Stop the Jihad on Campus Campaign Combats Pro-Terror Groups


Exposing the true motivations of terrorist proxies and challenging their genocidal propaganda.

Frontpage, by Mark Tapson, Nov. 27, 2015:

Two weeks ago, a series of posters was placed anonymously on the campuses of George Washington University and American University in Washington, D.C. and those of UCLA, UC-Irvine and UC-San Diego in Southern California. The images were hashtagged #StopTheJihadOnCampus and pulled no punches in denouncing a pair of campus organizations for what they are: supporters of violent, Jew-hating jihad.

One poster depicted a bloody knife and photos of children being trained to become terrorists. Referring to a group known as the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the caption read, “Students for ‘Justice’ in Palestine: Supporting a Culture that Teaches Children to Slaughter Jews.” A second poster linked the late terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a national campus organization. A third targeted the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and the current “stabbing intifada” in Israel with the image of a bloody knife stabbing a Star of David. Its caption read, “The Real BDS: Boycott, Divest, Stab.”

Naturally, the posters sparked instant controversy and angry condemnations, because the campus supporters of jihad weren’t accustomed to having their agenda challenged or being caught in the harsh spotlight of truth. In response to the discovery of the posters, the Hillel organization at American University predictably issued a statement decrying them as threatening, “Islamophobic” hate speech and condemning “any efforts to demonize any racial or religious group.” Likewise, the statement from the Students for Justice in Palestine at American University labeled the posters as “the intimidation tactics of bigoted ideologues,” as “falsehoods” propagated about BDS (which the statement described as “the epitome of effective non-violent resistance”), and as “vitriolic, hateful rhetoric deliberately targeting Muslims, Arabs, those who may appear Muslim, and supporters of Palestinian rights.”

The following week, the David Horowitz Freedom Center took credit for distributing the posters as part of a major campus initiative called Stop the Jihad on Campus. The poster campaign targeted SJP and MSA, both of which were spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood, the same terrorist organization that launched al-Qaeda and Hamas. As a Freedom Center statement put it, both groups “are the chief campus sponsors” of the BDS movement “designed to destroy the Jewish state.”

UCLA’s Daily Bruin posted an article labeling the “offensive posters” as Islamophobic, to which David Horowitz himself responded with a letter in the Bruin correcting that and other “misleading impressions” in the initial article. “Shame on the students who spread the genocidal lies of Hamas on the UCLA campus,” he wrote. “Shame on them for supporting the 70-plus-year Arab aggression against the Jewish state and the 70-plus-year oppression of Palestinian Arabs by Fatah and Hamas.”

It is typical of these campus supporters of terrorism to attempt to suppress their critics by falsely accusing them of racism and Islamophobia, even though no racial or religious group was specified in the poster campaign. The posters were aimed at the two campus groups not because their membership is entirely Muslim (it’s not), but because they hold “Israeli Apartheid Weeks,” spread Jew-hating propaganda, support intifadas like the current one in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and support terrorist parties in Gaza and the West Bank that call for the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of the Jews of the Middle East.

The Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign seeks to raise awareness of how such anti-Israel terrorists have infiltrated American universities, spreading terrorist propaganda and messages, with university funding and support. Along those lines, it offers teach-ins to raise student awareness and combat pro-terrorist propaganda on American campuses. It has since gone on to post a list of the “Top 10 American universities most friendly to terrorists.”

The campaign’s demands are simple: no campus support for jihad terrorists, no campus privileges for anti-Israel hate groups, and no student funding for apartheid hate weeks. “Our goal in placing these posters on prominent campuses across America,” explains David Horowitz, “is to expose the true motivations of these terrorist proxy-groups and challenge their genocidal propaganda.” He continues:

These terrorist support groups are afforded campus privileges, including university offices and the right to hold events on campus grounds that would be denied to any other group that preached hatred of ethnic groups or supported barbaric terrorists who slaughter men, women and children as part of a demented mission to cleanse the earth of infidels.

Below are photos from the “Palestinian Wall of Lies” display recently set up at the University of South Dakota in conjunction with the Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign, as part of the Freedom Center’s efforts to counteract campus propaganda. The Wall lists and then debunks the major Palestinian lies about Israel and the Jews, which are often propagated unquestioned by the mainstream media and swallowed whole by impressionable college students. Needless to say, the Wall has proven to be quite a conversation piece whenever it has appeared on American campuses awash in leftist indoctrinationabout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To donate to Stop the Jihad on Campus, click here.




Also see:




Breitbart, by Neil Munro, Oct. 16, 2015:

Ahmed Mohamed, the Texas youth who was briefly detained Sept. 14 when he brought a clock-like device that looked like a bomb in to school, met with Sudan’s genocidal dictator Oct. 13.

That visit may prove embarrassing to President Barack Obama, whose science deputy personally invited the boy to an Oct. 19 science fair in the extended White House grounds.

Mohamed was invited to the White House after progressives and the media accepted and broadcast his claim that the arrest was prompted by unreasonable anti-Muslim and anti-African views supposedly prevalent among cops in Irving.

The boy’s hug for the genocidal Muslim theocrat prompted much criticism among his progressive supporters.

AmAhmad249 tweet

Elanosi tweet

On October 13, Ahmed, his sisters and his Sudan-born father flew out of Saudi Arabia into Sudan, a theocratic Muslim state that split into two states after waging a long war against Christian and tribal minorities in the south of the country.

It’s so genocidal that the International Criminal Court has posted a warrant for Bashir’s arrest. So theocratic that Bashir was Osama bin Laden’s host for several years. In March, Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, posed for a photo with Bashir, to the displeasure of left-wing outlets. In a tweet, the Texas-born boy described Sudan as his “home.”

am tweet

He also posted a vine of his arrival in the country.

Once in Sudan, he met the country’s president, Omer Hassan al-Bashir, who is still waging genocidal war against minorities, according to critics.

“Today al-Hassan [the father] and his son spoke graciously of Bashir who according to Sudan official news agency (SUNA) honored him in tribute to his intelligence and talent and in line with government policy of caring for gifted youngsters.

“Mohamed told reporters afterwards that he is ‘extremely delighted’ for meeting Bashir and visiting Sudan. He expressed hope that he would have the opportunity to meet again with the Sudanese president ‘with a new invention and success,’” according to a Paris-based, English-language Sudanese newspaper.

It is not clear if Ahmed will bring his clock-in-a-box to the White House, or if Obama will choose to meet with him.

The youth’s clock apparatus, which he described as an “invention,” was extracted from a commercial clock and then stuffed into a metal-looking school box. The clock’s face could not been seen when the case was closed. If the case was opened, the dismantled clock’s unshielded 110-volt transformer was hazardous to anyone who put their hands inside the clock-box.

The boy brought his clock to school; a teacher told him to not to display it, but when he showed it to another teacher, that teacher called the police. The boy admitted later that that the clock-in-a-box would raise suspicions. “I didn’t want to lock it [closed] to make it seem like a threat, so I used a simple cable [around the box] so it won’t look that much suspicious,” he said on video.

The police reacted skeptically because the clock-in-a-box did not seem like a school-related project. Also, police are on alert for shootings or disruptions in schools.

They’re also on alert for jihad attacks. The youth brought the apparent hoax-bomb to school just four months after two Muslims tried to machine-gun an art exhibition in nearby Garland, Texas. The two Muslim gunmen were successfully killed by guards, who were hired in the correct expectation that Islamic tenets would prompt a few Muslims to attack the guests at the exhibition.

When the youth did travel up to New York, he left his crude clock-in-a-box with the police department in Irving rather than show his embarrassingly simple device to his allies. He also did not take the clock-in-a-box with him when he flew in late October to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan.

Since the arrest, the youth has repeatedly smeared Irving’s cops and teachers as bigots.

On Sept. 17, he said was detained “because I’m Muslim,” during an interview on the al Jazeera network, just three days after the incident. Al Jazeera is a pro-Islamist TV network by run the autocratic leader of Qatar. “There is a lot of stereotypes [sic] for people who are foreigners and [when] they have Muslim names… names mainly in Islam… no this would not have happened to any of my classmates,” the youth said. Irving officials “should apologize,” he said.

Also see:

Ahmed’s Dad Pushes 9/11 Conspiracy Posts, Videos on Arabic Facebook Page


Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, Oct. 6, 2015:

With the frenzy following his son Ahmed’s bringing a suspicious-looking modified clock to high school, Texas-based Islamic political activist Mohammed Elhassan Mohammed finally succeeded in creating something he’s sought for a long time: a national media event that can be used to shine the light on alleged crimes of the United States, from accusations of “Islamophobia” in Irving, Texas, to American complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda’s attack on September 11, 2001 is a recurring topic of discussion on Mohammed’s own Arabic-language National Reform Party Facebook page where—beside photos of his family enjoying their newfound fame—are posted articles, photos and videos featuring both implicit, and explicit claims that the 9/11 attacks were a US-sponsored hoax to launch a war against Islam and Muslims.

