Inside Jihad

taw

Frontpage, by Danusha V. Goska, August 24, 2015:

Here’s my four-sentence review of Dr. Tawfik Hamid’s new book Inside Jihad: How Radical Islam Works; Why It Should Terrify Us; How to Defeat It. Buy this book. Read this book. Refer to this book. Share this book.

I’ve read and reviewed counter-jihad classics by bestselling experts including Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bernard Lewis, Andrew Bostom, Wafa Sultan, Brigitte Gabriel, Mosab Hassan Yousef, and Phyllis Chesler. I think highly of each. This is how good Inside Jihad is. If someone said to me, “I want to read just one book about jihad.” I’d give that reader Dr. Hamid’s book.

Inside Jihad is brief. Hamid’s style is direct and fast-paced. He says what he needs to say without sensationalism, emotionality, literary ambition, or apologies. He pulls no punches.

Tawfik Hamid was born and raised in Egypt, the most populous Middle Eastern country. He was raised Muslim. Hamid’s mother was a teacher; his father, a surgeon and a private atheist who taught him to respect Christians and Jews. The family observed the Ramadan fast but had little other religious observance. Arabic is his first language and he has studied the Koran in the original Arabic. From 1979-82, he was a member of Jamaa Islamiya, a terrorist group. He met Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaeda.

Hamid grew up under Gamal Abdel Nasser’s pan-Arab socialism. Nasser wanted to modernize Egypt. He suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood, executed one of its leaders, Sayyid Qutb, and curtailed travel to and from Saudi Arabia, fearing Wahhabi influence.

The 1973 Oil Embargo sparked a revival of Islam. Muslims concluded that Allah rewarded Saudi Arabia for the Saudis’ strict religious observance. Allah’s reward was the Saudi ability to humble the United States.

Islamization in Egypt “started mildly enough.” Hamid warns the reader to pay careful attention to slow Islamization. He says that the same methods that were used in Egypt are now being used in the West. “The more we surrender” he warns “the more Islamists will demand.”

The camel’s nose under the tent was something few could object to: individual prayer. Previously, if an employee interrupted his workday to perform one of Islam’s mandated five daily prayers, it was perceived as bizarre. Now it was admirable.

Another straw in the wind: the hijab. In school photos taken before the 1970s, many Egyptian girls are without hijab. After America’s humbling in the oil shock, more and more girls began to wear hijab. Men stopped wearing gold wedding bands; gold was deemed “un Islamic” for men. More toxic Islamizations, including Jew-hatred, followed. Imams preached that Jews are monkeys and pigs and that they poisoned Mohammed.

Islamization on campus also began in an innocuous way: Islamists used the moments before class began to talk about Islam. One day, the Christian professor of one class said that it was time for discussion of Islam to stop and the academic hour to begin. The Islamists called the professor an infidel and broke his arm. “The Christian students were terrified,” Hamid reports.

“I remember the first time I looked at a Christian with disdain,” Hamid reminisces. He was reading a required textbook. The book told him that Mohammed said, “I have been instructed by Allah to declare war and fight all mankind until they say ‘No God except Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah.'” Hamid, who had previously had Christian friends, turned to a Christian student and said, “If we applied Islam correctly, we should be doing this to you.”

Jamaa Islamiya actively recruited medical students like Hamid. It took six months for Hamid to become “sufficiently indoctrinated.”

Hamid details several lures that recruiters used to bring young people into their movement:

  • fear of hell,
  • a demonization of critical thinking,
  • a sense of superiority over non-Muslims,
  • suppression of any emotional life outside of Islamism,
  • suppression of sexual expression,
  • a promise of sex for jihadis,
  • and upholding of Mohammed as the perfect example, beyond criticism.

Author Don Richardson estimates that one in eight verses in the Koran mentions Hell. By contrast, the Old Testament mentions Hell once in every 774 verses, and it is never described as graphically as it is described in the Koran. Hamid quotes Islamists using many Koranic passages that vividly describe Hell to terrorize potential members: “garments of fire shall be cut out for them … burning water will be poured over their heads causing all that is within their bodies as well as the skins to melt away … they shall be held by iron grips; and every time they try in their anguish to come out of it, they shall be returned and told ‘Taste suffering through fire to the full!'” Infidels in Hell will eat thorns and drink scalding water as if they were “female camels raging with thirst and disease.” Their intestines will be cut to pieces.

Another method used to Islamize recruits was “al-fikr kufr” – “one becomes an infidel by thinking critically.”

Recruiters flattered recruits, telling them that they were superior to non-Muslims. “Take not Jews and Christians for friends,” they quoted from Koran 5:51. Jews are monkeys and pigs: Koran 5:60. Those who worship Jesus are infidels: Koran 5:17. Do not offer the greeting “As-salamu alaykum,” or “peace be with you,” to Christians or Jews; whenever you meet Christians or Jews in a road, force them to its narrowest alley: Sahih Muslim. Muslims who did not carry out jihad were also inferior.

Terror recruits’ emotional outlets were cut off. They were forbidden from creating or consuming music, dance, or visual art. They were discouraged from having sex, but lured with promises of great sex in paradise. The houris – dark-eyed virgins – are graphically described in Muslim literature as very soft, without complaint, and easily satisfied. Houris regain their virginity immediately after sex. Men are promised organs that never go limp. Mohammed, recruits were assured, could have sex with eleven women in an hour.

