Stephen Coughlin, author of Catastrophic Failure, analyzes how interfaith dialogues blind Americans of sharia danger

3673405460 (1)

E-BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

Center for Security Policy, Nov. 13, 2015:

STEPHEN COUGHLIN, Author of “Catastrophic Failure: The Blindfolding of America in the Face of Jihad”:

  • How the Muslim Brotherhood hides behind inter-faith dialogues
  • Implications of the Countering Violent Extremism movement
  • Muslim Brotherhood’s hand in developing the CVE narrative
  • Whitewashing in US hate speech laws
  • How designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization changes the CVE narrative
  • Civilization jihad and death by one’s own hand
  • Supporting Egyptian leader el-Sisi against radical Islam

podcast 2


Are Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota Surrendering to the Jihadis?

UTT, by John  Guandolo, Nov. 9, 2015:

The state of Massachusetts appears to have surrendered to Hamas; Hamtramck, Michigan now has a Muslim majority city council; and the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota is carrying the water for jihadis by putting the weight of the U.S. Attorney’s Office behind the terrorist’s information operation to silence those who speak truthfully about Islam.

UTT is again forced to ask the question – how long will Americans sit idly by while their elected officials (at all levels) surrender our nation, piece by piece, to our enemy?


On November 12th, the day after Veteran’s Day, Hamas will be flexing it’s muscles on the steps of the Massachusetts State House in Boston by hosting a “Muslim Day.”

Participating in this event will be Massachusetts State Legislators Marjorie Decker and Sonia Chang-Diaz.

Decker Chang-Diqaz

Boston is the place where Patriots – the Sons of Liberty – tossed tea into the Boston Harbor in 1773 because we were being taxed by the British Crown without representation (Tea Act).

The citizens of Boston may want to consider throwing their elected officials into the Harbor for aiding and abetting a designated terrorist organization, namely Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

CAIR is a Hamas organization per the evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas, 2008).

The U.S. Department of Justice identified CAIR as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) Palestine Committee (Hamas).

Senator Ted Cruz (TX) and Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (FL) have recently filed legislation to designate the MB a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

In Hamtramck, Michigan the city council is now two thirds Muslim, making it the first Muslim majority city council in America.

IC-Hamtramck-300x143Those who have been elected are Sharia-adherent Muslims and, therefore, their election is not Constitutionally allowed because they support a system of government that mandates an overthrow of our Constitutional Republic and a suppression/destruction of our liberties.

If recent history is any prediction of future events, we can expect the federal government to do nothing…unless of course Constitutionally minded citizens question this development in Hamtramck.

Meanwhile, unsuspecting citizens in the city of Hamtramck, who appear to be ignorant of the teachings of Islam and the repercussions of Islam in our society, believe the Muslim city council members have “accomplished a lot for the city.”

UTT is hopeful the people of Hamtramck have televisions so they can watch their coming future as they witness European cities being destroyed by these same people.

In keeping with the federal government’s overt support for terrorists, and their disregard for:  (1) their Oaths of Office, (2) the founding principles of the Declaration of Independence, and (3) the Constitution, the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota has joined forces with the international jihadi community to silence the truth and suppress the God-given rights of American citizens to freely express themselves.

lugerAndrew M. Luger, in an open letter in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on November 2nd, said “The current wave of Islamophobia needs to be stopped in its tracks. Minnesota has a thriving, patriotic and entrepreneurial Muslim population. By collectively rejecting attacks on Muslim Minnesotans, we can set an example for the rest of the nation.”

Interesting that Mr. Luger’s comments mirror the language of the global Islamic Movement which calls for “deterrent punishment” for anything that offends Islam.  This quote comes from the OIC’s 10-year plan.  The OIC, of course, is the largest voting block in the UN, and is made up of all 57 Muslim states on the planet.

Mr. Luger has likely never heard of the OIC.

The question citizens of Minnesota should ask Mr. Luger is:  “What Islamic Law have you read.”  He has not read any.  He is taking the Imams and Islamic leaders at their word, despite the evidence they are Sharia-compliant and many are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in the United States.

This is unprofessional conduct on Mr. Luger’s part.

“Islamophobia” is saying anything about Islam or Muslims they would dislike.  It is the implementation of the Islamic Law of Slander.  In Islamic Law (Sharia) Slander is a capital offense.

In case Mr. Luger has not noticed, human beings are being killed and silenced by threats of death (including in the United States) for “offending” Muslims.

It is reasonable to assume that if someone threatened to kill Mr. Luger, there would be a full investigation immediately opened and his office would pursue those threatening him to the fullest extent of the law.

Yet, Mr. Luger’s response to the threat of Islam in America is to commit to “stopping” free speech “in its tracks” when it comes to speaking about Islam.  Mr. Luger mistakenly takes the anger of the citizens as hatred towards Muslims, when actually it a demonstration of their frustration of dealing with the legitimate fear of a real threat (Jihadis) while those charged with defending our society (eg Mr. Luger) overtly side with the enemy.

The anger is directed at people like Mr. Luger.

The Road Forward

For Americans, there are difficult decisions which are no longer rapidly approaching – they are here.

Our leaders continue to sit on their hands while our enemies gather strength and prepare to wage war against communities all around America.  Yet, state houses (Massachusetts), cities (Hamtramck, MI), and U.S. Attorney’s like Andrew Luger surrender to or do the bidding of our enemy.

Where are the Sons of Liberty now?

Also see:

Ted Cruz Is Right: The Muslim Brotherhood Is a Terrorist Organization

Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Jordan, November 2014 (Khalil Mazraawi/AFP/Getty)

Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Jordan, November 2014 (Khalil Mazraawi/AFP/Getty)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Nov.7, 2015:

“The Muslim Brotherhood youth in Egypt reject any form of violence.” So said Rachid Ghannouchi, who — you’ll no doubt be stunned to hear — heads up the Muslim Brotherhood’s Tunisian branch, Ennahda.

Naturally, Ghannouchi gave his Egyptian confederates a clean bill of health while speaking as an invited guest of the U.S. Institute for Peace in Washington. He is a master of the Brotherhood game, consulted by the State Department and a bipartisan Beltway clerisy ever on the hunt for that elusive “moderate Islamist.” He is an Islamic supremacist who knows he can worm his way into Washington’s heart by whispering sweet nothings about “democracy,” “pluralism,” and their seamless compatibility with sharia — Islam’s authoritarian, discriminatory, and brutally punitive legal code and societal framework.

It is nonsense, but Ghannouchi knows it is precisely the nonsense our government wants to hear. We don’t want to know about the Brotherhood, but man oh man do the Brothers ever go to school on us. Ghannouchi understands that if he chants “democracy” and “non-violence” enough times, there will be no inconvenient mention of his support of Hamas — the terrorist organization that is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. No one will bring up his 2009 call for the opening of a “third jihadist front” against Israel. No one will quote his proclamations such as “I bring glad tidings that the Arab region will get rid of the germ of Israel” or “There are no civilians in Israel. Men, women and children, they are all reserves soldiers and can therefore be killed” — or that the United States government is “the great Satan.” Not a word will be uttered about his close alliance with Brotherhood eminence Yousef al-Qaradawi, the influential sharia jurist who calls for suicide bombings against the Jewish state and terrorist attacks against American soldiers in Iraq.

This week, finally, Ted Cruz decided enough is enough. The Texas senator and Republican presidential hopeful has proposed a bill to force the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as what it actually is: a terrorist organization.

The legislation, Senator Cruz tells me, “is part of a larger effort to expose the various radical elements that are trying, both at home and abroad, to undermine our very way of life.”

A parallel focus of this effort is Iranian aggression — manifested again this week with the regime’s taking of yet another American hostage. Cruz has been a vigorous critic of the deal, negotiated by President Obama, that will make the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism a threshold nuclear power while materially supporting its terror promotion with over $100 billion in funding. The senator has also joined with colleagues in the House on a bill to apply the terrorist designation to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps — the elite regime force that orchestrated much of the terrorist insurgencies against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, to say nothing of the 1995 bombing that killed 19 American airmen at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

The menace that is Iran is clear to most Americans outside the Obama administration. The Brotherhood, though, is a “complicated case,” Cruz acknowledges. They’ve managed to “convince the Obama administration they are a secular, political entity” that can be America’s “moderate partner and assist in outreach to the Muslim world.”

The proposed legislation corrects this dangerous misimpression by sketching the Brotherhood’s history and the centrality of violent jihad to it. It details, for example, the instruction of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna that “jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored or evaded.”

From its origins in the 1920s, Brotherhood doctrine has taught that jihad means “fighting the unbelievers,” “including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols.” It has called for willing “martyrs” who understand the necessity of terrorism as “the art of death” — the route to ensuring Islam’s global dominance by convincing enemies that Islamic forces “loved death more than life” and were willing to perform any atrocities necessary to prevail.

While Ghannouchi would have us believe he has no information connecting the Egyptian Brotherhood with violence, Cruz’s bill recounts that, from its earliest days, the Egypt-based movement “established a terrorist wing, referred to as the ‘secret apparatus’, which conducted bombings and assassinations.” The savage use of force continues to this day, spearheaded by Hamas (designated as a terrorist organization since the mid-1990s), the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood (Lajnat al-Dawa al-Islamia — designated as a terrorist organization in 2001), and Brotherhood factions in Egypt that oppose the current government and torment Coptic Christians, torching scores of churches, businesses, and homes.

Indeed, in 2010, the bill relates, the Brotherhood’s “supreme guide,” Mohamed Badie, “called on Arab and Muslim regimes to confront not just Israel but also the United States,” declaring that “resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny.” The call to jihad followed the 2008 convictions of Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case. There, the Justice Department proved that the Brotherhood was the core of an elaborate conspiracy to support and finance Hamas — a conspiracy in which leading American Islamist organizations were complicit.