While still residing in his Dallas suburb, Mohammed has, nonetheless, repeatedly run for president of Sudan as a candidate identified with his own very small political party, “al-Islah al-Watani,” or National Reform. Until recently, the National Reform Facebook page displayed the same profile picture Mohammed Elhassan Mohammed’s used for his personal Facebook profile picture. Mohammed’s National Reform Party page continues to post the same pictures, videos and articles about Ahmed Mohammed, and the Clock saga, as does Mohammed ElHassan on his personal page.

On September 12th, 2015, his National Reform page shared a photo that featured the smoking World Trade Center towers above text in Arabic describing the events of September 11th as “an American media creation” and calls them, “terrorism American style.” It also blames the U.S. for the events of the Arab Spring, calling it a U.S. plan to “foment reprehensible chaos.”

The text describes the attack on 9/11 as a “miracle” for the United States, because it provided justification for an attack, “first an Islamic government, while the second was a mighty Arab state in the Middle East.” The reference is clearly to the U.S. attack on Afghanistan (under the Taliban) and Iraq.

While the text identified the author as one Asad al-Barari, it’s not immediately clearly why Mohammed Elhassan and his National Reform Party chose to share this image and the post on September 12th, but the posting contains no text attempting to rebut or criticize the post for its statements about America.

Nor is this the only questionable post. As recently as September 28th, the National Reform Party page shared an English language video, with Arabic subtitles, which presents conspiracy theory arguments about the September 2001 attack.

The fifteen-minute video—first posted in September 2013—claims to prove explosives were used in bringing down the World Trade Center, attacks Penn & Teller’s 2005 debunking of 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracy theories and, finally, blames “US military officials, television executives and some Israeli and British government officials” for the attacks.

Below is the full translation of the September 12, 2015 post from Facebook:

The Events of September 11th:There is a saying, “The hater writes them; the fool publishes them; and the idiot believes them.” This applies to the rumors that people both spread and believe; it describes the creation of rumors in all their stages.

Yesterday [Friday, September 11, 2015] was the anniversary observed in the United States of America on what is called “September 11th.” This was the miracle that came to America in the form of terrorism—which offered her the invasion of Islamic countries (headed by Afghanistan and Iraq), which she saw as a great threat—on a golden plate. The first had an Islamic government, while the second was a mighty Arab state in the Middle East.

Without any doubt, the events of September 11th claimed thousands of innocent lives, and violated the basic belief of religions, that civilians should not be harmed in any war. Yet, for its sake, millions of blameless souls have perished—though one state has been spared. One state that exists only on the map.

The events of the Arab Spring, or the despicable chaos that is its true name, were a part of this “September [11th] Strategy,” that the U.S. pursued in sending her armies into Afghanistan and Iraq. The American army destroyed their regular armies, but found that it could not destroy their irregular forces. This is what drove her to foment that reprehensible chaos—an ancient plan to destroy states completely—which was carried out to the letter in all the lands of the Arab Spring. The result was not only thousands of refugees and deaths in every part of the world, but also the huge humiliations that have become the fundamental malaise of the Arabs in everything they do.

Thus [the events of September 11th] are but an American media creation, no matter how some may try to label them as “Islamic terrorism.” They were indeed terrorism, but terrorism American style—terrorism that sweeps away and annihilates whole countries, and not those few buildings in the midst of New York City.

Asad al-Barari

Also see:

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:

A clock or a bomb trigger, can you tell the difference?

Ahmed Mohamed and his

Ahmed Mohamed and his “clock”

Center for Security Policy, by Jim Hanson, Sep. 17, 2015:

The latest outrage being used to promote the false narrative about unfair treatment of Muslims is the teenager, Ahmed Mohamed, in Irving Texas arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school. If you just skimmed the surface and saw the picture of the skinny nerd in the NASA t-shirt in handcuffs it would be easy to see a problem.

And there is one, but it’s not discrimination against a Muslim kid that wouldn’t have happened to a non-Muslim. It’s nanny state, zero tolerance policies that take away the ability to apply common sense to complicated situations. In this case, whether or not to put cuffs on a 14 year old.

But as far as the other question, was the clock device he brought to school a legitimate cause for concern, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I have built and taught classes on improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and the clock he brought to school is a dead ringer for the trigger used on many of these homemade bombs.

Here is a side by side comparison of Ahmed’s clock and an Iranian-made IED trigger used to kill US troops in Iraq. Even more importantly, here is a picture of an IED training device sold to US law enforcement agencies to help them identify and learn how to deal with homemade bombs. They would have been deficient in performing their public safety duties if they had not done a full examination and investigation of the device, it’s presence at school and the person who built it and brought it there.

The grievance mongers of CAIR and other Islamist front groups are using this incident to portray the Irving, TX police and government as anti-Islamic. They point to another incident where Mayor Beth Van Duyne refused to accept an Islamic tribunal in her town that was trying to supplant US law with Shariah law. That would have been un-American and Mayor Van Duyne was appropriately American in saying absolutely not. We felt strongly enough about that to award her our Defender of Freedom award earlier this year.

We don’t know why Ahmed built and brought his clock to school, but he and his father were certainly quick to trot out quotes about it happening because of his brown skin, or that it wouldn’t have happened if he wasn’t a Muslim. There is zero evidence that Ahmed was singled out due to his religion, and two teachers who saw the device both told him to put it away because it resembled a bomb.

It is time to tell the outrage industry to quit abusing our public servants for doing the jobs we ask them to do.


Jim Hanson discusses this story with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:

Also see:

Islamophobia: Fact or Fiction?

Terry JonesGatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, August, 15, 2015:

  • Edward Said leaves us with the impression that all prejudice is only on the part of the West.
  • To the traditionally minded, news of such things as man-made laws based on objective evidence, free speech, equal justice under law, democracy, elections, freedom for women, freedom of religion and respect for the “other,” and so on, may have come as a sort of horror. Despots recoiled from the very thought of democracy. Religious leaders fumed at secular education, the freedom to question and say what one liked, even about religion.
  • “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated; to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” — Hasan al-Banna’, Founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, 1928.
  • The vast amount of what is called “Islamophobia,” however, is not that at all. Fair criticism is not phobic, responses to Islamic terrorism are reasonable reactions to violence.
  • Based on news reports of Muslims murdering other Muslims and killing Christians, there is, ironically, probably more Islamophobia among Muslims for each other than there is from Westerners toward Muslims. There is also probably more “Infidelophobia” by Muslims toward non-Muslims than by non-Muslims toward Muslims.
  • Again this year, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation held a conference calling for a universal blasphemy law — legislation it has repeatedly tried to pass for over a decade, with the help of U.S, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The aim is not to protect other religions (about which Muslims blaspheme without cessation), but to block any criticism of Islam.
  • Sometimes it seems as if Islam ceases to be treated as just another religion and becomes a religion intolerant of all others and unduly protective of its own rights and privileges. In democratic states, Islam is evidently already the only religion that may not be criticized, even though criticism of religion has for centuries been a cornerstone of free speech and transparency that are essential elements in democracy. These freedoms really matter, yet not one Muslim country can claim to implement or protect them, especially freedom of religion.

On July 9th, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, within the Council of Europe, published its annual report for 2014. The report identifies a dramatic increase in antisemitism, Islamophobia, online hate speech and xenophobic political discourse as main trends in 2014. It also indicates that “Islamophobia is reported in many countries, counteracting integration efforts for inclusive European societies. According to the report the rise of extremism and in violent Islamist movements has been manipulated by populist politicians to portray Muslims in general as unable or unwilling to integrate and therefore as a security threat.”

This is, of course, troubling, and it is right for the Commission to treat it as a growing problem. But just how widespread is the issue, and to what extent is it readily identifiable?

Some claims of Islamophobia have their roots in the perception of increasing Muslim violence within Europe; some are based on existing racist attitudes, and some are derived from Muslim perceptions of victimhood and charged sensitivities. The latter is the main reason why defining Islamophobia is not as simple as describing anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant prejudice, or anti-black racism.

To understand this more clearly, it is necessary to slip back briefly to the past.

In 1978, Palestinian-American professor Edward Said (1935-2003) published a book, Orientalism, which changed the way many people thought about the Middle East and Islam. Said’s book, deeply flawed, nevertheless became a bestseller translated into thirty-six languages. Those of us who were the first to read it – teachers and students in Islamic and Middle East Studies – were taken in by its façade of intellectual impartiality and the sense we all had that it opened our eyes to our own work in an original way. It was, to use Thomas Kuhn’s celebrated phrase, a paradigm shift that changed our understanding of our researches and the meaning they had, for we were precisely the ‘orientalists’ Said so tartly scolded. Some of moved away in later years, but many are still mesmerized by that smooth prose and challenging flair.