Finally, the example of Mohammed himself was not to be questioned. Mohammed married a six-year-old. He raped war captives, in one case immediately after decapitating the captive’s brother and father and after she had witnessed her mother being carried off also to be raped. Mohammed approved of the dismemberment of Um Kerfa, a poetess who criticized him. Mohammed is the “perfect example, worthy of emulation.” Muslims today must unquestioningly approve these behaviors.

Hamid’s fellow extremists were aware that Muslim countries were no longer in the cultural forefront. Islam had spread as far as Spain and India in only the first century after Mohammed’s death. Terror recruits believed that early Islam’s success was caused by strict adherence to Islamic doctrine. They believed that their strict observance could bring back Islam’s early dominance.

Some wonder how women could be recruited into a movement that keeps them in an inferior position in relation to men. Hamid clarifies: Muslimahs were told that they would be superior – to infidel women.

Hamid expounds uncompromisingly on the power and importance of hijab. He insists that when prominent Westerners such as Nancy Pelosi and Laura Bush travel to Muslim countries and wear hijab, they are making a grave error. Hijab is not “a neutral, or merely traditional, fashion statement.” Hijab’s purpose “is not modesty or to encourage observers to focus on a Muslim woman’s personality.” Hijab exists to proclaim “deep Islamic doctrinal connections to slavery and discrimination. Western women who cover themselves are unwittingly endorsing an inhumane system.” Hijab’s purpose, Hamid argues persuasively, is to create a society where superior free Muslimahs are visually distinct from inferior infidel slave women.

Islamists “despise women who did not wear hijab. We considered them vain … we believed they would burn in Hell.” Further, “the hijab serves to differentiate between slave girls and women who are considered free … it creates a feeling of superiority among the women who wear it.” The Koran promises that women who wear hijab will not be “molested.” Women without hijab are slaves and can be raped without guilt.

Australia’s foremost Muslim cleric restated this Islamist position in 2006. In Sydney, fourteen Muslim men gang-raped non-Muslim women. Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali said that it was the victims’ fault. “If you take out uncovered meat” and cats eat it, the cats are not to blame. Women possess “igraa,” “the weapon of enticement.”

Hamid emphasizes that hijab is both vanguard and emblem of Islamic supremacy. During their 1953 meeting, the first thing Sayyid Qutb asked Nasser to do was to force women to wear hijab. A YouTube video documents this conversation. In the video, Nasser is speaking to a large assembly. When he repeats Qutb’s demand, the crowd laughs. One wag shouts out, “Let him wear it!” Nasser points out that Qutb’s own daughter does not wear hijab. The crowd laughs even more, and bursts into applause. This video is at least fifty years old. It is a reminder that fifty years ago, countries like Egypt and Iran were modernizing. Women, in cities at least, could be seen in public in miniskirts and without hijab.

Hamid reports that the Muslim Brotherhood does not announce its end goal openly. “They pose as peacemakers … The Muslim Brotherhood will accept circumstances that offend their beliefs – temporarily – if doing so will advance their goals.” They will – temporarily – permit western dress for women and alcohol consumption. This is all part of taqiyya. The Muslim Brotherhood has a four stage plan: at first, merely preach. Then, move on to participation in public life. Next, consolidate power “while faking legitimacy.” Finally, enforce sharia.

A few turning points turned Hamid away from Islamism, for example, when a fellow terror recruit described his plot to bury alive an Egyptian police officer.

Hamid had been studying the Bible so that he could better debate Christians. Jesus’ words haunted him. “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” He asked himself, what profit to Islam if it subjugated the entire world but lost its soul? “Exposure to the Bible was crucial in helping me question the violent aspects of Salafist teaching.”

His medical studies also gave him pause. “I wondered if the divine DNA molecule was violent. Did it attempt to conquer the rest of the cell? Did it try to force other cellular components to behave like itself? It did not. Rather, it worked harmoniously within an organism to create and sustain life.”

The clincher for Hamid was “the existence of alternative forms of Islamic teaching.” Hamid met Muslims called “Quranics,” who reject the hadiths. The Quranics “stood against killing apostates, against stoning women for adultery, against killing gays. They viewed the Islamic Conquests as immoral and senseless.” The Quranics “allowed me to think critically.” “If this alternative sect had not been available, it would have been much more difficult for me to resist jihadism.”

Read more

UTT Trains Hundreds in Colorado Despite Efforts by Hamas

cair-hamas-logoBy John Guandolo, August 20, 2015:

Understanding the Threat (UTT) spent last week in Colorado speaking to large groups of citizens, elected officials, law enforcement, and others despite a strong push by Hamas (doing business as “CAIR” – the Council on American Islamic Relations).

Hamas (dba CAIR) sent emails to a large number of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs calling for them to avoid any of UTT’s training programs, and published an article calling UTT’s Founder John Guandolo an “Islamophobe” which is equivalent to a public condemnation for violating the Islamic Law of Slander (to say anything about Islam or Muslims they would dislike), which is a capital crime in Islam.

Calls and emails to the FBI by UTT concerning these threats continue to be ignored.