Cruz could not be more right in describing the Brotherhood as “the key foundation stone for radical Sunni terrorism that has spawned both al-Qaeda and ISIS.”  In fact, as the bill describes, there is a significant history of Brotherhood underwriting of terrorism. In addition, key al-Qaeda figures have been launched by immersion in Brotherhood ideology.

It should come as no surprise, then, that where the Brotherhood is active, ISIS and al-Qaeda thrive.

This is notoriously the case in Syria, headquarters of the ISIS “caliphate,” where opponents of the Iran-backed regime are labeled “moderates” and “rebels” — a clear case of Washington straining to obscure the opposition’s significant Brotherhood and jihadist elements. Top Cruz adviser Victoria Coates points out that several years and millions of dollars have been squandered because the Obama administration “refuses to see that the Brotherhood is every bit as hostile to America as Assad is.”

Meanwhile, the Brotherhood is a prominent agitator in Libya, where al-Qaeda affiliates helped massacre Americans in Benghazi and where ISIS has established a beachhead. As Cruz’s legislation relates, Brotherhood factions are now colluding with jihadist groups fighting with great success against the failed government.

The United States will not have success in this volatile region until we have a strategy based on reality. Cruz persuasively contends that reality begins with no longer allowing the Brotherhood “to perpetuate the fiction that they are somehow reasonable and should be advising the highest levels of our government.”

To disastrous effect, the Obama administration has indulged the fantasy that American interests are served by making common cause with virulently anti-American Islamists who want Israel wiped from the map. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, has been an enthusiastic partner in the project to cultivate the Brotherhood. And too many Republicans have fallen prey to the illusion of a Middle East tamed by “sharia democracy” — an illusion that portrays enemies as friends and is continually surprised by the rising tide of jihadism.

Ted Cruz understands the threat and is distinguishing himself by charting a very different policy direction. It will serve him well. And it would serve the country well.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.


Clarion Project national security analyst Ryan Mauro debates Nezar Hamze of CAIR-Florida about whether the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. The discussion follows the United Arab Emirates’ designation of CAIR and Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist groups. This illustrates why CAIR is able to bamboozle everyone. THEY LIE AND PEOPLE BELIEVE THEM!

REPORT: The Islamic State and Information Warfare: Defeating ISIS and the Broader Global Jihadist Movement

The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Nov. 2, 2015:

My training company, Threat Knowledge Group, wrote a report for the US military called,The Islamic State and Information Warfare: Defeating ISIS and the Broader Global Jihadist Movement. The Army has posted the report and now we are making the report available for download for you to read.



ISIS, or the Islamic State (IS) as it now calls itself, is a far deadlier enemy than Al Qaeda, especially in its understanding and use Information Warfare and Psychological Operations (PSYOP).

A fully fledged insurgency which has recruited tens of thousands of fighters and controls large parts of Iraq and Syria, IS is especially skilled in the exploitation of global social media networks to radicalize, indoctrinate and recruit.

While the use of force-such as airstrikes-against IS targets may have a positive effect in the short term, victory in the long term will only come when the “lifestyle of the jihadi” is effectively delegitimized. This will require America to draft and execute a national-level Information Operations campaign against the Islamic State. Currently the true center of gravity of this group lies in its Threat Doctrine of Global Jihadism. That ideology cannot be destroyed kinetically.


In order to defeat the Islamic State and eventually the broader Global Jihadist Movement, the US government must recognize the five following truths of Information Warfare:

  1. The purpose of Information Warfare or PSYOP is to use information as a weapon to influence thought processes, beliefs, emotions, and ultimately behavior.
  2. Information Warfare and PSYOP should be the military tools of first resort, not an afterthought or appendix to military action, since their effective employment can obviate the need to use force at all.
  3. You cannot engage in a war of ideas without understanding the enemy’s ideas. You cannot permanently defeat the enemy unless you are intimately familiar with the ideology he uses to mobilize his side and the Enemy Threat Doctrine that drives his violence.
  4. All wars-kinetic or psychological-have as their practical objective causing the enemy to give up the ideas that animate their struggle. This was true for the Nazi Third Reich and the Soviet Union just as much as it is true for Al Qaeda or the Islamic State. This victory can only be achieved by making the enemy accept the illegitimacy of their ideology or crushing those who hold it, or as is most often the case, through a combination of both.
  5. In order to win a morally based war of ideas you need organizational and financial means that span generations.


One can only win a war if one has clearly defined the political end-states of that conflict. This is not clear with regard to the threat of both IS or the broader Global Jihadist Movement. Once the US has defined the political end-state of this war and declared it publicly, Information Operations and PSYOP must be positioned at the head of the fight, not treated simply as a “supporting” function of the kinetic war. PSYOP should be built into the US national strategy to defeat the Islamic State at the highest level. (Note a precedence already exists for exactly this with the Psychological Strategy Board created by President Truman at the opening of the Cold War).

In order to make tangible progress against IS and other Islamist threat groups the US policy of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) should be jettisoned as it prevents us from tackling the threat from extremists who aren’t currently violent but who do share the ideology of jihad and who may turn violent in the future. As a result we should replace CVE with CGJ: Countering Global Jihadism. Additionally DoD should build education on the Enemy Threat Doctrine of the Global Jihadist Movement into all combat arms, not just ARSOF or Civil Affairs and PSYOP units, so that we can understand and undermine the mobilizational force of such groups effectively.


  • The US should invest in a highly publicized campaign which has as its goal the normalization of Sunni, Shia and Kurdish relations within the borders of Iraq.
  • The US should deploy forward advisors right down to the brigade level, and even lower, thus allowing an Iraqi unity government to reconstitute and effectively employ the 700,000+ soldiers and security forces nominally on its books.
  • America must draft and implement a regional strategic communications campaign targeting allies and other key players. The Islamic State will continue to grow in strength and capture new territories unless Washington does a credible job of convincing Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudia Arabia and UAE that Iraq will once again be an independent state which gives Sunnis full rights and a share in its national oil wealth and that it will not become a proxy for Iran or the Assad regime.
  • Within Iraq and Syria US IO and PSYOP must target the real center of gravity of the Islamic State: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s claim that he and his followers are the only authentic Muslims. The information campaign must have a simple objective:delegitimize Abu Bakr and his so-called Islamic State. The message, driven by the US and local partners, must simply be: Islamic State = Un-Islamic Corruption. All narratives must lead to the same place: ISIS/IS is only interested in itself and not the local populations. (In the same way that Zarqawi, AQI’s former leader, was eventually seen as “just a thug.”)
  • Elements of the IO/PSYOP campaign must leverage these events and themes:
    • The numbers of Sunni killed or punished by IS for not being “islamic enough.” We must focus greater attention on the Sunni victims of the jihadists, not just the Kurd, Yazidi or Shiite casualties so as to counter the conspiracy theory which depicts the US as in league with Iran and Assad.
    • The increasing numbers of distressed Iraqi parents coming out publicly to decry their children’s recruitment as jihadi fighters.
    • The way that IS targeting of Iraq’s minority populations has worsened the lives of all ordinary Iraqis as well as the longterm viability of local communities. (For example, the Christian families ISIS is killing or expelling provided a disproportionate number of the doctors and healthcare workers in Iraq).
  • The theater IO campaign must openly address and aggressively attack every leading conspiracy theory that empowers the jihadi narrative which represents the West as at “war with Islam” or America as secretly supporting Shia hegemony in the region.

In the end, the Islamic State can only be defeated by America and her allies if we understand and then undermine Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s claims to moral legitimacy. The members of the Global Jihadist Movement represent themselves as on the side of all that is holy and just, and they recruit on the basis of their moral rectitude. That is why tens of thousands of young men have enlisted in the jihad. The Islamic State will only cease to be a threat if we can show it and its leaders for what they truly are and depict them as amoral and unworthy of support. America must work with its allies to completely discredit the modern jihadi enterprise.

Superlative summation of our Threat Knowledge Group report on ISIS from none other than Lt General HR McMaster:

The Army Operating Concept observes that future armed conflict will be complex, in part, because threats, enemies, and adversaries employ traditional, unconventional, and hybrid strategies to threaten U.S. security and vital interests. War remains fundamentally a contest of wills and enemies will continue to develop and employ sophisticated strategies to operate beyond physical battlegrounds and advance their efforts on the battlegrounds of information, perception, and political subversion. To seize, retain and exploit the initiative as well as consolidate military gains, Army forces must understand how threats, enemies, and adversaries fight on the battleground of perception and use that understanding to clarify our intentions, counter enemy disinformation, discredit the enemy (often by exposing enemy brutality and criminality), and bolster the legitimacy of our partners.

As stated in the AoC, “Conventional and special operations forces work together to understand, influence, or compel human behaviors and perceptions. Army commanders understand cognitive, informational, social, cultural, political, and physical influences affecting human behavior and the mission. Leaders exert influence on key individuals, organizations, and institutions through cooperative and persuasive means.” These efforts must be “a fundamental part of campaign design.”

This week’s professional reading emphasizes military information support operations as part of a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Islamic State. In “The Islamic State and Information Warfare: Defeating ISIS and the Broader Global Jihadist Movement”, Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka pulled together four important essays that:

    1. Describe how the Islamic State uses information warfare and psychological operations to achieve political objectives.
    2. Recommend how to defeat the Islamic State on the battleground of perception.

