muslim organizations have expressed their concern about the initiative, which has been rejected by the cabinet.

More than 50 parliamentarians took part in Wednesday’s debate which lasted for nearly six-hours. In the end, the House voted 129 against 50 to rebuff the initiative.

An overwhelming majority said the proposal violated human rights and international law and jeopardised the peaceful coexistence of religions.

“The initiative takes aim at the Muslim community,” warned Bea Heim of the centre-left Social Democratic Party. Other speakers described the plan as irresponsible, “an insult for Muslims,” scaremongering or “a campaign to instigate hatred.”

“I’m not willing to provide fuel for arsonists,” said Ueli Leuenberger of the Green Party, when he took the podium to explain his position.

Social Democrat Andreas Gross criticized the government for failing to nullify the initiative at an early stage. He called on parliament to “act bravely and to put respect for religious freedom over political opportunism.”

But his appeal was barely heeded by members outside the centre-left.

Fears

For their part, People’s Party parliamentarians argued the initiative was the right answer to counter an alleged “Islamization” of the western world. Minarets were described as claims to political dominance rather than religious symbols.

“It’s time to counter the pretension to power,” said Jasmin Hutter, who also slammed Islam as intolerant and repressive toward women.

“Minarets, muezzins [people at the mosque who lead the call to prayer] and Sharia law have to be seen in the same context,” added Walter Wobmann.

Numerous right-wing parliamentarians slammed Islamic values as incompatible with the Christian ideals and Switzerland’s democratic principles.

They also warned that Muslim extremists would use mosques for criminal activities.

During a heated debate Ulrich Schlüer accused opponents of trying to ignore the concerns of all those citizens who signed the people’s initiative.

Dialogue

Representatives of the centre-right Christian Democratic Party called for more dialogue between the religions.

“I dread the forthcoming campaign by the People’s Party,” said Kathy Riklin.

Jacques Neirynck was among several speakers who expressed their feelings of disgust and shame over demands for a minaret ban and Wednesday’s parliamentary debate.

“The initiative is dangerous, populist and damages Switzerland’s reputation. I wish it was not on the table,” he said.

But several speakers also pointed out that the initiative had to be taken seriously because it reflected serious concerns of citizens.

It was launched in the wake of debates at a local level in parts of German-speaking Switzerland over the planned construction of minarets. At present only four mosques in the county have such spires.

Credibility

Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf repeated the government’s rejection of the initiative.

“Switzerland would be in violation of international obligations and its credibility would be seriously dented,” she told the House.

However, she said the initiative did not violate international law.

Widmer-Schlumpf added that a minaret ban would endanger the peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims.

“Minarets are religious symbols. A ban is an infringement of religious freedom,” she said.

She said the debate had shown that some supporters of a minaret ban were prepared to use unfair and dishonest arguments.

The initiative seeks a ban on minarets, according to supporters of the initiative, but it appeared that many speakers raised general objections against Islam, Widmer-Schlumpf said.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=97259

Racism bad, except when targets are Muslims

Former judge wants to bar Muslims from scholarships

A retired judge wants two Ontario universities to bar Muslim students from being awarded scholarships he has established, though the spokesperson for one institution says her school won’t support a proposal that “flies in the face of everything we stand for.”

Paul Staniszewski said he objects to the “medieval violence” used by the Taliban — such as when Taliban militants recently kidnapped and beheaded Polish engineer Piotr Stanczak — and he wishes to “disqualify” Muslim students from receiving financial aid he has paid for.

“I’m reacting to what’s going on to people who aren’t even soldiers, who are having their heads beheaded and this stuff is shown on the TVs and everything else,” Staniszewski told CTV.ca in a phone interview from his Tecumseh, Ont., home, just outside of Windsor.

“I am doing the same thing these people are doing, except I’m not cutting off heads, I’m cutting off applications for help in their studies,” he added later in the interview.

Staniszewski, who is in his 80s, has established scholarships at both the University of Windsor and York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School.

The University of Windsor website lists three $1,000 scholarships under the name of the judge and his wife, and the York University website lists an award that is also named after the couple.

According to the description of The Honourable Paul I.B. and Mrs. Tevis Staniszewski Award, the retired judge graduated Osgoode in 1954 and practiced law for 13 years until he was appointed as a federal judge in 1967.

Staniszewski said he has attempted to contact both schools about his idea, though he told CTV.ca that he has only made contact with York University so far.

“They told me to put that in writing and they’ll take it up with the board,” he said.

York University spokesperson Alex Bilyk said he had no comment on the issue.

University of Windsor spokesperson Lori Lewis said the school could never support such a measure, though she said it was her understanding the administration had not been contacted about the matter.

“It goes without saying that our position is that we don’t discriminate against our students and that is not an acceptable restriction,” Lewis told CTV.ca.

“It’s against the law and it flies in the face of everything that we stand for at this university,” she added.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090225/judge_scholarships_090225/20090225?hub=Canada