Despite Hamas’ best efforts, UTT was able to make significant headway in Colorado and share factual information about the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in America which consists of the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. including: Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and all of its subsidiary Islamic Societies; Muslim Student Associations (MSA) which exist on every major college and university campus; Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) which drives a great deal of the Interfaith Outreach programs in America and propagates a false narrative about Islam; Muslim American Society (MAS); International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT); Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Americans for Palestine (AFP) a Hamas front now operating on many college campuses; Islamic Shura Council; Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA);  Council on Islamic Education (CIE); North American Imams Federation; most of the over 2100 Islamic Centers in the U.S. today; and many other Islamic organizations.

Facts already in evidence in the largest terrorism trials in American history identify CAIR as the 4th organization created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas here.  Members of Congress, the Department of Justice, and over 20 years of evidence make clear CAIR is operating as a terrorist organization (Hamas) in America with their headquarters office only a block from Congressional offices on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

While Hamas/CAIR continue to publicly threaten UTT founder John Guandolo and personally attack him, UTT continues to present evidence CAIR is a Hamas entity and it and its leaders should be treated as such.

Amnesty Senior Leader Under Fire for Muslim Brotherhood Ties

20150818_yasminhusseinCenter for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, August 18, 2015:

Media is reporting that Amnesty International’s Director of Faith and Human Rights  Yasmin Hussein is facing public scrutiny for close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood:

A senior employee of Amnesty International has undeclared private links to men alleged to be key players in a secretive network of global Islamists, The Times can reveal. The charity was unaware that the husband of its director of faith and human rights featured in documents released after a criminal trial at which connections were revealed between British supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and Arab Islamists accused of plotting to overthrow a Gulf state.

Hussein’s husband Wael Musabbeh’s name appeared among documents submitted during the 2013 U.A.E. trial against suspect Muslim Brotherhood conspirators reportedly engaged in fomenting revolution against the Emirates. Those arrests would kick off a series of confrontations between the U.A.E. and Egypt on the one hand, and Qatar, which backs the Muslim Brotherhood on the other. Subsequently, the U.A.E designated the Brotherhood, and a host of its international affiliates, including those in the United States, as terrorist organizations. Amnesty International weighed in against the U.A.E, repeatedly condemning it for its prosecution of Muslim Brotherhood-linked figures. Amnesty now claims it was unaware Hussein’s husband had a tie to the case because it didn’t know the two were married.  Musabbeh is the director of the Human Relief Foundation (HRF), a UK-based charity and member of the Hamas finance network known as the Union of the Good. Steve Merly in a NEFA Foundation report indicated how HRF had multiple donor organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., Ireland, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

But Amnesty ought to have known that Hussein was formerly employed with Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), itself an Islamic charity with known ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. As the Center for Security Policy has previously reported:

In 1999, the IRW accepted a $50,000 check from Osama Bin Laden. In 2006, Israel arrested its project coordinator in its Gaza office, Iyaz Ali, for funneling money to Hamas. In November 2012, the British Bank UBS closed the IRW’s account and blocked its customers from donating to the charity. In June 2014, Israel officially declared the organization to be illegal and banned it from operating in Israel and the Palestinian territories due to its financing of Hamas. In November 2014, the United Arab Emirates declared the IRW to be a terrorist group.

Amnesty International’s slant towards Pro-Muslim Brotherhood, Pro-Hamas, and even pro-Taliban positions has become increasingly apparent over the years. If the organization hopes to have any chance of restoring credibility it will need to take drastic action to terminate any employees found to be close to the Muslim Brotherhood, and to conduct an audit and review of all of the materials which they wrote or oversaw during their tenure for evidence of bias.

But the organization’s track record of resistance to outside scrutiny suggests that’s unlikely to happen.

How Obama and Hillary made the Arab world safe for radical Islam

20150310_obamahillaryclinton2014Family Security Matters, by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD, August 13, 2015:

Far from being “spontaneous” and “indigenous,” the uprisings known as the “Arab Spring” that swept North Africa and the Middle East were long planned and planned from abroad with the Muslim Brotherhood’s role hidden in plain sight.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Sunni Islamist religious, political and social movement.  According to Lawrence Wright in his book “The Looming Tower,” its founder Hassan al-Banna “rejected the Western model of secular, democratic government, which contradicted his notion of universal Islamic rule.” The fundamental goal of the Muslim Brotherhood remains Islam’s global domination, an effort that quickly turned violent and eventually spread to over eighty other nations. For example, one Muslim Brotherhood splinter group was responsible for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for his peace treaty with Israel and another offshoot is the terrorist organization Hamas.

Barack Obama clearly supports the Muslim Brotherhood as a so-called “moderate” alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State, and a vehicle for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, as outlined in the secret 2011 directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11.

In addition to a wide-spread infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton’s longest serving assistant, Huma Abedin, has enjoyed an intensely close relationship with the Brotherhood for decades. Her father, Zyed Abedin, served as editor of an anti-Semitic journal funded by an Islamist; her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, replaced him as editor in 1993 when he died. As editor, Saleha has promoted the Muslim Brotherhood violent jihad and the “right” of women to be repressed under sharia.

Therein rests the motivation for the policies formulated and actions taken by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Egypt, Libya and Syria, all of which led to the growth of radical Islam in North Africa and the Middle East.

In terms of US foreign policy and national security, the role of Hillary Clinton in the Libyan fiasco was as reckless as it was cataclysmic.

Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, claiming erroneously that Gadhafi was about to engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the Islamist rebels held their center of power.