Gorka and the contributors make clear that defeating ISIS on the physical battlefield is necessary but insufficient to win. Winning requires a strategy that combines physical and psychological activities to deny the enemy the ability to influence the perceptions and behaviors of relevant populations and governments.

In his summary, Dr. Gorka identifies five fundamentals essential to defeating the Islamic State:

  1. Use Information Warfare or Psychological Operations as a weapon to influence thought processes, beliefs, emotions, and behavior.
  2. Do not consider Information Warfare and Psychological operations as an afterthought to military action.
  3. Understand first the enemy’s ideas. Become intimately familiar with the ideology the enemy uses to mobilize popular support and the doctrine that drives violence.
  4. Focus efforts on the objective of causing the enemy to give up the ideas that animate their struggle. Win by making the enemy accept the illegitimacy of their ideology or crushing those who hold it, or, as is most often the case, through a combination of both.
  5. To win in morally based wars of ideas, develop organizational and financial means to sustain efforts across multiple generations.

These fundamentals are useful for developing required capabilities in the current and future force. As part of Force 2025 Maneuvers, TRADOC recently completed a Unified Quest seminar entitled “Fighting on the Battleground of Perception.” The seminar identified problems in our ability to understand and integrate information operations. Seminar participants developed the following near-term recommendations:

  • develop information operations doctrine that integrates all information related capabilities
  • ensure professional military education includes the integration of information related capabilities
  • revise policy on information related capabilities to compete more effectively on the battleground of perception

To present enemies and adversaries with multiple dilemmas across all domains, battlegrounds and contested spaces, the Army Operating Concept introduced the idea of Joint Combined Arms Operations: an expansion of the traditional concept of combined arms to include the integration of not only joint capabilities, but also the broad range of inter-organizational and multinational efforts necessary to accomplish the mission. Joint combined arms operations allows joint force commanders to operate consistent with the tenet of initiative, dictating the terms of operations and rendering the enemy incapable of responding effectively. Additionally, consistent with the tenet of simultaneity, Army forces present the enemy with multiple dilemmas to overwhelm them psychologically as well as physically.

Read the Report: The Islamic State and Information Warfare: Defeating ISIS and the Broader Global Jihadist Movement


Also listen to Dr. Gorka’s latest interviews:

In Light of Jeremiah Wright’s Comments UTT Asks: Was Jesus a Muslim?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Oct. 12, 2015:

Saturday at the Nation of Islam event titled “Justice or Else!” President Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright stated Jesus was a “Palestinian.”  This is historically untrue, but it opens up a door for a deeper discussion.

In light of a nationwide push by Muslim Brotherhood organizations to propagate the message that Jesus of Nazareth was a Muslim, it is time to bring some much needed light onto this subject.

abThis billboard, and many like it, are funded and sponsored by groups such as ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) which is a leading jihadi organization in North America and a driving force in Interfaith Outreach here.

Since Islamic jihadis attacked the United States on 9/11/2001, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood has led a large-scale information operation (“propaganda campaign” if you prefer) to convince Americans – especially religious leaders – Islam is a one degree off from Christianity and Judaism.  Almost the same really.

We are told by leading Muslim scholars in America (who just happen to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood), there is “One God” and “Three Abrahamic Faiths” – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  We are also told “Muslims respect Jesus too.”  The first is a lie according to Islamic doctrine.  The second is true if you understand Islam through the lens of Islam.

Islam and Sharia

Islam divides the world into the Dar al Islam (“House of Islam” where Sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (“House of War” – everywhere else).  The purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the Dar al Islam.  The vehicle to do this is called Jihad.  Once the entire world is under Sharia, there will be “Peace.”

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life governed by Sharia (Islamic Law).”  Sharia comes from the Quran and the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet Mohammad).


The Quran can only be understood if “Abrogation” is understood.  The Quranic concept of Abrogation comes from Quaran 16:101 and 2:106, and is understood by all Sunni Islamic scholars to mean that whatever comes chronologically last in the Quran overrules what comes before it.

It should be noted that all Islamic scholars agree Sura (Chapter) 9 of the Quran is the last (chronologically) to discuss Jihad, and Sura 5 is the last to discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

An example:  the Quran says “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256).  However, that is abrogated when Allah says all people who do not convert to Islam will go to hell (Quran 3:85), which is why Muslims are commanded never to take Jews and Christians for their friends (Quran 5:51).  Therefore, Muslims are commanded to “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war.” (Quran 9:5)  In addition to converting to Islam or being killed, people of the book (Jews, Christians, and Zoroastians) get the third option of submitting to Islam, paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and living under Sharia with lesser rights than Muslims. (Quran 9:29)


In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example for all Muslims to follow. His sayings, actions, and example are codified in authoritative Hadith and in the Sira (biographies of Mohammad).  The most authoritative Hadith scholar is Bukhari.  This is critical to understanding Islam and how Muslims relate to the world.

The reason it is okay for a 60 year old Lebanese Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl, is because Mohammad married a 6 year old and consummated the relationship when she was only 9.  The reason Muslims wage war on non-Muslims until Islam rules the world is because Allah commanded it (9:5 et al), Mohammad repeated this command as related by Bukhari, and then Mohammad waged war on non-Muslims and made them convert, submit, or die.  This is why there is no disagreement among the scholars on these matters.

One God, Three Abrahamic Faiths?

So let us go back to the question:  Can Allah be the same God of the Christians and Jews?  Can the same God who calls the Jews his chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6-8 for example) be the same God who calls for a holocaust of the Jews?

“The Prophet said, ‘The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.’ (Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926).

How can the God of the Bible who calls us to love one another (Leviticus 19:18 and John 15:12) be the same God (Allah) who calls Muslims to “Fight them (non-Muslims), and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them.” (Quran 9:14)

Allah will “punish” non-Muslims through the hands of the Muslims.  This verse (9:14) creates a requirement for Muslims to punish non-Muslims.

Is Jesus a Muslim?

As seen through the eyes of Islam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others are Muslim prophets.  How can that be?  We must first begin by understanding Islam teaches that no authentic Torahs, Old Testaments, or New Testaments exist on the planet today.

Islam teaches the Quran has existed for all time in Paradise.  When the authentic Law of Moses was given to the Jewish people, those who did not follow it were lost (condemned).  When Jesus brought the Gospel, those who did not follow it were lost.  When Mohammad came with the “final” revelations as the “seal” of the prophets, those who did not follow Islam were lost.

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Quran 5:46)           [emphasis added]

Islam teaches that corrupt Jews and Christian priests changed the original Old and New Testaments which, according to Islam, predicted the coming of Mohammed.

“And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed provision from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them – evil is that which they do.” (Quran 5:66)

Historical accounts, biblical manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, archeology, and other tangible sources of evidence be damned.  This is what Islam teaches.

To the point…

Can the Jesus who said to his followers “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) be the same guy about whom this is said:  “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya. Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425)

No one comes to our Father in heaven except through Jesus OR will Jesus return to cast all Christians into hell for not converting and kill the Jews (pigs)?  It cannot be both.

Can it be true that Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30 and 14:9), the Holy Spirit guides his disciples since Jesus ascended to heaven, and can disciples of Jesus say the Apostles Creed with integrity while this is true:  “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Quran 5:73)

Jesus was either the Messiah and the Son of God who was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended as Christians teach and believe or he is merely a prophet as Islam believes.  It is one or the other.  He cannot simply be a “nice” guy.  Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.  If that is not true he was a liar.

This is not a theological debate.  This is a discussion of logic and reason.  These two worlds are completely incompatible with one another in the realm of Logic 101.

Christians believe God is the Father, the Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  One God, three persons in a heroic fellowship into which mankind was invited to participate relationally.  God promises his inheritance and his Kingdom to his children whom he loves because he created them in his image.  Jesus gave all who believe in him all the authority his Father in heaven gave him to continue his work (John 14:12, Mark 16:17-18), and lifted all believers, spiritually, to sit with him at the Father’s right hand in heaven when he ascended.

Islam teaches Allah is the ultimate lawgiver and humans must obey the law or suffer punishment.  Islam teaches those who do not follow the Sharia are Apostates or unbelievers and must be converted, subjugated, or killed. Islam teaches Allah is unknowable.

From a rational, reasonable, and logical perspective, there is a difference here between love and hate – good and evil.

Islam is not a one-off of Christianity.  It sits in direct opposition to it.

Losing the War on Islamic Terrorism

catastrophic-failure-cut (1)Western Free Press, by Nicholas Short, September 20 2015:

“A national security professional’s duty is not to know true Islam; it is to identify and establish a functional threat doctrine, regardless of whether that doctrine accurately tracks with ‘true’ Islam or not. What matters is that we understand the enemy’s doctrines, not whether he is correct about them,” writes Stephen Coughlin in his most recent book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad

Detailing how the War on Terror has effectively been lost through decision making that is increasingly less focused on the threat as it presents itself and more on the narratives that have reduced the threat to a nameless abstraction, Coughlin notes, “Today, individuals with Muslim Brotherhood affiliations dictate who can and cannot work for the government on War on Terror issues. They also dictate what can and cannot be discussed.”

“As long as they can keep us from understanding the enemy doctrine, they can keep us from winning the war. There is no knowing this enemy without understanding that doctrine, and there is no victory without knowing the enemy. These are facts. We can lose a war— and our country— for want of readily available facts, which are ignored according to policy,” states Coughlin. To the everyday American who for the most part is not aware of the purges that have taken place within our national security apparatus, this may sound farfetched as if it was the making of a conspiracy theory, but it isn’t. As the declared enemy has stated that their fighting doctrine is based on the Islamic Law of jihad, Islamic Law must be incorporated into any competent threat analysis as the enemy identifies its doctrine along Islamic lines. Today, you will not find a single threat analysis within the myriad of national security agencies that even identifies Islam nor jihad.