It wasn’t long before Said’s appeal moved into other disciplines and to other regions far from the Middle East. Orientalism even laid the foundations for a new item on the academic curriculum: “Post-colonial Studies.” The subject, now taught in universities in many countries, has produced a vast literature, has its own academic journals and numerous associations and institutes. Said, like Franz Fanon, Gayatri Spivak, Derek Gregory and others, remains a core figure, andOrientalism a central text.

According to Said, Westerners, by virtue of not being Muslims, have always falsified and distorted their writings about Islam and Muslims. Said claimed to see deeply-ingrained prejudice in the works of French, British, Russian and other Orientalist scholars and writers. To him, Orientalism was (and is) a tool of the colonial powers, assisting their mission supposedly to administer and subdue the peoples of the East. Since former colonies have achieved independence, he contends that the former imperialists still exert pressure on the ex-colonies in order to control them. Israel is regarded by most Marxists, socialists, and even many liberals as an entity created to colonize the Arab Middle East and is often condemned, even by people who are supposedly educated and should know better, in abrasive terms as a malign extension of the West.

Perhaps the best-known sentence in Said’s book is: “[S]ince the time of Homer every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.” As Bernard Lewis has been heard to remark, “If that were true, the only reports of marine biology would have to be by fish.” But for Said and his followers, the world is divided between Western guilt and Eastern victimhood.

What is missing from Said’s work is any attempt to deal with the long history of Islamic empires,[1] the conquest of, and permanent rule over, non-Muslim states and peoples, and the often distorted ways in which Muslim writers have sought to interpret and explain Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other worlds. Said leaves us with the impression that all prejudice is only on the part of the West.

Said continues to have admirers, most in academic departments of English or multicultural studies, but as time passes, more and more scholars are calling his views into question. Writers such as Bernard Lewis, Ibn Warraq, Efraim Karsh, and Robert Irwin have exposed a string of faults in Said’s narrative, from factual errors to staggering bias.[2]

Despite his bias, distortion of facts, and openly documented deceptions, many of Said’s followers, who are unwilling or unable to do their own work, see him as an intellectual to students and teachers who adhere to an anti-establishment, anti-Western, and socialist world view.

For many, his book, Orientalism played a role in delegitimizing the West and furthering causes such as multiculturalism or anti-Zionism. In the meantime, however, not surprisingly, the book’s influence spread, into the Islamic world and the smaller world of Muslim communities in the West. Better-educated Muslims read and digested Said’s message, in a manner rather different from Western readers, many or most of whom were atheists and agnostics. For Muslim readers, Said’s message that the West was hostile to Islam became the first strong antidote to their sense of failure. Muslims saw themselves as backward but now believed they were the victims of a Western conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their great civilization. To disparage the West became, for many, a religious imperative.

For religious Muslims, it was becoming increasingly important to deal with the stresses caused by their economic, political, and military subordination to a flourishing West, coupled with their own lack of progress in the non-Muslim world and at home. The repeated defeat of multinational Arab armies by the “despicable” Jews of Israel stood, and for millions of Muslims still stands, as a symbol of their need to reassert themselves on the world stage — as Iran is trying to do today.

Read more

Expert: “Islamophobia” is a Muslim Brotherhood invention to “stifle criticism”

The Rebel, by MARISSA SEMKIW, July 14, 2015:

Dr. Tony Costa, professor of world religions at the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies, explains the origins of the word “Islamophobia.”

The concept was created by a Muslim Brotherhood front group in the 1990s as “a way to stifle any forms of criticism about Islam.”

He adds that a “phobia” by definition is an “irrational” fear, and a fear of Islam is not irrational in light of both recent and ancient history.

Professor Costa also says that there is no such thing as “moderate Islam.” There are, he says, “moderate Muslims,” but the religion itself cannot be broken down into different denominations and remain orthodox.

He also explains why there always seems to be an increase in terrorism during Ramadan, and why ISIS seems to be on the rise.

(Dr. Tony Costa teaches in the area of religion with U of T in the School of Continuing Studies but is not a full-time professor of the U of T in the department of religion. He is also full professor of world religions with the Toronto Baptist Seminary and an adjunct professor with Heritage College and Seminary, and Providence Theological Seminary in the U.S.)

Legitimizing Censorship: ‘Islamophobia Studies’ at Berkeley

392Jihad Watch, by Cinnamon Stillwell and Rima Greene, May 23, 2015

“Islamophobia studies” is the latest addition to the academic pantheon of politicized, esoteric, and divisive “studies” whose purpose is to censor criticism of differing views by stigmatizing critics as racist or clinically insane. The University of California, Berkeley’s recent Sixth Annual International Islamophobia Conference—organized by the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP)—was titled, “The State of the Islamophobia Studies Field.” The fact that this “field” doesn’t yet formally exist in the U.S. may explain why speakers the first day of the conference barely mentioned it. As in years past, the conference featured victimology, academic jargon, and anti-Western rhetoric.

The audience, including a number of women in hijabs (headscarves), ranged from twenty to fifty students and faculty members. Because the conference was preempted by another event, it had to shift between two venues. Adding to the confusion, the schedule was made available online only days before. While IRDP director and Near Eastern studies lecturer Hatem Bazian bragged at the outset that the conference livestream had garnered “seven thousand” viewers in 2014, this year, visual and audio problems often rendered it unwatchable.

In his introduction, Bazian apologized for these mishaps before launching into a glowing report about the alleged state of “Islamophobia studies,” which, according to the IRDP website, “has witnessed rapid expansion in the past fifteen years.” He claimed that the field had “come of age” in that there is “no longer . . . a debate over whether we should use the term or not” or if “it is real or not,” except for “those who really don’t want to confront Islamophobia” or “don’t want to deal with the reality of what has taken place.”

In fact, there is no consensus on the existence of “Islamophobia” in the U.S., particularly in light of FBI statistics showing Jews experiencing the highest number of religiously-motivated hate crimes, with Muslims a distant second. Conflating legitimate criticism of Islam and the myriad human rights abuses occurring in its name all over the world with an irrational fear or prejudice towards all Muslims further obfuscates the matter.

Undeterred by such concerns, Bazian proudly noted the “broad range of fields” represented at the conference in order:

[T]o create as large a conversation as possible about Islamophobia with the intention of expanding the academic material that is available for individuals and classrooms.

He alleged that, “This is part of a series of conferences taking part internationally,” including Paris, London, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Switzerland, and eventually India. Then again, he said as much at the 2014 “Islamophobia” conference and, at the time, IRDP did in fact co-organize a number of such international ventures. However, at this juncture, a search yields no evidence for IRDP-connected international conferences this year.

Munir Jiwa, founding director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Islamic Studies and assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Graduate Theological Union, followed with the talk, “Frames and Scripts of Islamophobia.” Jiwa maintained that the U.S. and the U.K. view Islam through the “frames” of the September 11, 2001 and July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks, respectively, and lamented that, “This forgets the long history of Muslims in the West” and “Muslim contributions to Western civilization.” Referring to the alleged shortcomings of the latter—including, ludicrously, the Enlightenment—he made the ahistorical assertion:

Much like Colonial and Enlightenment ways of dividing the world: us and them. It’s as if the West just came up with all these great ideas on its own.

Jiwa complained that Americans see terrorism as “barbaric,” “out of the blue,” and “related to Islam, rather than the most warring nation in the world”—i.e., America. He was perplexed that, “the violence that Muslims do” is viewed through the prism of “religion rather than the socio-political context,” despite the fact that this perspective merely takes Islamic terrorism at face value. As for the Islamic State (ISIS), he found it “amazing that they think it has nothing to do with our being in Iraq,” as if every GOP candidate for president isn’t required to state his opinion on the invasion. He never mentioned ISIS’s atrocities, only “our responsibility in creating the context for that violence.”

Jiwa then denied the systemic problem of “Islamic patriarchy” by claiming that the “oppression” of Muslim women was viewed as “not because of geo-politics, [but] because of Islam.” He bemoaned that, “millions of our dollars are going into saving Muslim women,” an outdated allusion to the war in Afghanistan. Rehashing a joke he made at the 2012 “Islamophobia” conference, he suggested Afghan women save American women from the perils of the “beauty industry.” Turning to gay rights, he decried “how sexual minorities are deployed” as a test to determine “if Muslims are regressive or progressive.” Nowhere did he acknowledge the responsibility of Islam for the sorry state of women’s and gay rights in Muslim-majority nations, but rather blamed the West.

Later, Jasmin Zine, an associate professor of sociology at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, spoke about “‘Embedded Academics’ and the Construction of Islamist Youth Radicalism.” Based on her work “studying the 9/11 generation of Muslim youth in Canada,” Zine concluded that it was not jihadist ideology that led to their “radicalization,” but the “politics of empire,” “Islamophobia,” and the “racialized security industrial complex.” Engaging in a moral equivalency, she added the disclaimer:

I’m saying this not to create a space of innocence for violence or terror perpetrated by Muslim bodies, but rather to situate these acts within a broader historical context . . . such as the racial violence of colonialism, genocide, slavery, occupation, and apartheid.