Even Obama bowed to her leadership on the issue, privately informing members of Congress that Libya “is all Secretary Clinton’s matter.”

Yet according to Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell of the Washington Times:

“Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress [Dennis Kucinich] so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.”

The Pentagon liaison to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son, Seif, indicated that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it.”

Despite these concerns, the Obama Administration, on March 17, 2011, supported U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 for military intervention in Libya. On that day Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call from Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution. A day later, on March 18, 2011, Gadhafi himself called for a cease-fire, another action the administration dismissed.

In released, but redacted emails, Clinton expressed interest in arming Libyan opposition groups using private security contractors, though at the time, the opposition was not formally recognized by the U.S. or United Nations, which prohibited arming without following strict guidelines and oversight. In an April 8, 2011 email to her then-deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, Clinton wrote: “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” attaching an intelligence report from adviser Sidney Blumenthal, her preferred source of intelligence.

It now appears probable that, in 2011, at Clinton’s urging, Obama secretly approved the arming of rebels in Libya and Syria via a third party, likely Qatar, the only Arab nation at the time that recognized the rebel government and brokered the sale of more than $100 million in crude oil from rebel-held areas.

Many of those weapons would ultimately be destined for Syria.

Through shipping records, Fox News confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, 2012, five days before the Benghazi terrorist attack. The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS, all believed destined for Syrian rebel groups.

Both Obama and Clinton had a vested interest in lying about Benghazi and permanently concealing the truth; Obama to ensure his reelection prospects in 2012 and Hillary to protect hers for 2016. It is significant, however, that Clinton was the most aggressive administration official promoting the arming of the Libyan Islamists and the first to associate the video with the Benghazi attack (see timeline) as well as its most vigorous and persistent advocate.

A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report presented in August 2012 and declassified in May 2015, stated that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” being supported by “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey.”

An article published a year earlier, on June 21, 2014, noted:

“The present Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq was fueled by American abdication of a foreign policy in Syria, where we sub-contracted our interests to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Instead of dealing directly with the moderate Free Syrian Army, we outsourced the funding and arming responsibilities.

They then pursued their own interests; the Saudis supporting radical Islamic Salafis, while the Turks and Qataris backed the Muslim Brotherhood, all of which was at least partially meant to counter growing Iranian influences in the region, but complicating America’s anti-terrorism efforts.”

An interview with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the DIA, given to Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, confirms earlier suspicions that Washington was monitoring jihadist groups emerging as an opposition in Syria. General Flynn dismissed Al Jazeera’s supposition that the US administration “turned a blind eye” to the DIA’s analysis, stating: “I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.”

The disintegration of Libya and the rise of ISIS can rightfully be placed at the doorsteps of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

History will prove that it was not just incompetence, but criminal negligence in the conduct of foreign policy and the safeguarding of American lives.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

See also:

Egypt’s Christians in the Shadow of the Muslim Brotherhood

Christian Coptic Priest Father Samuel reacts as he stands  inside the burned and heavily damaged St. Mousa church in Minya, Egypt . Dozens of churches were burned as well as businesses and homes during a surge of violence against Egypt's Christian minority after security forces raided two Islamist protest sit in camps on August 14.(Photo by Heidi Levine/Sipa Press)./LEVINE_1327.21/Credit:LEVINE/SIPA/1308301358

Christian Coptic Priest Father Samuel reacts as he stands inside the burned and heavily damaged St. Mousa church in Minya, Egypt . Dozens of churches were burned as well as businesses and homes during a surge of violence against Egypt’s Christian minority after security forces raided two Islamist protest sit in camps on August 14.(Photo by Heidi Levine/Sipa Press)./LEVINE_1327.21/Credit:LEVINE/SIPA/1308301358

Washington Free Beacon, by Daniel Bassali, Aug. 11, 2015:

In the nearly five years of turmoil that have followed the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011, no group in Egypt has suffered more than the 15 million Coptic Christians. Both a religious and ethnic minority, the Copts are descended from the native population of Egypt who lived and ruled there from the time of the pharaohs until the Roman conquest in 31 B.C. They are the largest Christian community in the Middle East today.

Copts have long been the target of discrimination and persecution in the majority-Arab nation. But this ancient people faced a terrifying new prospect in 2012: Muslim Brotherhood rule.

After Mubarak was ousted, the violence began almost immediately. Churches and schools were burned; peaceful protestors were massacred. When parliamentary elections were held nine months later, they were swept by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties. When Mohamed Morsi won the presidential election in May 2012, the party’s victory looked complete. The same year, Morsi gave himself unlimited powers and the party drafted a new constitution inspired by Sharia law.

Morsi benefitted from the organizational advantage of the Muslim Brotherhood. Backed by imams preaching the benefits of religious rule, the previously banned political party was able to defeat the fractured coalitions of the pro-West, liberal, and secular candidates.

“They used thugs to carry out political intimidation against Christians,” a former member of Egyptian Parliament told the Washington Free Beacon. Chants celebrating the Brotherhood victory echoed through the streets of Cairo. “Morsi won! Copts out!”