The reason for this is due to the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood having insulated itself within our government, military, the national security establishment, transnational bodies, and even interfaith communities. Before we can even grasp how the Muslim Brotherhood today now controls the domestic debate within our own national security circles regarding Islam, we must first look at whom this enemy truly is. The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within as the document that reveals how to achieve this goal was labeled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.

The 18-page document was entered into evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial. Federal investigators found the document in the home of Ismael Elbarasse, a founder of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, during a 2004 search. The document was written in 1991 by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram and lays out the Brotherhood’s plan as a “civilizational alternative” for infiltrating non-Islamic forms of society and governance for the “global Islamic state.”

The memo details the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes.

The memo further identifies numerous groups operating as fronts for the Brotherhood under the heading “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Such groups are as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), The Muslim Communities Association (MCA), as well as a litany of others are all identified. It is important to note that out of this memorandum the preeminent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations we see working within the United States today were born, those being the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Coughlin details how the Brotherhood operations in America began with this memorandum as it outlined a strategy in which it first penetrated American institutions under the guise of being a “moderate” organization in order to effect downstream efforts from within. Coughlin writes, “this is what the Brotherhood is referring to when it says it seeks ‘a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.’ While penetrating government and civil organizations is important, the interfaith movement constitutes a major supporting line of operation in Brotherhood penetration operations.” It is from the interfaith movement, or as the White House likes to call it “Muslim outreach“, that the Brotherhood has gained so much influence over our national security.

For instance, in October 2011, 57 organizations made up the likes of Brotherhood front organizations such as CAIR, ICNA, and MSA wrote a letter demanding President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (and future Central Intelligence Agency Director) John Brennan, urging him to take action over U.S. government training materials alleged to demonstrate a prejudice against Islam. In the letter the organizations  insist on firings, “re-training” and “purges” of officers, analysts, Special Agents, and decision makers who created or made such materials available. With information that these groups could have only obtained from sources within, they go on to note specific material as having an “anti-Muslim bias” such as the FBI’s 2011 training manual, books at the FBI library in their training academy in Quantico, Virginia, specific FBI trainers and analysts, and a report made by Army Command and General Staff at the Fort Leavenworth School of Advanced Military Studies.

The same week that the letter was sent to the White House, a meeting was held at George Washington University between these same groups and top DOJ officials, including DOJ Civil Rights Division head Tom Perez. According to a report on this meeting by Neil Munro of theDaily Caller, several Muslim group leaders called for creating criminal and civil penalties for anyone advocating positions they deem offensive. Most notably in attendance were Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-born American lawyer and Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Muslim advocacy group based in Michigan and Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), one of the largest Brotherhood front groups in America.

At the meeting, the Islamists lobbied for: Cutbacks in U.S. anti-terror training, limits on the power of terrorism investigators, changes in agent training manuals, and a legal declaration that criticism of Islam in the United States should be considered racial discrimination. Aziz said that the word “Muslim” has become “radicalized” and, once American criticism of Islam was silenced, the effect would be to “take (federal) money away from local police departments and fusion centers who are spying on all of us.” Magid asked Perez to change the federal government’s rules governing terror investigations, for more private meetings with top justice department officials, for the reeducation of FBI agents, and for more people to oppose criticism of Islam, which he labelled “religious bigotry and hate.”

Days later, after both the letter sent to the White House and the meeting with DOJ officials, Brennan responded by agreeing on the necessity for the “White House to immediately create an interagency Task Force to address the problem and bring the FBI and DHS into compliance with Islamic sensibilities” by removing personnel and products that these Brotherhood front organizations had deemed “biased, false, and highly offensive.” Brennan further stated that such a review was already underway by the administration in order to improve training for “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). The process included combining “cultural awareness” with the CVE “training guidance and best practices” directives. It also meant putting out “a bulletin” to state, local, and tribal entities that “regularly leverage federal grants to fund CVE-related trainings” to provide guidance in their efforts.

“The FBI proceeded to undertake the very purging of documents that these Brotherhood front organizations had demanded and the Department of Defense followed shorty thereafter with a Soviet style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education,” writes Stephen Coughlin. Coughlin goes on to state that, “the very information that senior leaders such as Brennan, Perez, and those within the Obama adminstration sought to purge from analysis and censor from discussion was the same information that has repeatedly provided indicators and warnings of threat activity when presented in national security forums.”

It is through the adminstration’s “Countering Violent Extremism” protocols and advisory councils that the purging of work product and personnel continues to this day. Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood through various front groups such as CAIR now control the domestic debate on countering terrorism through the CVE narrative, which in effect is a sophisticated information campaign executed through the skilled imposition of a disarming pseudo-reality. National security officials working within the DHS, FBI, CIA, and DOJ now look to Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, and others for guidance domestically. It is through the CVE that the threat language of terrorist groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood was purged from our national security and law enforcement sectors.

Hence, it is because of the CVE and not in spite of it, that the threat vocabulary defining this enemy has been purged, leaving us defenseless and unable to counter actual terrorists in the War on Terror. “The most disturbing aspect of the CVE,” writes Coughlin, “will be the realization that national security elites beholden to the oath to support and defend the Constitution have been manipulated into taking active measures to suppress true threat analysis that is supposed to be undertaken in support of the primary intelligence mission: to know the enemy.”

As it stands today, America is losing the War on Terror as we are fighting the counter-terror war according to narratives that declare actual fact-based threat analysis unconstitutional on religious grounds yet allow actual terrorists to serve as the arbiters of our counter-ideology campaigns based on language requirements and legal doctrines that are not our own.


Irving Mayor: Ahmed Mohamed’s Family Blocking Release of Records; Obama Tweeted Support Even Before “Clock” Pic Released

2015-09-16T191047Z_1_LYNXNPEB8F158_RTROPTP_3_USA-TEXAS-STUDENTTown Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Sep. 22, 2015:

Last night, Irving Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne revealed that the family of Ahmed Mohammed has repeatedly refused to meet with city officials, refused to released records exonerating police conduct, and that President Obama had tweeted about the case even before pictures of the so-called “clock” were publicly available.

Appearing on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze TV, Van Duyne noted how reporting on the interaction between Mohammed and police had been remarkably one-sided, in part because the Mohammed family refused to release records noting:

“As a juvenile, they can not release those records. The school district, a number of times, has asked the family, to release the records, so that you can have the balanced story out there. The family is ignoring the request from the ISD.”

Van Duyne told Beck it would “help to describe why it progressed as it did” if the records were available. “Nobody is going to walk in and say, ‘oh you’re a 14-year old child, you’re totally cooperating, we have all the answers we need, let’s arrest you,’” Van Duyne added.

A spokesperson for the Irving Police Department has said there have been multiple open records requests for the full police reporting, but that those requests remained in the hands of the city’s legal advisor. The available police report describes the event only as, “…Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School.”

Van Duyne said that according to the information she had seen, Mohammed had been “non-responsive” and “passive aggressive” in response to questions from police officers.

The refusal to amiably resolve the situation continued as the family rushed to bring Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) representatives into the case, and repeatedly cancelled meetings with the school district and city officials before finally speaking to the media.

“We had tried to reach out to the family a number of times; this was before it ever even hit the papers on Wednesday,” Van Duyne said pointing out that the family repeatedly canceled attempts to discuss the matter.

“At the exact same time they were supposed to be meeting with us, they were on their front lawn with a press conference,“ she said.

Van Duyne also pointed out that President Obama, like many others, had rushed to judgment before the facts in the case had become available.

“We never even got a call from anybody at the White House asking to verify any of that information. I don’t think the picture of the hoax bomb was even released before he tweeted ‘cool clock kid.’” Van Duyne said.
Van Duyne said she was “shocked” when she saw the President’s tweet to Ahmed Mohammed. “It seems to be an underlying habit that [President Obama] is going to second guess police officers without any kind of information.”

Van Duyne said that the Irving police chief, whom she called “a wonderful man”, was receiving death threats as a result of the case, as were other police officers, teachers and school administrators, in response to the controversy.

Van Duyne was joined on the Glenn Beck program by Jim Hanson, a former Special Forces Sergeant and Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, who pointed out CAIR’s documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist group Hamas, and that the Mohammed family were members of a mosque tied to an Irving Sharia Tribunal which Mayor Van Duyne had publicly opposed.
“I don’t think there’s any question that this latest event was a PR stunt, it was a staged event,” Hanson said, saying the device did look like an explosive. “I’ve built briefcase bombs and blown them up, that’s what they look like,” Hanson pointed out referring to his time with Special Forces.

“They basically took a situation that the police handled properly, the school handled properly and all of a sudden everyone involved is a hater,” Hanson added.

Van Duyne also pointed out that the “teacher was reacting to the device not the student” stressing, “If something had happened, and nobody had spoken up, people would be livid. Can you imagine if you were a parent, at [Irving School District] and no one said anything?”


Judge Napolitano Argues Potential Fraud Case If Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock Was A ‘Purposeful Hoax’ (

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly the saga of Ahmed Mohamed’s clock “now appears as though that this was a purposeful hoax.”

Napolitano, appearing on Fox News’s “The Kelly File” Monday, suggested that “if the parents were involved in the hoax, now you now have a fraud going on” because money has been collected on false pretenses. (WATCH: Professor Calls Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock A ‘Fraud’)

Napolitano continued, “if this was part of a purposeful stunt and if the parents were involved in this, and everybody from Mark Zuckerberg to President Obama fell for this, this is not good. This is people overreacting because of his last name, or his skin color, or the atmosphere of fear. We saw a clock, we assume it’s dangerous. The kid who made the clock, or brought it in, has a Muslim ancestry.  I wish race could be out of this but all of that goes aside if this was some sort of a purposeful stunt.”