On the subject of “embedded academics,” or those whose research aids the military or intelligence services in counterterrorism, Zine stated, “I’m interested in how academic research is used in service of neo-imperial goals.” Such goals, she contended, include “racial and religious profiling” and “using culture to apprehend for the purposes of domination and annihilation.”

Employing a term coined by Columbia University Iranian studies professor Hamid Dabashi in his book, Brown Skin, White Masks, Zine asserted that, “This work is supported by the ‘native informer,” adding that, “In Canada, we have Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, Raheel Raza who fall into that category.” Singling out liberal Muslim-Canadian writers and activists for condemnation revealed the radicalism of her core beliefs.

So, too, did Zine’s avowal not to become an “embedded intellectual.” Referring to the Canadian government’s Kanishka Project which, as noted at its website, “invests in research on . . . terrorism and counter-terrorism,” including “preventing and countering violent extremism,” she admitted that:

I’ve been asked to apply for this funding and I generally haven’t because it’s offered by Public Safety Canada [the national security branch of the Canadian government], the same people who are profiling our youth, who are keeping migrants away from our borders, who are limiting immigration.

If contributing to the public safety of one’s own country constitutes an “ethical dilemma,” as Zine described it, her conception of citizenship is profoundly flawed.

While this year’s conference may have failed to usher in the dawn of an officially recognized “Islamophobia studies,” it wasn’t for lack of effort. Soon after, IRDP announced the latest edition of its politicized bi-annual publication, the Islamophobia Studies Journal. Perhaps following UC Berkeley’s lead, Georgetown University recently launched the Bridges Initiative, a project of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding devoted to “protecting pluralism – ending Islamophobia.”

The subject is all the rage in the field of Middle East studies and throughout academe, which is doing its utmost to silence critics of the Islamic supremacism, systemic social problems, and total chaos plaguing the region. If and when “Islamophobia studies” becomes a reality, we can’t claim we didn’t see it coming.

Berkeley resident Rima Greene co-wrote this article with Cinnamon Stillwell, the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. Stillwell can be reached at

A Counterjihad Survey From a British University

oxfordummahGates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey (Ned May) June 25, 2015:

A few weeks ago a PhD candidate at a British university sent us the following email.

I am a PhD student at [a major British institution of higher learning]. I am researching groups set up to oppose radical Islam in Europe and North America, including anti-Jihad, anti-Sharia and anti-halal organisations.

I would like to interview activists within these organisations, to help me understand how they became involved, what their concerns are about radical Islam, and how they are going about countering them.

I would welcome the opportunity to interview someone from Gates of Vienna as part of my research, given that it is one of the most prominent counter-jihad websites.

Depending on the questions, I’m not averse to answering such surveys, even though I know the all but universal multicultural agenda of the institutions that sponsor them. I wrote him back and told him that if he wanted to use my answers to compile statistical results, that was fine. But if he quoted me, I required that he include the entire questionnaire — all his questions and my answers in full — somewhere in his published material, even if only as an appendix. In the past, various Counterjihad people (including several of my friends) have had the unfortunate experience of being quoted out of context. This method at least makes the entire context available for anyone who is interested. Plus, of course, I am posting it here — I told him that I reserved the right to publish the entire interview myself.

When the questionnaire arrived, it was prefixed with an option to choose between two waivers:

Delete as appropriate: EITHER: I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials; OR: I would prefer to remain anonymous in published materials.

Please note: There is no compulsion to answer any question. If you prefer not to answer a question, just leave the box blank.

I chose the second option, but appended a proviso:

I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials provided that they are made available to readers in their entirety, including the complete wording of each question.

The questions and my responses are reproduced below in their entirety:

Part A: Personal details

Name: Ned May
Organisation: Gates of Vienna
Position within organisation: Editor
Age: 60+
Gender: M
Ethnicity: Human Race

Part B: Questionnaire

1. When and how was Gates of Vienna set up?

We put up our first post on October 9, 2004. For the first eight and a half years we were hosted for free at, under the aegis of Blogger (i.e. Google). Then, after a series of incidents in which our blog was closed or locked by Blogger, in January 2013 we moved to our own domain hosted by a commercial service.

For the first couple of years most of the blogging was done by my wife Dymphna. After I was laid off in 2006, I started blogging more regularly. As Dymphna’s chronic illness worsened, I took on more tasks, and now perform most of them.

2. What is your role in Gates of Vienna?

I am the principal editor. We have a number of translators and contributors, and it is my job to edit their prose where appropriate, find and prepare images to use as illustrations, and do the general formatting for each post. This is in addition to writing an occasional post myself.

I also maintain the database used to create each day’s news feed, and write the programming code that makes it possible.

3. Were you involved in political activism before Gates of Vienna? If so, please indicate which organisations.

No, I was never politically active. My wife and I made modest campaign contributions to our congressman from time to time, but that was all.

4. How would you describe the purpose or aims of Gates of Vienna?

Our principal aim is to resist the Islamization of Western societies. More specifically, we want to prevent the imposition of Islamic law (sharia), which is encroaching on our legal system piecemeal at an increasing rate, by a process that is commonly known as the “stealth jihad”.

Examples of the new sharia-based rules include the “religiously-aggravated Section 5 public order offences” in the U.K., the “hate crime” prosecutions by the various Human Rights Commissions in Canada, and the prosecutions for the “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” in Austria. Numerous other examples may be found in almost all Western countries.

Sharia-based norms violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the constitutions of the countries in which they are implemented. In that sense they are illegal or extra-legal, and not in conformance with the law of the land.

Islamization is only making headway in the West because the existing cultural matrix has been damaged. For that reason, Gates of Vienna frequently examines other issues that pertain to our ongoing social and political breakdown.

5. What are the main challenges or obstacles you face in achieving these aims?

(a) Lack of funding. Everything must by financed by small individual donations from readers.
(b) The unwillingness of the legacy media to cover these issues in depth and without bias. Counterjihad people are routinely characterized as “racists” and “far-right”, while at the same time the issues we raise are virtually never examined on their merits.
(c) The toxic smog of political correctness that shrouds all public discourse and prevents an honest discussion of Islam as a totalitarian political ideology, and not just as a religion.

6. What is Gates of Vienna’s relationship to the wider counterjihad movement?

As envisioned by the original participants in the 910 Group (later CVF and then ICLA), we function as a “network of networks”. That is, we help expedite contact and communication between and among individuals and groups that share the same broad Counterjihad goals.

When I say “we”, I mean the very loosely associated groups under the ICLA umbrella. Gates of Vienna serves as a clearinghouse and bulletin board for those groups and their leaders.

7. What is your assessment of the counterjihad at this point in time?

The Counterjihad is fairly fragmented and often at odds with itself. Cooperation across a broad spectrum of groups is relatively rare. Like the rest of the culture, the members of the loose constellation of groups and people who oppose Islamization are afraid of being called “racists”. That fear causes people to shy away each other if there is even a faint perception of “racism” on one side or another. For this reason broad, sustained coordination among groups is very difficult to achieve.

However, due to the rise of the Islamic State and the increasing incidence of atrocities committed by jihad groups, more and more people are becoming aware of the nature of the crisis that faces us. As a result, I can see our work becoming less difficult in the not-so-distant future — we will not be required to overcome as much initial resistance as has been true in the past.

“Racism” will eventually seem less important, given the immediacy of violent jihad and the illiberal cultural regimen imposed in areas that have accepted sharia rules.

8. If the counterjihad were to be successful, how would the world be different in twenty years’ time?

Your question doesn’t make any sense, because the Counterjihad can’t possibly achieve success within twenty years, or even forty. This is the “Long War”. I expect it to last at least two more generations. I will be long dead before there is any final resolution, so I’m reluctant to predict the shape of things to come.

Let’s just say that I expect that we will experience an undetermined number of grim and bloody decades before this is over.

9. If someone wanted to learn more about the issues discussed on Gates of Vienna, where would you direct them? For example, are there particular books, websites, or other resources that you would recommend?

As a starter, I recommend the book Among the Believers by V.S. Naipaul. After that, anything written by Robert Spencer in his books, or at, would help the reader become fully informed. To stay abreast of the violence and brutality of Islamic terrorists worldwide, people should read every day.

For comprehensive, in-depth analysis of sharia law and jihad, the book
Catastrophic Failure by Maj. Stephen Coughlin is highly recommended.

10. Are there any issues not covered in your previous responses that you think should also be considered as part of this research?

I would like to emphasize the importance of studying Islamic law. Until non-Muslims in the West grasp the essentials of sharia, they will remain confused and perplexed by current events involving Islam.

Sharia is based directly on core Islamic scriptures — the Koran, the hadith, and the sunna — and has not changed in any meaningful way in more than a thousand years. When one has acquired a basic understanding of how it all works, such disparate phenomena as Boko Haram, the Islamic State, Louis Farrakhan, the Taliban, Hamas, and Anjem Choudary begin to make sense. The interconnectedness of events concerning Islam — whether “moderate” or “radical” — will start to become clear.