FILE - In this May 8, 2014 file photo, Egypt's ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi sits in a defendant cage in the Police Academy courthouse in Cairo, Egypt. An Egyptian court sentenced ousted President Mohammed Morsi to death, Saturday, May 16, 2015,  over  a 2011 mass prison break.. (AP Photo/Tarek el-Gabbas, File)

FILE – In this May 8, 2014 file photo, Egypt’s ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi sits in a defendant cage in the Police Academy courthouse in Cairo, Egypt. An Egyptian court sentenced ousted President Mohammed Morsi to death, Saturday, May 16, 2015, over a 2011 mass prison break.. (AP Photo/Tarek el-Gabbas, File)

During Morsi’s rule, Christians were murdered and tortured by the hundreds. Attacks and abductions of Christian children spiked significantly. “Most Americans do not know how vicious and bloody the Muslim Brotherhood is,” Ahmed, a 24-year old secular Muslim, said. “They really can’t understand.”

Pope Tawadros II, Egypt’s Coptic Christian leader, criticized Morsi for negligence after six Christians were killed when police and armed civilians besieged Egypt’s largest cathedral. “We want actions, not words,” the Pope said.

Public accusations of blasphemy also became ubiquitous. A Facebook post interpreted as undermining Islam could bring a mob of fundamentalists with rocks and Molotov cocktails to the homes of Christians, surrounding them with families trapped inside. Sham trials with no legal representation would follow. Anti-Christian terrorism was not punished, but the wrong words often landed Copts in prison, forcing the church to make public apologies and families to leave their towns and villages.

Lydia, an activist who provides relief supplies to torn Christian communities in Upper Egypt, and who requested that only her first name be used to preserve her safety and that of her colleagues, witnessed the Muslim Brotherhood offer the very poorest Egyptians social services that bought their allegiance. “When you have no food or money, you will listen to anyone who gives you the resources your family desperately needs,” Lydia said. “They brainwash the illiterate with extremism so they hurt Christians.”

Still, Morsi’s authoritarian rule—rewriting the constitution, disbanding the Egyptian parliament, tossing potentially obstructive judges into jail—was not long lived. Barely a year after he assumed office, a reported 35 million citizens took to the streets to protest his rule, leading the Egyptian military, under Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, to remove him from power in July 2013.

Egypt’s ousted President Mohammed Morsi protest at the presidential palace in Cairo, Egypt, Friday, July 26, 2013 / AP

Egypt’s ousted President Mohammed Morsi protest at the presidential palace in Cairo, Egypt, Friday, July 26, 2013 / AP

Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.) told the Free Beacon that had al-Sisi not responded, the promise of Egyptian Democracy would have died. “What it seemed the Egyptian people wanted was more opportunity to be able have some sort of functioning democracy, elections, input into their own government,” Lankford said. “It was the immediate understanding as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood was elected, that was the last election Egypt would have.”

In 2014, al-Sisi was elected Egypt’s new president. He won a solid electoral victory, giving him control of the Egyptian government with the responsibilities of forming a new constitution, a new parliament, and a new judicial system. The Coptic Church fervently supported al-Sisi’s candidacy because the new president promised Copts equality in citizenship, security in their communities, and the ability to build places of worship.

The new Egyptian president challenged the leaders of the Islamic world to push a more moderate message. In December 2014, hundreds of Christian and Muslim theologians gathered at al-Azhar, Egypt’s leading mosque and religious university, participated in a conference to fight “jihad” and promote inclusion. Al-Sisi ambitiously called for a “religious revolution” in January 2015, saying that clerics bear responsibility for the growing extremism in the Middle East.

As president, al-Sisi took many symbolic steps to integrate the Coptic community with the majority Sunni population. In a surprise to most Egyptians, al-Sisi attended a mass at Saint Mark Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo on Christmas Eve, a first for any Egyptian president. Al-Sisi regularly invites Pope Tawadros II to appear beside him when he announces major policy rollouts or requests public dialogue from senior advisers.

Al-Sisi also appointed two Copts as members of his cabinet. Under the constitution, the president of Egypt has the power to select 10 members of parliament. Political observers believe he will select Copts to fill a majority of those appointed seats to offer a more representative parliament.

“Our lives haven’t changed much but one positive result of the revolution is the Egyptian people have politically woken up,” said Hala, a Mubarak-era government official who also wished to be identified by her first name only because she fears political retribution. “We no longer accept what we are told. Egyptians are at least aware of the government’s actions and they are more aware of the troubles Copts face.”

But while al-Sisi’s administration provides a welcome change of tone toward the Coptic community, the day-to-day lives of Copts remain little changed from the Mubarak days.

Read more

Also see:

The Huffington Post’s New Arabic Venture: Led By ‘Hard-Line’ Islamists

Screen-Shot-2015-08-11-at-11.15.33-AM-640x480Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Aug. 11, 2015:

The two men leading Huffington Post’s new Arabic-language site have in the past been accused of having direct involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood and radical clerics; and one has openly expressed conspiratorial views that have been interpreted as having an anti-Semitic connotation.

Screen-Shot-2015-08-10-at-1.58.57-PM

Anas Fouda, an Egyptian native now living in Muslim Brotherhood-friendly Turkey, is the new editor-in-chief of HuffPost Arabi. He was arrested by UAE authorities in 2013 after being charged with being a leader in the Islamist group, according to a NOW Lebanon, which linked to an article in which Fouda allegedly admitted that he has been a member of the Brotherhood since 1988. Prior to becoming the Huffington Post Arabic editor, Fouda was an executive producer at Al Jazeera Arabic, a network accused of having rabidly pro-Brotherhood biases.