Also see:

It Is CAIR’s History of Falsehood That Raises Clock Questions

d455913e-196d-4a67-9033-7e65be8d909cTown Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Sep. 18, 2015:

As the initial hubbub surrounding the story of Ahmed Mohammed and his “clock” is beginning to die down to a dull roar, it’s worth looking at where exactly the skepticism of his story arrives from.

Obviously, the young man, in his NASA T-Shirt and glasses cuts a sympathetic image. But the swift appearance on the scene of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), raises questions. If this was a misunderstanding and overzealous “Zero tolerance” police work, perhaps it has since been manipulated into something more.

In the case of Ahmed Mohammed, the introduction of CAIR into the equation suddenly pivoted the discussion from whether police exercised decent judgment, to accusations that all of the city of Irving, it’s school system, police, and government were islamophobes, and it was their Islamophobia, and not a beeping box filled with strange wires and circuits, that led police to Ahmed Mohammed.

It’s no surprise that an organization like CAIR would target Irving, since its Mayor, Beth Van Duyne, brought attention to an attempt by Muslim Brotherhood (MB) linked Imams to form a Shariah law tribunal in North Texas, and raised a ruckus by supporting the Constitution over the introduction of foreign law. One of the organizations linked to the tribunal runs the mosque attended by the Mohammed family.

Is it possible CAIR is attempting to use this controversy in order to target one of its political opponents? Judging from history, it seems likely.

The Council on American Islamic Relations was formed in response to a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia held by members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and took place under the watchful eye of the FBI.

CAIR has always been far more than the civil rights organization it purports to be. Indeed at that very meeting, the members of Hamas, including those who would found CAIR, discussed how they could manipulate civil rights in order to further their interests.

From the testimony of FBI agent Lara Burns discussing the propaganda effort to oppose the 1993 Peace Accord:

Q. Were there additional discussions making presentations to America on human rights?

A. Yes.

MR. JONAS: If we can go to Philly Meeting No. 10,

Segment G. That is on page 5 of the excerpted portion. If we can put that on the screen, please, the bottom segment.

Q. (BY MR. JONAS) What does this unidentified male say, please?

A. He says, “The first is to make the agreement fail, and this is a public policy and all of us are opposing it. It is the just the media which exaggerated the issue. Second, finding the alternatives. The first step should be taken advantage of by the brothers in — how to make the agreement fail. The national rights, human rights, stuff which will be exploited in order to make you look legitimate while you call on the annulment of the agreement. (Emphasis added)

Thusly CAIR and its antecedents in the Muslim Brotherhood are on record as feigning concerns about civil and human rights in order to achieve their ends.

Skepticism of CAIR and it’s feigned civil rights posture also appeared when federal prosecutors responded to a CAIR and Muslim American Society (MAS) Amici brief in the case United States V. Sabri Benkahla. In that case the prosecutors noted:

In describing themselves in Amici Brief at 1, CAIR and MAS omit reference to a shared background that limits their membership to those of a particular political bent, and undercuts their credibility. (Emphasis added)

The prosecutors go on to describe CAIR and MAS as Muslim Brotherhood entities which the federal government has shown engages in deception in order to further the interest of terrorist organizations.

Since CAIR was first outted by the Federal government for its role in deception operations on behalf of terrorism, CAIR has been caught up in numerous false hate crimes. As Professor Daniel Pipes noted in a 2005 article, CAIR has routinely, and knowingly, claimed as hate crimes events that either did not occur, or where the victim was in fact the perpetrator, such as claims of racist arson when the motive was in fact insurance fraud.

Perhaps most notorious was CAIR’s involvement in the 2006 “Flying Imams” case, where six imams returning from a conference of the North American Imam Federation (a group whose website publicly praises a MB leader Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who issued a 2004 fatwa calling for the death of Americans in Iraq), claimed they were unfairly ejected from a U.S. Airways flight for loudly praying.

As it turned out, those men were ejected from the flight not for prayers, but after passengers and airline employees reported that they had engaged in a number of suspicious behaviors involving swapping seats to take up those known to be favored by hijackers, seeking heavy metal seatbelt extenders which their size did not require, and other activities which even a Federal Air Marshal agreed were telltale signs of alarm.

CAIR intervened with a press conference and a lawsuit against the airline, the employees and even “John Doe passengers.” In that case the public rallied around the passengers, and congress passed a law protecting private travelers from lawsuits, when their good faith suspicions of terrorist activity led to security officials taking action.

Like the situation with the Flying Imams, CAIRs interjection into this case suggests that it is about much more than the intentions of a young man bringing an odd electronic device to school. One’s positions on zero tolerance policies in school are not the issue of debate.

The issue is CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, and their efforts to keep those who “see something” that seems suspicious from “saying something.” That goes for teachers, airline passengers and mayors.


Video: A Closer Look at Ahmed’s Clock


Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves 

For one last bit of confirmation, I located the pencil box Ahmed used for his project. During this video interview he again claims it was his “invention” and that he “made” the device – but the important thing at the moment, at 1:13, we see him showing the pencil box on his computer screen. Here it is on Amazon, where it’s clearly labeled as being 8.25 inches wide. Our eBay seller also conveniently took a photo of the clock next to a ruler to show it’s scale – about 8 inches wide. The dimensions all line up perfectly.

So there you have it folks, Ahmed Mohamad did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me.

If we accept the story about “inventing” an alarm clock is made up, as I think I’ve made a pretty good case for, it’s fair to wonder what other parts of the story might be made up, not reported factually by the media, or at least, exaggerated.

I refer back again to this YouTube video interview with Ahmed. He explains that he closed up the box with a piece of cord because he didn’t want it to look suspicious. I’m curious, why would “looking suspicious” have even crossed his mind before this whole event unfolded, if he was truly showing off a hobby project, something so innocuous as an alarm clock. Why did he choose a pencil box, one that looks like a miniature briefcase no less, as an enclosure for a clock? It’s awful hard to see the clock with the case closed. On the other hand, with the case open, it’s awful dangerous to have an exposed power transformer sitting near the snooze button (unless, perhaps his invention was to stop serial-snooze-button pressers by giving them a dangerous electrical shock!)

So again, I’m pointing all this out – about the specifics of the clock – not to pick on the poor kid. I’m picking on us, our culture, and our media. I don’t even care about the clock itself at this point.

If we stop and think – was it really such a ridiculous reaction from the teacher and the police in the first place? How many school shootings and incidents of violence have we had, where we hear afterwards “this could have been prevented, if only we paid more attention to the signs!” Teachers are taught to be suspicious and vigilant. Ahmed wasn’t accused of making a bomb – he was accused of making a look-alike, a hoax. And be honest with yourself, a big red digital display with a bunch of loose wires in a brief-case looking box is awful like a Hollywood-style representation of a bomb. Everyone jumped to play the race and religion cards and try and paint the teachers and police as idiots and bigots, but in my mind, they were probably acting responsibly and erring on the side of caution to protect the rest of their students, just in case. “This wouldn’t have happened if Ahmed were white,” they say. We’re supposed to be sensitive to school violence, but apparently religious and racial sensitivity trumps that. At least we have another clue about how the sensitivity and moral outrage pecking order lies.

Because, is it possible, that maybe, just maybe, this was actually a hoax bomb? A silly prank that was taken the wrong way? That the media then ran with, and everyone else got carried away? Maybe there wasn’t even any racial or religious bias on the parts of the teachers and police.


Also see:

Modern Middle East Studies vs. Scholarship

(Majid Saeedi/Getty)

(Majid Saeedi/Getty)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug. 10, 2015:

It would be a mistake to say Middle East Studies have been corrupted. For the program’s very purpose has been to serve as a corrupting agent. Specifically, it puts the essence of study — the objective pursuit of knowledge — in disrepute.

Here, of course, I am referring to the modern incarnation of Middle East Studies: an amalgam of leftist and Islamist political dogma that masquerades as an academic discipline. By contrast, the actual study of Middle Eastern history, like the intimately related study of Islamic civilization, is a venerable and vital pursuit — and is still pursued as such by, to take the best example, ASMEA, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. Alas, in our hyper-politicized society, the traditional notion of study seems quaint: a vestige of a bygone time when the designations “Orientalist” and “Islamist” referred to subject-matter expertise, not political activism, much less radicalism.

Yet, for Edward Said, the seminal figure in modern Middle East Studies, the object of the game was to slander knowledge itself. Joshua Muravchik nailed it in a 2013 profile of the renowned academic. Said’s animating theory held that “knowledge” was the key that enabled the West to dominate Orientals: The point of pursuing knowledge about “the languages, culture, history, and sociology of societies of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent,” Said elaborated, was to gain more control over the “subject races” by making “their management easy and profitable.” With real study caricatured as the engine of colonial exploitation, the way was paved for a competing construction of “study” — political agitation to empower the have-nots in the struggle against the haves.

Said was a fitting pioneer for such a fraud. To begin with, he was a professor not of Middle East Studies but of comparative literature. Moreover, the personal history he touted to paper over his want of credentials was sheer fiction: Far from what he purported to be (a Palestinian victim exiled by Jews from his Jerusalem home at age twelve), Said was actually a child of privilege, raised in Cairo and educated in top British and American schools. His Palestinian tie of note was membership in the PLO’s governing council. Like Rashid Khalidi — his protégé, who was later awarded the chair in Modern Arab Studies that Columbia University named in Said’s honor — Said was a reliable apologist of Yassir Arafat, the indefatigable terrorist who infused Palestinian identity with a Soviet-backed Arab nationalism.