After reading some of the books and websites mentioned earlier, interested citizens should acquire a copy of ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

English-speakers should read the Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994), “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.

This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

Deborah Weiss exposes Georgetown’s Orwellian “Bridges Initiative”

John Esposito

John Esposito

Frontpage, by Deborah Weiss, May 20, 2015:

“Nothing bad happened in the West after the publication of the Danish cartoons in 2006. Nobody died.” “There is no more anti-Semitism in the West anymore. The ‘Jewish Question’ has been settled with equality.”

These are just some of the lies spewed forth by “esteemed panelists” at the launch of Georgetown University’s Bridges Initiative, which embodies a new approach and stepped up efforts for the Islamist propaganda campaigns waged by the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).

On April 30, 2015, in Jesuit Georgetown University’s Healy Hall, amidst paintings of priests and Christian imagery, The Bridges Initiative was launched. The event was titled, “A Conversation on Islamophobia”. The motto of the campaign is “Protecting Pluralism – Ending Islamophobia.

Opening remarks by John Esposito, Director of the ACMCU, whose pockets are lined with Saudi money, explained that Islamophobia is not a about Muslims but about pluralism. “Tea party types like Pamela Geller, [sic] tweets to her followers to protest, and this causes Bill O’Reilly to have a show on Fox News.” Then pop culture through its arbiter of social media, especially Pamela Geller’s blog, influences Islamophobic activists without “alternative narratives.” The Islamophobia industry is not arbitrarily popping up, he explains. It exists due to funding and networks. And, for reasons Esposito can’t quite figure out, Islamophobia is worse in Europe.

Ann Norton, Professor of “Muslim Political Thought” at the University of Pennsylvania was the first speaker and is responsible for the above comments on the Danish cartoons and anti-Semitism. According to Norton, “every period of time has its challenges” and in the 19th century, people were afraid of “Jewish terrorists”. This fear became bigotry and was the reason for anti-Semitism prior to the Holocaust. But now, in the West, the “Jewish Question” has been resolved. Too bad the Jews fleeing France in droves due to (primarily Islamic) anti-Semitism haven’t heard the good news.

Currently, Norton explains, the same thing is happening with Muslims. There is terrorism and thus fear, which has turned into “bigotry” against Muslims. (Please note that prejudice by definition is a pre-judgment, and not a post-judgement based on a particular group’s behavior.) Never-the-less, Norton says, people “perceive” that Islam doesn’t treat women well and “perceive” that it is in opposition to free speech. “But some speech puts our national security at risk!” (Of course, it wouldn’t if all Muslims would refrain from responding to speech violently.) The real problem, is “the indictment of the West, the shame of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and indefinite detention.” Yeah, that’s the problem. Well, what can one expect from the author of a book titled, “Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire”?

Norton insists that drawing a cartoon of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad is A-OK in Islam, but the problem is doing it repeatedly to tell us what we must say: that some are trying to “oblige people to praise bigotry” and to be “pro-Israel”. After all, freedom of speech includes the freedom to refrain from speech. And, well, it really is awful that all those Islamophobes are pointing guns to the heads of Americans forcing them to support Israel!

Norton rejects the notion of a clash of civilizations and iterates that accepting Islam and Muslims is the true challenge of whether America accepts Western values of tolerance. Islam is “the ‘Other’ of Democracy” she states. (“Otherizing Muslims” was a theme throughout the conference). And yet, she is an admitted fan of the Muslim Brotherhood theologian, Sayyid Qutb, author of “Milestones” because he supported private property rights.

Ms. Norton is a strange amalgamation of radical leftist politics and support for Islam. She likes the powerful image of the Bridge, because it brings people closer together. Of course, the ACMCU’s bridge flows in only one direction – towards the Islamization of America.

The next speaker, Mehdi Hasan, an Aljazeera presenter, asserted that there is rampant Islamophobia and anti-Muslim “hysteria” in the West. “You can say things about Muslims … that you can’t say about any other group.” He repeatedly made false analogies, pointing out that all the negative comments stated in public discourse regarding Muslims would be unacceptable if one substituted the word “Jews.” Apparently, facts make no difference. He also focused on the Muslim as “the Other”, incorrectly implying that Islam and Judeo-Christian values are in sync. He brought up numerous newspaper headlines to demonstrate negative commentary about Islam or Muslims, erroneously claiming the facts asserted were untrue. For example, he claimed it’s a lie that some UK banks stopped using piggy banks due to Muslim offense. Yet, UK banks have done exactly that.

Hasan also did a very good job of identifying the “Islamophobia industry’s” positions and countering them, calling many of them “myths”. Citing the leftist Center for American Progress’ “Fear, Inc.” as support for his contention that funding and networks that have given rise to Islamophobia, he also argued that Islamophobia is “immoral and dangerous”, making “extremism” more appealing to mainstream Muslims.

The final speaker was Roland Schatz, President of Media Tenor International. (The subtitle on his website is “creating perceptions”). His organization focuses on statistical research and strategic media analysis. The bulk of his presentation consisted of charts and graphs created over the last 15 years, monitoring whether news reporting was positive, negative, or neutral on subjects including terrorism and Islam. The accuracy of the news reports was not addressed.

Schatz’ organization is pushing a book titled, “Constructive News.” He has given up on getting the media to drop negative reporting on Islam and Muslims. Now, he’s resorting to asking news media to make things balanced. Schatz believes that every time the media reports a negative incident about Muslims, it should also report a positive incident. If it can’t find one, the negative incident should be omitted.

Additionally, Schatz is upset by America’s “obsession” with Muslims and freedom of speech. “My right to freedom stops where yours starts,” he proclaimed. However, the examples he gave indicated a right to be free from insult, a right conspicuously absent from the U.S. Constitution. It made him angry that politicians world-over participated in France’s unity march after the murders at Charlie Hebdo magazine. “Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo!” he declared, followed by an outburst of audience applause.

Schatz insists that freedom of speech and other freedoms should not be singled out as special, but rather there should only be one word that includes all freedoms equally, “freedom!” Of course, this is entirely false, as not all freedoms are equal. Some are considered fundamental, some rights are enabling rights, without which other rights would not exist. Indeed, freedom of speech is unique, is fundamental, and is more important and central to fundamental human rights than many other “rights” are.

Schatz claims that the public is victim to bigoted, Islamophobic media, and therefore can’t be blamed. It is up to Muslims to join panels, the media, and become involved so “another voice” can be heard. After all, Islamophobia really has nothing to do with Islam. It’s “xenophobia” similar to bigotry against Catholics when they first arrived in the U.S, and such “racism” is institutionalized. Like Hasan, Schatz believes that the West is baselessly treating Muslims like “the Other.”

Finally, Schatz accused the manufactured “Islamophobia industry” of publishing works from “pseudo experts” and “faux reports” all due to a closely-weaved network of activists, policy experts, think tanks and politicians, funded by a few Islamophobic foundations. Yes, we are all rich and doing this for the money!

It is likely no coincidence that the theological underpinnings of Islam, which refer to Jews as “apes and pigs” and treat non-Muslims as dhimmis or worse, were entirely absent from this seminar, as was a discussion of Islamic terrorism. Instead of acknowledging that so-called “Islamophobia” might result from the actions taken by a global Islamist movement, the assumption was all “anti-Islam” sentiment constitutes bigotry. Continually conflating “Islam” and “Muslims”, panelists failed to acknowledge that the public might have legitimate concerns about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities, and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. Yet, in America and Europe, where Muslims are free and equal, the public and media is accused of “otherizing” them, despite the fact that Shariah law is the ultimate Otherizer.

The charge of a “manufactured Islamophobia industry” which arises out of nothing more than networks for the sake of money is laughable. While a few make a nice living derived from funding, the majority involved in this movement have made great sacrifices for the Cause because of its importance. Moreover, its funding pales in comparison to the Saudi and Soros money that goes to support the anti-Islamophobia industry, which actually is manufactured. The facts speak for themselves: Islamic doctrine, Shariah law, the jihadists own words, Saudi Arabia’s and Iran’s theocratic laws, all provide indisputable evidence for the claims of the anti-Shariah movement. Accusations of money, networks and faux reports, made by those who accept Saudi money and deny the evils of Shariah law, constitute a classic example of psychological projection. Everything this panel accused the “Islamophobia industry” of doing, is something they are doing themselves.

The Bridges Initiative appears to be distinguishable from Georgetown’s past anti-Islamophobia campaigns in that it aspires to collect data from, and act as a repository for, seemingly objective data including charts, surveys, articles, news and statistics, provided by high profile professors, think tanks and policy “experts” to give it an air of legitimacy. It plans to funnel this body of work through Facebook, Twitter and other social media, hoping it will go viral and preferably undisputed.

The ACMCU and other Saudi-funded and interfaith programs have long been centers of indoctrination of America’s youth, teaching them in an Orwellian fashion that America is evil and the Muslim world is Victim.