After examining his past statements, NOW Lebanon writer Alex Rowell described Fouda as “bread and butter MB; recommending for instance, articles praising” Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is considered the spiritual leader of the Islamist group. Qaradawi has in the past praised Nazi leader Adolf Hitler as someone “sent by Allah” to “punish” the Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood kingpin’s arrest is now being sought by INTERPOL, the international counter-terror organization.

Famous Muslim Brotherhood alumni include a plethora of international terrorists, including Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and deceased Al Qaeda mastermindOsama bin Laden.

Many Muslim Brotherhood members also happen to be anti-Semites, due to the jihadist group’s founding political ideology, which calls for particular hostility towards Jews. TheHuffington Post Arabic editor-in-chief is no exception to the commonly-found parallel.

Fouda tweeted last July, “Only after the latest Israeli aggression on Gaza did I realize the number of Egyptian Jews has increased greatly since the coup.” The Tweet is stilldisplayed in Fouda’s Twitter feed.

fouda

The Huffington Post’s Arabic venture was created after the left-wing news network teamed up with Integral Media Strategies, an organization led by Wadah Khanfar, who was previously employed as Al Jazeera Arabic’s managing director. Khanfar, like Fouda, has been arrested by an Arab government (Jordan) on suspicion that he was a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood terror group. Additionally, Zvi Mazel, the former Israeli Ambassador to Egypt, has in the past noted with certainty that “Wadah Khanfar is a Muslim Brother,” and that the former Al Jazeera chief turned the network into a “weapon in the service of” the Muslim Brotherhood.

Khanfar was known to “work closely” with al-Qaradawi and the Qatari government, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has reported. Under Khanfar’s control, Al Jazeera Arabic’s coverage shifted towards “encouraging opposition and promoting incitement against Arab regimes, exposing the corruption of their leaders and their entourage, while holding to an extreme Arab nationalist attitude against the US and Israel and extolling the values of conservative – and sometimes extremist – Islam,” the research institute found.

Hafez al-Mirazi, who previously served as Al Jazeera’s Washington bureau chief before resigning in protest of the network’s biased coverage, said of Khanfar: “From the first day of the Wadah Khanfar era, there was a dramatic change, especially because of him selecting assistants who are hard-line Islamists.”

Another former employee told The Nation that under Khanfar’s rule, “The liberals, the secular types, the Arab nationalists are getting downsized and the Islamic position is dominating the newsroom.”

And reports have documented that under its new leadership, Huffington Post Arabic is displaying the political ideology of those in charge of its editorial operations. In less than a month since its initial launch, Arianna Huffington’s new Arabic venture has shown a knack for showing hostility to LGBT people and women. Since its July launch, Huffington Post Arabic has failed to live up to its “progressive” and “liberal” values, some have observed. In one article, a contributor used a derogatory Arabic term to describe homosexuals.

In the piece, a columnist warned that the government is allowing “a press conference for gays in the heart of Cairo,” while using rhetoric typically applied by the Muslim brotherhood to highlight the supposed collusion between the government and secular forces against Islam in Egypt.

big pharoah

In a July 27th post, A HuffPoArabi columnist complained that “women need to stop playing the role of victim.”

On July 28, the site conducted a feature interview with a former spokesperson for the Egyptian Brotherhood.

And on Sunday, the site led with a piece concluding that the Brotherhood will retain its “peaceful” and “revolutionary approach” to fighting against the current government in Egypt. However, Egyptian officials beg to differ. Cairo’s current President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has described the Brotherhood as the “Godfather” of global terrorism, citing the group’s own ideology, which calls for Islam to dominate the world.

Also see:

Islamist Influence in Hollywood

2015_08_08_040335_d455913e-196d-4a67-9033-7e65be8d909cHuman Events, by Deborah Weiss, August 8, 2015:

Americans are clearly alarmed about Islamic terrorists who are encouraging and spreading violence across the globe, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as relentlessly threatening violence to the United States. So readers might be surprised to learn that organizations which sympathize and associate with jihadists are yielded a major say over what the film industry says about Islam and Muslims.

Hollywood, for instance, regularly capitulates to The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on how to portray Muslims, even though many in CAIR’s leadership are sympathetic to Islamic terrorists. As Steve Pomerantz, the FBI’s former Chief of Counterterrorism, has bluntly stated: “CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

CAIR’s connection to the Holy Land Foundation is central to this assessment. On May 27, 2009, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and five of its leaders on convictions of providing material support to Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group whose charter vows to obliterate the State of Israel through violence. CAIR was labeled an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the HLF trial, the largest terrorist financing trial in the history of the United States.

Additionally, several of CAIR’s former leaders are now in jail on terror-related convictions. Moreover, virtually all of CAIR’s leadership supports Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are United States – designated terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, CAIR is actively instructing Hollywood on how to depict Islam and Muslims.

Nihad Awad, Founding Member of CAIR and current Executive Director of CAIR National, boasts that he has successfully negotiated with Hollywood to combat “negative stereotypes of Muslims.” In a 2010 speech, Awad made the inaccurate claim that one Hollywood company created in the prior three decades 800 films that presented Muslims from “an Israeli point of view.” In fact, no Hollywood company can be found to have created that many films of any type.