To thrive in an Islamic culture, it was not only useful but necessary for Palestinian militancy to accommodate the Islamist sense of divine injunction to wage jihad. From its roots, then, modern Middle East Studies is a political movement aligning leftism and Islamism under the guise of an academic discipline. It is not an objective quest for learning guided by a rich corpus of history and culture; it is a project to impose its pieties as incontestable truth — and to discredit dispassionate analysis in order to achieve that end.

The embrace of Islamism usefully advances this project because Islamist ideology similarly stigmatizes the pursuit of knowledge. Where the leftist frames the West’s reverence for reason as imperialism, the Islamist attacks it on theological grounds.

Sharia, they maintain, is the complete and perfect societal framework and legal code, the path to human life lived in conformity with Allah’s design. Thus, what the West calls “reason” or “the objective pursuit of knowledge” is merely a rationalization for supplanting Allah’s design with the corrupting preferences of Western civilization.

We see how this teaching plays out in practice. Muslim countries that supplement sharia with other legislation add the caveat that no man-made law may contradict Islamic principles. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation — a group of Islamic governments that form a large bloc in the United Nations — even found it necessary in 1990 to promulgate a Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, because Islamists could not accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights spearheaded by non-Muslim governments after World War II.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization, refers to this enterprise as “the Islamicization of knowledge,” the weaving of historical events and cultural developments into Islamist narratives that confirm sharia-supremacist tenets. The “Islamicization of knowledge” is the express and unapologetic mandate of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the Virginia-based think tank established by the Brotherhood in 1981.

There are two pertinent observations to be made about the IIIT. First, it has provided an enthusiastic endorsement of Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Arabic sharia manual. The publisher found this seal of approval sufficiently significant to be included in the manual’s preface, along with an endorsement from scholars at the ancient al-Azhar University in Cairo.

The manual is an eye-opener. In addition to detailing sharia’s gruesome hudud penalties (e.g., scourging and death for such offenses as extramarital or homosexual relations), it provides instruction on Islam’s brutally enforced proscriptions against blasphemy and apostasy. These are salient to our consideration: They include prohibitions not only against renunciation and ridicule of Islam but even against objectively true statements that contradict sharia, promote other belief systems, or might otherwise sow discord in the Islamic community.

Obviously, the animating purpose of these principles is to discourage severely the robust exchange of ideas, and even more the scholarly examination of Islamic doctrine and culture. The Islamicization of knowledge is possible only if the objective pursuit of knowledge is not permitted to compete.

That brings us to the second noteworthy observation about the IIIT: It has longstanding ties to the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). Several of these were traced by Cinnamon Stillwell in a 2014 American Thinker essay.

This alliance, the sponsorship by the IIIT of Middle East Studies programs throughout North America, the collaborations between the IIIT and MESA scholars — these are easy to understand. Modern Middle East Studies is a counter-scholarship enterprise that subverts truth to the ends of leftist and Islamist politics. To be clear, it is not an alternative interpretation of reality competing in the marketplace of ideas; it is an anti-Western program that is oblivious to reality and seeks to shut down the marketplace.

We do ourselves and the search for truth great harm by indulging the fiction that anti-American power politics is credible American scholarship.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, thanks the Middle East Forum for its sponsorship of this column.

Coughlin: Assessing “What ISIS Really Wants” in Light of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Narrative

Exploiting-Ignorance-RptUnconstrained Analytics, Aug. 4, 2015:

Stephen Couglin has written a new report, “Exploiting Ignorance in the Post Subversion Phase: Assessing “What ISIS Really Wants” in Light of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Narrative.”

In it, he analyzes The Atlantic article, “What ISIS Really Wants,” as well as the Foreign Policy article, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.”

Coughlin says that the Atlantic article supports narratives that continue to justify the outsourcing of the production of America’s information requirements in support of the counterterror effort to non-U.S. actors, in this case Middle Eastern, in much the way that the Muslim Brotherhood controls the domestic debate through the “countering violent extremism” (CVE) narrative.

Cast as an effort to work with our partners in the Middle East to counter the burgeoning ISIS information juggernaut, the actual effect of “What ISIS Really Wants” is to further wrest control of the information requirements that drive America’s counterterror effort and keep them vested in non-U.S. actors.

Despite its earnest and facially neutral designation, the CVE is, in effect, a sophisticated information campaign executed through the skilled imposition of a disarming pseudoreality.

As the duty to know national security threats is subsumed in the Article VI requirement to “support and defend against all enemies,” the very willingness to outsource our information requirements constitutes, by itself, a national security breakdown of strategic proportions. As with the Muslim Brotherhood domestically, the outsourcing works itself through the CVE.

Read the Report:

Exploiting Ignorance in the Post Subversion Phase: Assessing “What ISIS Really Wants” in Light of the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Narrative (pdf)


So who is Quintan Wiktorowicz? A former assistant professor of international studies at Rhodes College,57 Wiktorowicz became the White House Senior Director for Community Partnerships on the National Security Staff under the Obama administration.58 Wiktorowicz helped devise the administration’s new “countering violent extremism” strategy,59 which is based on his notion of why people become extremists60 premised on “social movement theory.”61

In 2011, Wiktorowicz was involved, as were McCants and Braniff, in the administration’s policy of purging law enforcement training materials that addressed the role of Islam and jihad in the counterterror effort.62

While no longer in the administration, Wiktorowicz spoke of the great danger posed by ISIS in October 2014, when addressing the need to outsource our information requirements and counter-ideology efforts to Muslim organizations abroad. Outsourcing this capability to non-U.S. entities is necessary, Wiktorowicz reasoned, because it violates the First Amendment for American analysts to analyze and counter ISIS (also called ISIL) based on the Islamic doctrines that unquestionably animate that group as well as al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood:

While the government has tried to counter terrorist propaganda, it cannot directly address the warped religious interpretations of groups like ISIL because of the constitutional separation of church and state. U.S. officials are prohibited from engaging in debates about Islam, and as a result will need to rely on partners in the Muslim world for this part of the ideological struggle.63

It is important to restate what Wiktorowicz said to draw out what it means:

1. Because the First Amendment prohibits U.S. officials and analysts from even discussing ISIS doctrines understood to be based on Islamic principles;

2. The Obama administration advances the policy that the United States turn national security issues concerning clear and present dangers to America over to third party nations beholden to Islamic principles;

3. Thus eviscerating the Article VI duty to undertake direct threat analysis in furtherance of “supporting and defending the Constitution against ALL enemies;” Those driving today’s “quietism” narrative based their reasoning not on Islamic sources but rather on Western behavioral models. Exploiting Ignorance in the Post Subversion

4. Thereby subordinating U.S. national security to whatever third-party nations and entities are willing to support based on non-U.S. interests and objectives that may or may not be friendly to America or supportive of America’s interests and objectives.

First, there is no such First Amendment bar to undertaking competent threat analysis. Second, Wiktorowicz is not an attorney. And yet this novel legal theory directly undermines the Article VI requirement to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.”

Could Wiktorowicz be relying on the Brotherhood for his legal reasoning? On 18 December 2014, the Brotherhood64 wrote to Lisa O. Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor, demanding that the “White House should immediately issue guidance to address impacts on religious exercise, freedom of expression and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” including:

• Prohibit federal employees from using or promoting CVE training and CVE training materials that single out expressive conduct, including through alleged indicators or predictors of violent extremism or “radicalization” that focus on patterns of religious observance, political activism or religious beliefs.

• Prohibit federal employees from implementing any program, directly or indirectly, that has the effect of defining participants by reference to religion.65

Contrasting his recognition of the lethal effectiveness of ISIS’s threat doctrine with a ridiculous First Amendment theory, Wiktorowicz—as an immediate consequence of that prohibition—manufactures a follow-on requirement to outsource critical information requirements to third-party state actors beholden to shariah standards.

Yet, if Wiktorowicz held to his own rules, how could he state that ISIS’s interpretations of Islam are “warped” and use that conclusion to justify a decision to outsource our information requirements?

Beyond this, if what Wiktorowicz said on the prohibition and subsequent outsourcing of intelligence requirements is true, then the duty to support and defend the Constitution is necessarily subordinated to whatever third-party state actors are willing to provide in light of shariah considerations as understood by Wahhabis. This effectively subordinates America’s national security to shariah considerations. Wiktorowicz continues:

Not enough resources are being devoted to the counter-ideology component of the administration’s strategy. The long war is the war against violent ideologies and there hasn’t been the resource investment since 9/11.66

If what Wiktorowicz said on the prohibition and subsequent outsourcing of intelligence requirements is true, then the duty to support and defend the Constitution is necessarily subordinated to whatever third-party state actors are willing to provide in light of shariah considerations as understood by Wahhabis.

The former White House counterterror strategist went on to say that “as a result of this and other factors, we’re seeing the reincarnation of al Qaeda as ISIL in Iraq and Syria.”67

In effect, Wiktorowicz attributes the rise of al-Qaeda to our failure to counter the very ideology the CVE prohibited the counterterror community from discussing on the ridiculous claim that it violates the First Amendment. It is through the CVE that the threat language of groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood was purged from our national security and law enforcement sectors.

Hence, it is because of the CVE and not in spite of it that the threat vocabulary defining this enemy has been purged, leaving us defenseless and unable to counter ISIS in the information battlespace or, it seems, anywhere else.