Those who work on national security issues realize that we have to identify the ideological enemy in order to defeat it. But, Georgetown’s new program demonstrates that it is equally imperative that America also knows herself. One way or another, students must be inculcated with knowledge of the US Constitution, American history, and the fragility of freedom, in order to fight for its continuance, and not fall prey to politically correct, but factually false programs, like ACMCU’s Bridges Initiative.


AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

Breitbart, by Daniel Akbari, May 15, 2015:

I’m stunned by how Americans panic when they are threatened with the label “Islamophobe.” They become terrified, their judgment gets clouded, their insight is crippled so that they cannot pause for a moment to ask themselves what Islamophobe means. For Americans, being called an Islamophobe is in the same category as being called homophobic, racist, or sexist. The term Islamophobia has successfully silenced many voices and created an atmosphere in which people deliberately self-censor.

But people should not surrender freedom of speech – the right that Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) said was the most important right of all – in response to propaganda. The goal of propaganda is to provoke an emotional response, but Americans deserve a strongly reasoned argument – a reason that makes sense – to give up their freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and even academia have created a culture of shallowness that stops Americans from thinking profoundly when it comes to controversial issues. In the culture of shallowness, people are unable to analyze things deeply, they just look superficially.

The term Islamophobia is the perfect example of this culture of shallowness at work. Breaking Islamophobia down into two separate words, Islam and phobia, enables us to cut through that culture of shallowness. Both Islam and phobia have simple meanings that are easy to understand if used separately. “Islam” is a religion, it is a set of ideas and rules derived from Islamic authoritative sources: the Koran, Hadith, and the consensus of Islamic scholars over the last 1400 years. “Phobia” is a fear that “is in no way justified by reality.” Since phobias are irrational they are considered a psychological disorder. On the basis of the offered definitions, the term Islamophobia means a fear of Islam that lacks a rational basis.

Islam, as a religion, has been subject to different interpretations. The interpretation that is consistent with the authoritative Islamic sources generates sharia and commands jihad. However, there is a broad spectrum of interpretations, some close to the true understanding of Islam and some considered heretical. Being afraid of the fundamental and traditional Islam from which sharia and jihad are spawned is not irrational. In this regard, calling somebody an Islamophobe is tantamount to calling them a Jihadophobe or Sharia-phobe. The fear of jihad and sharia, for those who know them, is a rational fear, it is not a phobia.

Numerous Koran verses explicitly command jihad. Some of the most famous are surah nine of the Koran 9:5,29,73 verse 5, the Verse of the Sword, verse 29, jihad against People of the Book, and verse 73 jihad against hypocrites and unbelievers. Sharia comes from surah 5: 44-48, among others, and tells Muslims they are unbelievers if they do not judge by what Allah has revealed. Sharia is simply the rules for how to practice Islam, formulated by scholars from the Koran and Hadith. For an explanation of the qualification of scholars and how they formulate sharia see Chapter 2 of my latest book, Honor Killing.

The propaganda machine that tars people with the label Islamophobe never dares to discuss the teachings of the authoritative Islamic sources. When they call someone an Islamophobe, it has nothing to do with Islam– they take advantage of the culture of shallowness to make people think the speaker is somehow opposed to Muslims. If they were honest they would say “Muslimophobe.” But who is a Muslim? Many people who come from Islamic countries or have Islamic-sounding names might not be Muslim at all. Many do not practice or even believe in Islam. In the United States, people have come from all parts of the world, including Islamic countries. America has never been against immigrants – against flesh and blood – it is opposed to the ideas that destroy freedom.

As a sharia lawyer, someone who truly understands Islam and sharia law, I know firsthand that living under sharia law is something to be feared. Why Americans have become so shallow and superficial that they do not bother to take the time to question new terms like Islamophobe stuns me.

Daniel Akbari is certified by the Iranian Bar Association as a Number One Attorney, is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Iran, and is the author of two books:HONOR KILLING: A Professionals Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources and New Jihadists and Islam.

Pulitzer Prize Winner David K. Shipler Hawks the “Protocols of the Elders of the Anti-Islam Movement” in The New Yorker

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, May 13, 2015:

A document entered into court evidence by Justice Department prosecutors in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, and later cited affirmatively by the federal judge in the case and cleared by the federal appeals court, would seem an unlikely target for a former journalist to try to spin a conspiratorial tale around, namely slandering others of hawking a racist/’Islamphobic’ “Protocols of the Elders of Islam.”

And yet that is what David K. Shipler, a former New York Times reporter and winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize, is now trying to do.

512R2aJ0iLLClearly upset that so-called “Islamophobes” have been successful using the document – again, discovered by the FBI, submitted into the evidence by federal prosecutors and approved as genuine by the federal court – to expose the Muslim Brotherhood roots of some of America’s largest Islamic organizations, Shipler wields his “Islamophobia” harpoon like Ahab at his “anti-Islam industry” Moby Dick.

He makes his dubious case in a new book out this week, entitled “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” (Alfred A. Knopf), which includes an entire chapter on the subject, and summarizes it in an article published on Tuesday in The New Yorker, “Pamela Geller and the Anti-Islam Movement.” The book received a very lukewarm review in the New York Times this past Sunday.

In the New Yorker article, Shipler claims:

Virtually all the alarm over the coming Islamic takeover and the spread of Sharia law can be traced back to an old document of questionable authority and relevance, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Dated May 22, 1991, it was found in 2004 by the F.B.I., buried in one of a large number of boxes uncovered during a search of a house in northern Virginia. (I reported on the discovery and the use of the document for my book “Freedom of Speech: Mightier than the Sword.”) It is cited on numerous Web sites, and in articles, videos, and training materials, which quote one another in circular arguments. Its illusion of importance was enhanced by federal prosecutors, who included it in a trove of documents introduced into evidence in the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization ultimately convicted of sending money to Hamas.

The memo, however, is far from probative. It was never subjected to an adversarial test of its authenticity or significance. Examined closely, it does not stand up as an authoritative prescription for action. Rather, it appears to have been written as a plea to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership for action, by an author we know little about, Mohamed Akram. He is listed elsewhere as a secretary in the Brotherhood, but he writes in the tone of an underling. Islam watchers do not quote his appeal that the recipients “not rush to throw these papers away due to your many occupations and worries. All that I’m asking of you is to read them and to comment on them.” These lines reveal the memo as a mere proposal, now twenty-four years old. No other copies have come to light.

Two features of the memo are highlighted by the Islam watchers: first, its assertion that “the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” and, second, “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” [emphasis added]

What’s remarkable about Shipler’s treatment of the Explanatory Memorandum in his article and in his book is how much he is willing to quickly dismiss facts that completely undo his case, and pays no attention to the glaring contradictions he ends up wrapping himself trying to debunk the document. At major points he contradicts himself. He breezes over the mountain of evidence that he has to overcome, but that means he can’t plead ignorance of it. One is only left with the conclusion that he’s being intentionally mendacious.

I beg the reader’s indulgence, for I will quote lengthy passages and on occasions paste screenshots from the court documents themselves so you know I’m not engaged in anything dodgy. Tellingly, most of these quotes never appear in Shipler’s book, and if so, only selectively edited form.

So let’s start with the evidence.

The document he is trying to cast doubts on is known generally as the “Explanatory Memorandum,” but it’s actual title is, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America.” The document is dated May 22, 1991 and was entered into evidence as “Elbarasse Search – 3″ by federal prosecutors in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2008.

Helpfully, the federal court overseeing the case in an unusual move posted the trial evidence on their own website. The Explanatory Memorandum and the FBI translation of the document can be found here.

At this point, we can turn to what the Justice Department said in federal court about the Explanatory Memorandum. In one court filing, available on the ACLU’s website, federal prosecutors state (p. 12):

The evidence introduced at trial, for example, established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.8 Govt. Exh. 3-64 (seized from the home of HAMAS leader Ismail Elbarasse); Govt. Exh. 3-3 (Muslim Brotherhood document noting that ISNA was founded by the US-Muslim Brotherhood) ; Govt. Exh. 3-85 (1991 memorandum authored by U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni, recognizing ISNA and NAIT as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.) Government’s Exhibit 3-85, entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group, described the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as a kind of “grand Jihad”:

The Ikhwan must understand that their role 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…. [emphasis added]

So the Justice Department states that:

1) Two Islamic organizations – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – were created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (based on other trial evidence as well as the Explanatory Memorandum);

2) The Explanatory Memorandum was authored by U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni;

3) That the memo describes the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within.”

Now please note that these claims were not made by “Pamela Geller and the Anti-Islam Movement” but the Justice Department in a federal court filing. He can tilt at all of the “anti-Islam” windmills he wants, but fundamentally he still has to explain away the court evidence.

And as stated earlier, much to the consternation of Shipler, the federal court agreed in a published opinion with the Justice Department’s analysis of the document when Judge Jorge Solis ruled on motions from three separate organizations named as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial – ISNA, NAIT, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – asking to be removed from the Justice Department’s co-conspirator list. The judge’s ruling against removing the groups from the unindicted co-conspirator list was unsealed in 2010.