Here are some examples of CAIR’s successes in Hollywood:

Paramount Pictures’ “Sum of All Fears” was based on a book by Tom Clancy and starred Ben Affleck. The original plot was about Muslim terrorists who shot down an Israeli jet flying over Syria, which was carrying nuclear weapons.

CAIR complained about “negative stereotyping of Muslims” and lobbied to get the script changed for two years prior to the film’s release. Eventually, the villains were altered from Muslim terrorists to Australian neo-Nazis.

Twentieth Century Fox produced “True Lies,” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jamie Lee Curtis, a movie about an Islamic terrorist and a spy with an unfaithful wife.

CAIR demanded a meeting with the producers. When it was declined, CAIR issued leaflets and held numerous activities protesting the film. Eventually, FOX made a disclaimer stating that the film is a work of fiction and doesn’t represent the actions or beliefs of any particular religion.

“Kingdom of Heaven,” also produced by Twentieth Century FOX, starred Liam Neeson and Orlando Bloom. It concerned the Crusades and the battle for Jerusalem.

To avoid problems, the producers gave CAIR a special pre-screening of the film and hired a Muslim consultant who is anti-Israel and believes America is a racist society. Accordingly, several scenes were cut prior to the film’s release. In the end, the movie was a skewed account of the Crusades, not only depicting the Christians as murderers and hypocrites, but the Muslims as morally superior.

CAIR-NY has gone so far as to demand that CBS stop airing all films, TV and radio shows on the subject of Islamic terrorism, whether fact or fiction, claiming that these “defame” Muslims. CAIR-NY argued that the shows cause discrimination and subject Muslim children to harassment. “Not Without My Daughter,” starring Sally Field, and several Chuck Norris movies were among the films that CAIR wanted off the air. To boycott all CBS radio and TV shows from both the CBS News and entertainment divisions as well as their advertisers, CAIR-NY started an online petition. Consequently, CBS changed the title of a Chuck Norris film, telling the Los Angeles Times in 2003 that in an upcoming film on terrorism it would remove all portrayals of Muslims.

“24 Hours” was a hit syndicated TV series produced for the FOX Channel. It was about a counter-terrorism agent who tried to thwart cyber, biological and chemical terrorist attacks. It won numerous awards, including a Golden Globe and an Emmy. It showed villains from a range of backgrounds, including German, Russian, American and Muslim.

After one episode which portrayed a Muslim family as part of a sleeper cell, CAIR met with FOX to complain. FOX capitulated, cutting additional scenes that presented Muslims negatively. FOX also issued a statement explaining that the show is fiction and assumes people can distinguish fiction from reality. FOX also allowed CAIR to air public service announcements of Muslims from different ethnicities, stating “I am an American Muslim”.

It’s important to understand that none of these films alleged all Muslims are terrorists. But CAIR wants no Muslims to be viewed in this light. And it’s obviously unconcerned with reciprocity, like discouraging the negative stereotyping of Jews that is rampant in the Arab media.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), founded by Muslim Brotherhood members, has condemned as a “crime” the Oslo accords in which the Palestine Liberation Organization agreed to recognize the State of Israel. Moreover, MPAC officially opposed the designation of both Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, giving Palestinian violence a pass, and repeatedly condemning Israel’s defense of itself against the onslaught of thousands of rockets launched from Gaza. According to MPAC, the greatest violence taking place in Gaza and the West Bank is Israeli “occupation” and its leadership has likened Israel to Nazi Germany.

Yet, MPAC has a Hollywood Bureau which indoctrinates film-makers on Islam and offers consultations for script approval. It also provides awards to those in Hollywood who depict Islam and Muslims in a positive light. Past winners have included Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore. The bureau also connects aspiring film makers, writers and actors with Hollywood professionals and provides Muslim youth with tips on how to succeed in business.

Both new media and traditional media, including Hollywood movies, influence young minds and help shape their worldviews. Instead of appeasing Islamist organizations, Hollywood should fight for classical liberal values, including free speech, artistic license and critical thinking. It should not be complicit with Islamist groups that aim to persuade America there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.

VIDEO: New Hampshire National Security Action Summit

2159545341

Center for Security Policy, July 30, 2015:

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION SUMMIT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FEATURED KEY LEADERS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES   –   NSAS-NH-Agenda-25July                         

Manchester, NH: On Saturday, July 25th, the Center for Security Policy, in partnership withFirst Principles and High Frontier, hosted The New Hampshire National Security Action Summit. A number of America’s most influential national security leaders addressed the current state of U.S. foreign and defense policies in an increasingly dangerous world. Its purpose was to ensure that the common defense receives the priority attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, at both the federal and state levels.