How does one allocate resources to counter an ideology that one is not allowed to discuss?68 For Wiktorowicz, the solution is obvious: the Obama administration should increase resources to the counter-ideology effort through the funding of partners in the Muslim world “who can push back against the ideology.”69 This “push back” should be understood in the context of Wiktorowicz’s counterterror construct, which holds, among other things, that the First Amendment would likewise bar due diligence and quality assurance assessments of our “partners’” counter-ideology efforts regarding any activities that involve Islam. This is the context in which we should consider the role that think tanks like the Brookings Doha Center may be playing, as reflected in its sub-rosa influence on the Atlantic article. Enter Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.


When validated, the most disturbing aspect of the CVE will be the realization that national security elites beholden to the oath to support and defend the Constitution have been manipulated into taking active measures to suppress true threat analysis that is supposed to be undertaken in support of the primary intelligence mission: to know the enemy. Such are the consequences of infantilized thinking.

As it stands, America is fighting the counterterror war according to narratives that declare actual fact-based threat analysis unconstitutional on religious grounds yet allow imams abroad to serve as the arbiters of our counter-ideology campaigns based on language requirements and legal doctrines that are not our own.

Now, with Congress set to vote to institutionalize the CVE in the national security establishment, it is time to ask whether this is the wisest decision.


Also see:

Why Won’t GOP Chairman Mention ‘Islamic Terror’ in New Bill?

MikeMcCaulConservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 20, 2015:

Here’s the good news: congressional Republicans finally have a bill to address the homegrown terror threat.

The bad news?  It has nothing to do with combating homegrown Islamic terror, and in fact, is a verbatim reflection of this Administration’s agenda to expunge any mention of Islam from the growing terror threat.

Worse, this effort will likely enlist terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as CAIR – the unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism trial in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation trial – in the effort to combat “extremism.”

Last week, the House Committee on Homeland Security, led by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) passed the Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015 out of committee by voice vote.  This legislation would create a new $40 million government agency within the Department of Homeland Security – the Office for Countering Violent Extremism – and would be tasked with working across the federal government and throughout communities to develop strategies and data concerning “violent extremism.”

Freeze frame for a moment.

Even if you’ve never heard of the term “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) and its broader agenda before reading this article, you should be highly skeptical.  The fact that a Republican chairman is promoting a bill that does not contain a single reference to “Islamic” terrorism should at a minimum mystify even the most moderate Republican, and more rightfully so anger those who realize Islamic radicals are by far the number one domestic terrorism threat.  The fact this bill creates a new agency during the Obama presidency with broad and vague powers to combat generic “extremists” should raise goose bumps on any conservative’s patriotic neck. Especially given reports as recent as February of this year that the Department of Homeland Security considers “right wing” groups to be a greater threat than Islamic terror.

Now take a trip down memory lane to mid-February when the White House conducted a summit on…you guessed it: Countering Violent Extremism (CVE).  Not only did this summit abjure any effort to focus on Islamic terror, the White House invited the very Islamic extremist foxes to guard the hen house.  As Breitbart reported at the time, several leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston, the mosque that has radicalized numerous terrorists including the Boston bombers, were invited to the summit. These individuals have actually persecuted moderate Muslims for cooperating with federal authorities to root out terrorists.  The summit also featured Muslim extremists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Quite an Orwellian two-day fest, indeed.

But the effort of our federal government to seamlessly parlay the threat of Islamic terror into a coined term “countering violent extremism,” runs much deeper than this year’s pro-Islamic summit at the White House.  The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a California-based Islamic group with ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, has worked with government officials over the past decade to expunge all mention of Islamic terror from official reports assessing terrorism threats.  Regarding ties to the MB, Andy McCarthy explains the connection in-depth. For starters, MPAC was founded by disciples of the Muslim Brotherhood and admirers of Hezbollah, and following 9/11, MPAC executive director defended Hezbollah and accused Israel of being complicit in the attacks. No wonder the Obama Administration refuses to mention the term or any variation of “Islamic radicals.”   In his must-read magnum opus Catastrophic Failure, former intelligence officer Stephen Coughlin presents in painstaking detail how these subversive Islamic groups have succeeded in censoring all mention of Islamic terror from the federal government’s lexicon.

CVE agenda chart

In chapter 7 of the book, Coughlin shows how the bipartisan 9/11 Commission made reference to Muslims and Islam hundreds of times while barely using the terms “violent extremism.”  In 2007, MPAC criticized the language of the 9/11 Commision’s references to Islamic terrorism and recommended that the government “find another terminology.”  Not surprisingly, more recent intelligence reports and terror threat assessments have not mentioned the word Islam even once – just like the McCaul bill.  Coughlin notes that DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division has taken the lead on pushing the “CVE” agenda when it published its training and guidance manual on CVE in 2011.  The manual instructs the bureaucrats to use examples to “demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”

Unfortunately, Rep. McCaul has a history of coddling CAIR’s leadership in his committee work on Homeland Security, as illustrated by this picture of him with their representatives as first reported by Breitbart.  This is also not the first time McCaul has exhibited poor judgement in concocting a bill that advances Obama’s dangerous agenda while selling it as a conservative solution. Earlier this year he used his committee to promote a Trojan horse border bill that weakened current law but effectively adopted Obama’s premise about the nature of the border crisis.  Last year, he purged a number of experienced immigration and counter-terrorism staffers from the committee, leaving a huge gap in savvy and institutional knowledge as it relates to issues like the CVE agenda.

Conservative members of the House need to educate themselves quickly on the broader implications of this bill and where it is coming from.  They must either block the bill or demand amendments that will actually align the substance of the bill with the plain language of the title.  The best way to do this would be by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and freezing its assets.  There is no better way to “counter violent extremism” than by stopping the MB from engaging in subversion and funding radical mosques.

It’s bad enough Republicans have no desire to stop Obama’s dangerous fundamental transformation of our country.  Can they at least not offer to step on the gas pedal for him?

Daniel Horowitz is the Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.   

Also see:

Brookings Goes to Bat for Al Qaeda-linked Group…Again

1720491514 (1)Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, July 15, 2015:

Fresh off their annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum that proved to be a who’s who meeting of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, The Qatari-funded Brookings Institute is once again going to bat for an Al Qaeda-linked group of militants known as Ahrar Al Sham. Author Charles Lister takes the occasion of the publication of an Op-Ed in the Washington Post by Ahrar Al-Sham’s “head of foreign political relations” Labib  al-Nahhas to laud recent Ahrar Al Sham statements of “moderation”:

While clearly being sharply critical of current U.S. policy, Nahhas’ most powerful message was a genuine call for political engagement—“we remain committed to dialogue,” he said. Coming from an armed Islamist group that came close to being designated and whose facilities have been targeted by U.S. aircraft at least once, this call does show an extent of political pragmatism. Ahrar al-Sham has not called for American support one key Ahrar al-Sham decision-maker told me, but instead desires “the chance for a new start, in which we acknowledge the mistakes of the past and make it clear that a political track is possible, but with the right players and the right principles.”

Such engagement in any form does not have to be a prerequisite for the provision of support, but can be merely of value in and of itself. In the case of Ahrar al-Sham specifically, such engagement would not come without its inherent risks, but it may also prove practical in ensuring at the very least that al-Qaida does not come out on top in Syria.

For this reason and others, Ahrar al-Sham’s senior leadership has been managing a gradual process of external political moderation—or some might say maturity—for at least the last 18 months.

That Ahrar Al-Sham is some how moderating, maturing, or distancing itself from Al Qaeda is a bag of goods that Brookings authors have been attempting to sell for some time. In January of last year, Brookings authors Michael Doran and William McCants, together with co-author Clint Watts, published an article calling Ahrar al Sham the “Al Qaeda-linked Group Worth Befriending”.

Lister denigrates evidence that Ahrar Al-Sham was led by an Al Qaeda leader and confidante of Ayman Al-Zawahiri as “a popular claim”, and attempts to pass along the claim by Ahrar Al Sham and other Islamist groups that they only fight alongside the Al Qaeda linked group in order to provide a “subtle counterbalance”.

Lister also quotes one local Syrian rebel describing Ahrar Al Sham  as “too “intellectually close” to the Muslim Brotherhood”, a description which ironically seems to fit Brookings Institute just as well.

Yet even while reminding us that “actions speak louder than words,” Lister doesn’t find fit to mention that Ahrar Al Sham has recently joined yet another coalition together with Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al Nusra and other AQ-linked outfits in Syria in order to form Ansar Al Sharia, coincidentally (or not) the same cover name used by Al Qaeda in Tunisia, Libya and Yemen.

Perhaps the last word on whether or not to take Ahrar Al Sham’s statements of moderation seriously comes from the Al-Qaeda linked group themselves. The group’s military commander Abu Saleh Tahhan recently tweeted in reference to their association with Al Nusra,

“Anyone who thinks we would sell out those close to us in exchange for the approval of strangers is an idiot, anyone who imagines that we would privilege a neighbor over someone from our own home is a fool…”

The Bridge to Shariah Initiative


How Much More Influence Will His $32 Billion Gifts Buy Him?

Center for Security Policy, July 1, 2015:

The Bridge Initiative, a project of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, has attacked a recent online survey of 600 Muslims in the United States that was commissioned by the Center for Security Policy (CSP). Its transparent purpose is to obscure or otherwise deflect attention from an ominous reality: This poll, like several others conducted previously, established that significant numbers of those polled embrace practices enshrined in the Islamic supremacist code, known as shariah – practices that are antithetical to the U.S. Constitution, the freedoms it enshrines, the public safety and even the national security.

Consider the Facts

The Alwaleed bin Talal Center’s attack on the CSP poll focuses, first and foremost, on the methodology used to canvas attitudes within the Muslim community. Specifically, it cites a quote from the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) to support its dismissal of the findings of this poll.