In that ruling, Judge Solis states (p. 15):

Government Exhibit 3-85 is titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” authored by Mohamed Akram of the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood and dated May 22, 1991. (Gov’t Ex. 3-85 (Elbarasse 3) at 21.) The “Explanatory Memorandum” includes a section titled “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,” which states that the work of the Ikhwan in the United States 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.” (Id.)Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund (“OLF”) (HLF’s former name), and the United Association for Studies and Research (“UASR”). (Id. at 32.)

So Judge Solis found that:

1) The Explanatory Memorandum was authored by Mohamed Akram of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council;

2) That the document describes the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within”;

3) That the document lists the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” including ISNA and NAIT.

At this point Shipler laughably believes he has room to maneuver. In the New Yorker article and in his book, he makes three general claims:

1) That the judge blindly accepted the Justice Department’s argument about the origins and importance of the memo and never allowed adversarial challenges to its provenance;

2) That the Explanatory Memorandum was admitted as hearsay, meaning that the groups named in the memo were never allowed to challenge in court;

3) That the judge failed to distinguish between the memo’s list of “our organizations” and “the organizations of our friends.”

Let’s take these in order.

1) Judge Solis accepted the Justice Department’s description of the Explanatory Memorandum unquestioningly and never allowed adversarial challenges.

In discussing the order by Judge Solis in response to the motions of the three Islamic organizations, Shipler states in his book (p. 190):

CAIR and two other groups moved to have themselves removed from the list of unindicted co-conspirators, but the effort backfired and gave Islam watchers more ammunition. Not only was their motion denied by Judge Jorge Solis, who presided over the retrial, conviction, and sentencing of the five Holy Land Foundation defendants (the first trial had ended in a hung jury). He also accepted the government’s assertions by citing the seized Elbarasse documents, including the Explanatory Memorandum, without testing their accuracy in an adversarial proceeding. He did not distinguish between the memo’s list of “our organizations” and “the organizations of our friends.” He ruled, “The Government had produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA [Islamic Society of North America], and NAIT [North American Islamic Trust] with HLF [Holy Land Foundation], the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” [emphasis added]

Remarkably, Shipler contradicts himself just a few pages later, quoting a defense attorney for the Holy Land Foundation defendants who said that the Elbarasse documents had, in fact, been challenged by the defense team (p. 198):

The defense team lodged vigorous objections to the introduction of this and the other documents from the Elbarasse search, and two attorneys on the defense team, Nancy Hollander and Marlo Cadeddu, scoffed at Guandolo’s statement. “There was no such stipulation by the defense,” said Cadeddu. “Nor would we ever have stipulated to any such thing. Any claims to the contrary are simply untrue.” Indeed, after the five Holy Land officials and fund-raisers were convicted, their lawyers argued specifically, in an unsuccessful appeal to the Fifth Circuit, that the trial judge had erred in admitting the documents, which the attorneys branded hearsay, irrelevant to the charge that the defendants had funneled money to Hamas. [emphasis added]

At this point, observant readers are no doubt confused. By Shipler’s own admission, the Elbarasse documents, including the Explanatory Memorandum, were subject to challenges on both the trial court and appellate levels. Both sides briefed the court, and judge and the appeals court panel ruled on the merits of their arguments. These are what as generally known as “adversarial proceedings,” much as Shipler claims never occurred. It’s not clear exactly then what Shipler was expecting. An entirely separate trial over the Explanatory Memorandum? With his own damning acknowledgement of these defense team challenges, we can only conclude that he’s being duplicitous, or really, really thick.

But that’s not all. During the trial one of the investigators in the Holy Land case, FBI Special Agent Lara Burns, twice mentioned the Explanatory Memorandum (trial transcript 09/28/2008 at p. 21, 10/07/2008 at p. 71).

Read more at PJ Media

Also see:

Taxpayers Made To Pay For Islamic Indoctrination In US University

Hatem Bazian

Hatem Bazian

By Lee Kaplan Contributor to, May 4, 2015:

Hatem Bazian is a senior lecturer in Near East Studies at UC Berkeley. A Palestinian Arab, Bazian is also a supporter of Hamas and one of the terrorist group’s apparatchiks in the United States. Bazian was the founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine which has chapters on over 80 campuses in the United States and that operates as a Hamas support network in the United States. Bazian also co-founded American Muslims for Palestine which also links to Hamas and functions as a propaganda and fundraising mechanism to Hamas in Washington and is active with the Muslim Students Association on over 150 campuses in the United States and Canada. As an organizer, Bazian is tough to equal and he has used the California college educational system and its taxpayer-funded deep pockets to help facilitate massive propaganda events and fundraising not only for the Palestinian terrorist group, but for pro-jihadist groups across American campuses and Europe as well.

It is through his bully pulpit at UC Berkeley that Bazian also created his Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project at UC Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender Project. Racism and Sexism are hot topics on college campuses today. The fact that Islam is not a race, nor is a concept of Palestinian nationalism one, both of theories are being sold by Bazian and his acolytes in the university sphere worldwide. Thanks to UC Berkeley and surrounding colleges like San Francisco State (where Bazian did his undergraduate studies and led a Palestinian takeover of that campus as class president), Bazian’s campaign keeps gaining legitimacy as it aids the endless war against both the United States and Israel by militant Islamists including those who are fighting U.S. troops abroad.

A perusal of the websites for Baizan’s “documentation project” and the Center for Race and Gender events page at UC Berkeley reveals endless programs, lectures, events and other promotions dealing with alleged prejudice against all Muslims and “Islam” in America as endemic racism. On May 7th, the Center offers a book signing and lecture by a colleague of Bazian’s at Cal who claims American racism is the result of a refusal to establish a Palestinian state that would be led by notorious terrorists who support America’s and Israel’s downfall, such as Hamas.

“Islamophobia” refers to an irrational fear of Islam. It is supposedly to counter this irrational fear that Bazian staged April 23-25, 2015 his sixth annual “International Conference on Islamophobia: The State of the Islamophobia Field.” As done last year, the event was staged at UC Berkeley’s prestigious Boalt Hall Law School. Aside from providing a free venue at a distinguished law school, the event gets the entire imprimatur of one of the most distinguished universities in America. Other “sponsors” of the event included the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), who members of congress and terrorism experts have declared a Hamas front group in America. The “Ethnic Studies” department at San Francisco State was also a sponsor, a professor of “Resistance Studies” named Rebab Abdulhadi in attendance and one of the conference lecturers who had gained notoriety by spending $6,000 of California taxpayer’s money for a sabbatical to visit female terrorist Leila Khaled in jail in Jordan to “show solidarity.” It should also be noted Hatem Bazian posted personally the conference’s schedule on the website of Bay Area Intifada, a blog that claims to promote “News, Updates, Analysis & Action Alerts for 3rd World Liberation & Decolonization from the Bay Area & Beyond.” An Intifada refers to Palestinian terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of Israeli civilians. The blog features photos attacking Israel and the United States.

I attended this latest conference with a video camera and tape recorder. I did the same thing last year and sat almost next to Hatem Bazian the entire time. Bazian was very cocky back then during last year’s event and joked about my having recorders. I wrote an article about that event. Only last March, Bazian staged yet another “Islamophobia” conference where he claimed Muslims were being denied a voice for their “studies” in the American university system despite his constant conferences and demonstrations to the contrary that I previously reported on and recorded.

Things were to be different at this conference. Bazian had me watched closely. On the second day, he approached me in the audience and told me I had to turn off my recorders. On two more occasions during that day, two goons came to my seat and ordered me to turn off my recording equipment , the last one threatening to “call the police.” It is against state law in California universities to hold private meetings and prevent recordings and a quick cell call to the Chancellor’s Office who contacted the campus police prevented any problems. I noted this occurred after one of the attendees during a question and answer period addressed the current panel and asked to discuss how the “Zionists” (Jews) were responsible for contributing to Islamophobia in America and how a Jewish organization was sending people to Israel to learn public relations that could be deemed as contributing to Islamophobia and how the New York police department was being propagandized by Jews.

From the get go, the accusation that criticism of Islam was racism was a central theme of the entire conference. Discrimination of women was also frequently discussed, but never in the context of Islamic exclusion of women or issues such as honor killings.

Bazian kicked things off accusing certain reporters and writers of contributing to Islamophobia. He dropped the names of Steve Emerson, Frank Gaffney and Ayan Hisri Ali, Brigette Gabriel and Pamela Geller as well as Fox News as being responsible for what he claimed was a smearing Islam to the public. Ayan Hirsi Ali’s speeches on discriminatory practices against women were all branded as “lies.” All the opening panels suggested that Islam is in no way linked to terrorism and it is the misrepresentation by such “Islamophobes” and it is racism to suggest so. What struck me was that as the conference progressed over three days it became more like a meeting of the German-American Bund in support of the Third Reich before the Second World War.