In so doing, however, it ignores the fact that the AAPOR has also stated: “There are times when a nonprobability online panel is an appropriate choice, as there may be survey purposes and topics where the generally lower cost and unique properties of Web data collection is an acceptable alternative to traditional methods.” At the recommendation of its opinion research firm, The Polling Company, the Center for Security Policy concluded that the opt-in online survey method was the “appropriate choice” for polling a population in the United States as relatively small as the Muslim community.

Such opt-in online surveys have been conducted by a number of reputable firms including Harris Interactive, as well as such prominent clients as Aetna, Yamaha, and the New York Giants. They have also been a staple of media reporting, including on a variety of controversial subjects such as perceptions of media bias and policy views on gay marriage, government surveillance anddrone strikes.

Beyond a disagreement with methodology, however, the attack goes on to assert flatly This survey does not represent the views of American Muslims.” [Emphasis in original.]

The Alwaleed Center supplies no research or data to support such a claim – the more remarkable for an organization finding fault with others’ opinion research. Moreover, there is considerable evidence available from other sources that substantially confirm the findings of the CSP/Polling Company poll. Some of those sources utilized other sampling techniques than the online opt-in method.

For example, in 2007, a public opinion survey of Muslims in the United States conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 26% of younger Muslims believe suicide bombings are justified. The same poll found that Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times as likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified. It also found that 5% of American Muslims have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, and that 26% of U.S. Muslims wanted to remain distinct, as opposed to being assimilated into the U.S.

A 2011 Pew Research poll replicated that last result, and also found that one in ten native-born U.S. Muslims have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, and, for the record, that Muslims in America were four times as likely to say that women should not work outside the home, that 49% said they were “Muslim first,” and that 21% said that there is a fair or great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.

In 2012, a Wentzel Strategies poll found that 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam of Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.

And in 2013 Pew Research found that 19% of American Muslims believe suicide bombings in defense of Islam are at least partially justified.

These data reinforce the key finding of the Center for Security Policy/Polling Company survey: While most of those polled indicate a different view, non-trivial minorities of the respondents subscribe to jihadist beliefs and practices that, if acted upon, would constitute a potential threat to the nation and/or its people.

Consider the Source

The question occurs: Why does the Bridge Initiative at the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding deride one of the sources of such troubling evidence and dispute the obvious, alarming conclusion to be drawn from it?

The truth is that the Alwaleed bin Talal Center is not a credible source for “understanding” Muslims or their faith. It has, from its inception as the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU) at Georgetown University, been led by Dr. John Esposito. Esposito has been described as “a magnet for Arab and Muslim money.”

That may explain the myriad contributions Esposito has made to misunderstanding in his area of putative expertise. Notably, renowned Middle East scholar Martin Kramer once said that he “more than any other academic, contributed to American complacency prior to 9/11.”

In his many Islamic apologetic works and speeches over the years, Esposito has argued that democracy had been defined by “a world hegemonic discourse of Western cultural imperialism.” As a result, Americans “have to transcend their narrow, ethnocentric conceptualization of democracy” in order to understand the “Islamic democracy that might create effective systems of popular participation.” “Most” Islamic movements had decided that violence was “counterproductive,” he argued, and instead “speak of the need to prepare people for an Islamic order rather than to impose it.”

As a result, Esposito claimed, the violence of the 1980s would diminish and disappear, and instead “the nineties will prove to be a decade of new alliances and alignments in which the Islamic movements will challenge rather than threaten their societies and the West.” In the event, Islamic leaders on whom he “pinned high hopes” did nothing of the sort. Instead, they sought to promote shariah domestically and serve the cause of jihad against the dar al-Harb (the House of War or non-Muslim world).

A further concern is the fact that, under Esposito’s direction, the Alwaleed Center has “developed questionable ties to individuals and organizations directly involved in Islamic terrorism.” Esposito himself has expressed “vocal support and praise” for his self-described “good friend“, now-convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian, whom he called “[o]ne of the most impressive people I have met under fire.” Al-Arian is listed as a researcher at the Center, where his son and family spokesman Abdullah Al-Arian serves as well.

John Esposito has also praised Muslim Brotherhood senior jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whosesupport of suicide bombing (including against American troops in Iraq) has revealed him for the jihadist figure he is – a reality that resulted in his being barred from entering the United Sttates. Esposito actually served with Qaradawi and multiple other Muslim Brotherhood figures on the steering committee of the Brotherhood-associated Circle of Tradition and Progress.

Likewise, in July 2000, the Alwaleed Center held a joint conference with the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), publisher of a journal for which Esposito served on the Board of Advisory Editors. Not six months before, UASR had been singled out by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee as a front group for the designated terrorist group Hamas. The committee described in detail the group’s founding by the head of the Hamas Political Bureau and its employment of Hamas financiers. The committee also found that the UASR was “providing a headquarters for Hamas operatives in the United States,” and cited its publication of works “extolling the imminent victory of Hamas over the Jews.” In fact, Esposito’s “co-chair for the conference was then-UASR executive director Ahmed Yousef, who fled the United States in 2005 to avoid prosecution and currently serves as the spokesman for the HAMAS terrorist organization in Gaza.”

Additionally, Esposito was an advisory board member of Institute of Islamic Political Thought led by known Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas operative Azzam Tamimi. Esposito also has close tiesto the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), part of the Safa Group Network of Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations raided by law enforcement over suspicion it was providing material support for Hamas and another designated terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In 2005, the controversial Georgetown Center on Muslim-Christian Understanding was renamed in recognition of a $20 million gift from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud. Prince Alwaleed has been an enabler of Islamic supremacist causes and organizations around the world. He achieved international notoriety when then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani returned a $10 million check bin Talal contributed after 9-11 because it was accompanied by a press release that – while it denounced the attack – implied that U.S. policy had caused it. He explicitly called on the United States to “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause,” and claimed that the charge that “[o]ur Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek.”

At the time, Esposito defended the Prince’s remarks, saying Alaweed was “trying to give people the context in which this [terrorist attack] occurred.” Since then, the Saudi billionaire has been linked to attempts to sanitize presentations of Islam and its supremacists in America’s K-12 education as well. Indeed, his Center at Georgetown is listed as an educational consultant and the principal researcher and textbook-reviewer for the Council on Islamic Education (CIE), which former Education Secretary Bill Bennett has accused of badly slanting K-12 educational materials in a pro-Islamic direction.

In addition to Georgetown University, bin Talal has also given generously to Harvard University and other academic institutions. Part of its influence operations aimed at academia involve items authored and posted by the Alwaleed Center’s staff like “Why We Need the Islamic Call to Prayer at American Universities.”

Bin Talal has also invested heavily in the Western media, including through his ownership of sizeable shares of AOL Time Warner and NewsCorp (the parent company of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post). He even owns a chunk of Twitter. Interestingly, investigative journalist Deborah Weiss entitled a recent report on the launch of the Bridge Initiative “Tweeting Islamist Propaganda,” skewering its “strange amalgamation of radical leftist politics and support for Islam.”

Finally, the Alwaleed bin Talal Center has collaborated with one of the most prominent of the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas-tied organizations: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). For example, in 2007, the two influence operations jointly conducted a workshop just two months after federal prosecutors named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).

At the time, the HLF was the largest Muslim charity in the United States. It was shuttered after five of its principals were convicted of material support of terrorism after funneling more than $12 million to Hamas.) The joint event with CAIR was entitled “Islamophobia and the Challenge of Pluralism,” which ultimately became the name of Esposito’s next book. (Interestingly, the web page for the conference has been removed).

For all these reasons, the Alwaleed bin Talal Center’s critique of the Center for Security Policy and the poll of the recent, alarming opt-in online sample of Muslims can be seen for what it is: a manifestation of a wealthy Saudi prince’s influence operation designed, not to increase “understanding,” but to promote disinformation and suppress information at odds with the Islamists’ agenda. With the revelation today that Prince Alwaleed will be giving away his $32 billion fortune to various organizations and causes, it must be expected that we will soon be facing vastly more effort along these lines. (

In short, a more honest depiction of the Bridge Initiative at the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding would be to call it the Bridge to Sharia Initiative.

Also see:

Iran Courting Native Americans in Canada: Leaked Document

Terrance Nelson, former chief of Manitoba's Roseau River

Terrance Nelson, former chief of Manitoba’s Roseau River

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 24, 2015:

Saudi Arabia is greatly concerned about how the Iranian regime is establishing relationships with Native American tribes in Canada, according to a newly-leaked Saudi intelligence document.

The Islamist government of Turkey is likewise reaching out to Native American tribes inside the United States.

The secret document from Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Agency, dated May 25, 2012, was sent to the Saudi Prime Minister and approved by the Saudi Crown Prince and Foreign Minister. Saudi intelligence appears to confirm that Iran is becoming friendly with Native Americans in Canada and has even mobilized them for pro-Iran, anti-American political activism.

The memo states that Saudi intelligence is monitoring “the attempts by the Iranian government to take advantage of the situation of the Indians of Canada, in order to build connections with them, to gain from their reservations and lands, to carry out various activities and investments.”

Saudi intelligence reports that Native American leaders recently protested against American and Canadian foreign policy in front of the Iranian embassy in Ottawa. It states that the Indians expressed pro-Iran sentiments at the rally.

It also reports that two tribal leaders from Manitoba Province met with Iranian embassy officials and said they’d take a trip to Tehran. The Indian leaders said they want Iranian investment in their reservations and would like to send 200 children to Iran to study administration and development.

The intelligence memo notes that the Canadian media has reported on the matter and pointed out Iran’s hypocrisy in embracing the Native American minority while oppressing its own minorities.

Read more