Baizan and company discussed only fleetingly the attack on 9/11 and how the Patriot Act supposedly had a deleterious effect on Muslims in America. But there was no logic to this. The fact is, the day after 9/11 the President and the US government declared that Islam is a peaceful religion and that the US was not at war with Islam itself, only militant Islamists and terrorists. This is still the US government’s position, yet the “academics” at this conference chose to suggest that any opposition to terrorism at all was just another manifestation of “Islamophobia.”

Of interest also was that Islam was not defined as a major religion, or idea, with different sects at this conference . What about Wahhabism? Or Sufi Islam, Shiism or Sunni Islam? None of these differences were discussed or explained, nor the fact that different sects of Islam sometimes fight wars between themselves. The entire conference was a “them v. us” event where any criticism or negative discussion of Islam was branded “Islamophobia,” particularly in the US or Western Europe. Terrorism wasn’t discussed at all unless to accuse the US and West of terrorism, or of false accusations against all Muslims, and no mention was given of terrorism where Muslims killed other Muslims. ISIS was not discussed at all. The Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris were mentioned, but not in terms of their relationship to Islam as much as something westerners brought upon themselves.

Almost fifty presentations were made as examples of Islamophobia from presenters from across the United States and some even from Europe. But not all were academics or college professors or PhD candidates. Some, like Ramah Kudaimi from the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, which is the renamed International Solidarity Movement in the US, another pro-Hamas organization whose activists devote their full-time calling for the destruction of Israel and who support terrorist groups, promoted what she called the Adab, or Muslim-American etiquette to promote Islamic activism against the West and American support for Israel. Sana Saeed, a producer for Al Jazeera, the television network funded by Qatar, a Hamas funder, lectured on “The New American Muslim and Faithwashing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” in which she called for Muslims to meet their obligations to call for the continued attacks on Israel rather than outlining Islamophobia in the US. Bazian followed where he lectured on “How does it feel to be a Muslim? Thinking through the present colonial perspective. His speech was hardly an example of Islamophobia as much as an adversarial approach by Muslims in America to be at odds with the US government and those fighting militant Islam.

Read more with video

The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV: Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews


Frontpage, April 15, 2015 by Jeffrey Herf:

To order David Horowitz’s “The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV:  Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews,” click here.

In this spirited and savvy collection of recent essays and speeches, David Horowitz argues that progressives, that is, left of center politicians, journalists and intellectuals have contributed to “undermining the defense of Western civilization against the totalitarian forces determined to destroy it.” Specifically, the threat comes from “the holy war or jihad waged by totalitarian Islamists in their quest for a global empire.” (p.1) These essays, many of which are lectures at university campuses or reports about those lectures, will reinforce the views of those who already agree that “Western civilization” is a good thing, that Islamism is a form of totalitarianism and that its Jihad is quest for a “global empire.” They may not convince those who think Western civilization is another name for racism, imperialism and war, that totalitarianism is an ideological relic of the Cold War and that an otherwise peaceful and tolerant Islam has been “hijacked” by violent extremists who misconstrue its texts and their meanings. Yet they may strike a nerve with those liberals who think it is absurd to deny the clear links between Islamism and terror and who, especially after the murders in Paris in January, understand that Islamism is a threat to the liberal traditions of Western politics and culture.

This volume addresses a by now much discussed paradox of our political and intellectual life. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, the liberal intellectual Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism made the compelling case that the Islamist ideology that inspired the Al Qaeda terrorists emerged from a profoundly reactionary set of ideas which had lineages to Nazism and fascism. In Germany, Matthias Kuentzel, in his Jihad and Jew-Hatred:  Nazism, Islamism and the Roots of 9/11 examined in more detail the illiberal views of the 9/11 terrorists as well as the political and ideological connections between Islamism and Nazism. A number of us historians have documented those connections. The irony of the years since 2001, and especially of the Obama years, is that, with some exceptions, much of the sharpest criticism of the reactionary nature of Islamism and defense of classically liberal values has not come from the historic home of anti-fascism among leftists and liberals. Rather, as the 55, mostly short essays in this collection indicate, that critique has migrated to centrists and conservatives or those who are now called conservatives.

“Islamophobia,” the longest essay in the collection is co-written with Robert Spencer, also importantly draws attention to the international connections of Islamist organizations in the United States. The authors write that “the purpose of inserting the term ‘phobia’ is to suggest that any fear associated with Islam is irrational” and thus to discredit arguments that suggest a connection between Islamism and terror as themselves forms of bigotry. Horowitz and Spencer connect this criticism of the concept to discussion of the organizational connections between the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, the FBI seized the Northern Virginia headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation, then the largest Islamic “charity” in the United States. In a trial in 2007 that led to the conviction of the Foundation’s leaders on charges of supporting a terrorist organization, the prosecution entered a seized a remarkable document entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”(18)  The group’s goal was the establishment of “an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslim causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at directing and unifying Muslim’s efforts, presents Islam as a civilizational alternative, and supports the global Islam state wherever it is.”  Muslims, it continued “must understand their work in American 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 Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Horowitz and Spencer perform an important service in drawing attention to this document and to the political campaign that it has inspired.

The memo called for the creation of front organizations including the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, and the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Islamic Association for Palestine and the parent group of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR. Another front group identified in the Holy Land memo was the International Institute for Islamic Thought, said to have invented the term “Islamophobia.”  Horowitz and Spencer’s discussion of CAIR’s “Islamophobia campaign” is particularly interesting. In the Holy Land case, the US Department of Justice named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator and produced evidence that it has received $500,000 dollars from the Holy Land Foundation to set itself up.  CAIR was created in 1994 as a spinoff of a Hamas front group, the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that the US government shut down in 2005 for funding terrorism. CAIR has defined Islamophobia as “closed minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims” and has described anti-terror measures adopted by the US government as forms of “prejudice” and “hatred.” The authors argue that the use of such terms has been an effective instrument in blunting or stifling criticism of Islamism.

On American university and college campuses, the Muslim Students Association and “Students for Justice in Palestine” have sponsored “Israel Apartheid Weeks.” In recent years, the MSA has been particularly active at the campuses of the University of California in Davis, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles in the anti-Islamophobia campaigns. Remarkably, such efforts have received support from coalitions of leftwing student groups active in student governments. The authors write that “perhaps the chief asset possessed by the jihadists is a coalition of non-Muslims-European and American progressives—who support the anti-Islamophobia campaign,” one that “had a venerable antecedent in the support that progressives provided to Soviet totalitarians during the Cold War.” (p.48) Again, the remarkable aspect of the current coalitions between Islamists and leftists was that these leftists were making common cause with organizations famous for anti-Semitism, subordination of women to second class status or worse and deep religious conviction, a set of beliefs at odds with some of the classic values of the radical left in the twentieth century. Then again, in view of the anti-Zionist campaigns of the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War and the hostility of the global radical left to Israel in recent decades, such “Red-Green” leftist-Islamist coalitions of recent years are not so surprising.

Horowitz sees a parallel between the “secular messianic movements like communism, socialism and progressivism” and the religious creeds they replaced. “It is not surprising therefore, that the chief sponsors of the blasphemy laws and the attitudes associated with them have been movements associated with the political left. It is no accident that the movement to outlaw Islamophobia should be deeply indebted to the secular left and its campaign to stigmatize its opponents by indiscriminately applying repugnant terms to them like ‘racist.’”  The invention and application of the concept of Islamophobia “is the first step in outlawing freedom of speech, and therefore freedom itself, in the name of religious tolerance.”(55)

The remainder of this volume elaborates on these themes with twenty essays on Islamo-fascism, thirteen on the Middle East Conflict and eleven on “the Campus War against the Jews.” Horowitz’ reports on his many speeches at various campuses where some of the above mentioned Islamic organizations turn up to protest. There the front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, especially the Muslim Students Association, emerged to challenge his arguments about the links between Islamism and fascism. Two essays are particularly important—and depressing. In “Suicidal Jews” and “”Hillel”s Coalitions with Israel’s Enemies,” Horowitz describes instances in which liberal and left-leaning Jewish undergraduates turn their criticism towards him rather than towards the anti-Israeli activists on campus.

This fourth volume of Horowitz’s essays depicts the bizarre nature of our contemporary political culture in which leftists make common cause with Islamists, Israel is denounced as a racist entity while the anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brothers, Hamas and the government of Iran are non-issues for leftists, and the United States government refuses to state the obvious about the connection between Islamist ideology and the practice of terrorism. The defense of liberal principles has liberal advocates but as this valuable collection indicates the core of the defense has become a preoccupation of the center and right of American intellectual and political life. This volume is an important document of that endeavor.

Jeffrey Herf, Distinguished University Professor, Department of History, University of Maryland, College Park. His most recent book is Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World. His work in progress is entitled “At War with Israel: East Germany and the West German Radical Left, 1967-1989.”