Specifically, the event covered four key topics of interest to both our nation and the state of New Hampshire:

  • The threat from Iran, shariah and the Global Jihad Movement
  • The hollowing-out of the U.S. military
  • The border insecurity and immigration crises
  • America’s electrical power grid and threats to critical infrastructure

 

    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
    • The Honorable “Steve” King, Congressman from the 4th District of Iowa

America’s Electric Power Grid and Threats to Critical Infrastructure

      • Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security
    • Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper, Chairman of High Frontier
    • George Baker, Professor Emeritus, James Madison University
    • Thomas S. Popik, Chairman, the Foundation for Resilient Societies, New Hampshire
    • Hon. Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas*
    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

Border and Immigration Insecurity

    • Phyllis Schlafly, Founder of Eagle Forum
    • Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations, Numbers USA
    • James Simpson, Economist, Author
    • Karen Testerman, President, First Principles
  • Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania, 2016 Presidential Candidate
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

America’s Military in Decline

    • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Retired)
    • Peter Huessy, President of GeoStrategic Analysis
    • Dan Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute
    • Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Testerman, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
    • Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, 2016 Presidential Candidate

Shariah, the Global Jihad Movement, and the Islamic Republic of Iran

    • John Guandolo, Founder of Understanding The Threat
    • Ted Cruz, Senator for Texas, 2016 Presidential Candidate
    • Ambassador John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
    • Julianne Cooper, Founder, Liberty Harbor Academy, New Hampshire
    • George Pataki, former Governor of New York, 2016 Presidential Candidate
    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

he New Hampshire National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents alike – both at the federal level and the state level.

Previous National Security Action Summits have been hosted in South Carolina and Iowa, drawing hundreds of attendees, significant media coverage and a considerable online audience for the live-streamed events. Footage from those summits can be found at the following links:

NSAS South Carolina: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/south-carolina-national-security-action-summit/

NSAS Iowa: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/05/18/the-iowa-national-security-action-summit/

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, said:

Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place.  They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world.  The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that. At the state-level, these summits are an invaluable method of connecting a concerned citizenry to the forefront of policymaking, at both the state and federal levels.  This program could not be more timely, more content-rich or more important.

Authorities ignore US mosques at center of Islamic terror attacks

From left, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Hani Hanjour, and Chattanooga shooter Mohammed Abdulazeez. Photo: AP; AP; Getty Images

From left, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Hani Hanjour, and Chattanooga shooter Mohammed Abdulazeez.
Photo: AP; AP; Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, July 26, 2015:

Property records show the mosque attended by the terrorist who killed US soldiers at a base in Chattanooga, Tenn., is affiliated with the same Islamic group as the mosques patronized by the Boston marathon bombers and the 9/11 hijackers who attacked the Pentagon.

Yet federal investigators have dismissed any possibility that the Tennessee mosque was a source of radicalization or support for the terrorist, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez.

The trustee of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga, like the Boston and Virginia mosques attended by other terrorists, is the North American Islamic Trust.

In 2007, the Justice Department designated NAIT as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in America history, US v. Holy Land Land Foundation, which resulted in convictions and imprisonment of several US-based Hamas terrorist leaders. Current NAIT chairman Gaddoor Saidi also appears on the government’s co-conspirator list.

Court records detail money flowing through NAIT financial accounts to Hamas. In the same exhibits from the trial, the Justice Department lists NAIT and Saidi among “members of the US Muslim Brotherhood,” alongside NAIT’s parent the Islamic Society of North America — from which the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga derives its name.

While NAIT maintains its innocence, its repeated appeals to the government to expunge its name from the co-conspirators list have failed. A federal judge ruled there is “ample evidence” tying NAIT to Hamas and the Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a worldwide jihadist movement whose credo is “Jihad is our way, and death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition.”

The ethnic-Palestinian Abdulazeez expressed similar ambitions in his Internet writings, in which he dreamed of fighting and dying in “jihad for the sake of Allah.”

In 2009, when Islamic Society leaders were raising money from Chattanooga Muslims for construction of their new mosque, they invoked the names of major Muslim Brotherhood figures — including the group’s spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who once issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill US soldiers in Iraq.

Qaradawi’s name shows up in a mosque PowerPoint presentation exhorting Muslim faithful to donate “in the cause of Allah.”

Abdulazeez and his family were longtime members of the Islamic Society, which forces women to pray separately from men and wear head coverings.

Contradicting recent claims they had “minimal interactions” with the 24-year-old jihadist, Facebook postings show mosque leaders once held a well-attended graduation celebration for him.

Friends say Abdulazeez regularly prayed at the Islamic Society in the months leading up to his attack on two US military sites.

The current mosque leadership is directly connected to NAIT.

The Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga grew out of a small mosque founded by NAIT in 1997, the original deed reveals.

“NAIT bought the property in August of 1997 from St. John United Methodist,” said Sheldon Wright, deputy clerk for the Hamilton County, Tenn., register of deeds.

In 2007, the land for the new mosque was purchased by the “Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga Inc.,” which lists an address for NAIT agent Arif Shafi. Shafi that same year filed the articles of incorporation for the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga. The state charter lists Shafi as both the “registered agent” for the mosque and one of its “incorporators.”

Then, in 2013, NAIT sold the old mosque, Masjid Annour, moving it to the new Islamic Society site. Shafi is represented in the transaction as “the authorized agent of the North American Islamic Trust.”

Attempts to reach Shafi for comment were unsuccessful. Other Islamic Society officials have asserted the mosque preaches peace and that they saw no signs that Abdulazeez was involved in “extremism.”

This is a familiar refrain. Americans have heard the same line from leaders of other mosques controlled by NAIT after their members, too, carried out acts of terrorism. Among them:

  • Islamic Society of Boston, where a dozen terrorists have worshipped, including the marathon bombers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and most recently the ISIS-inspired terrorist who plotted to behead Boston cops.
  • Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, where worshippers included two ISIS terrorists who attacked a Dallas-area event and planned to shoot up the Super Bowl.
  • Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, where some of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped and got help obtaining IDs and housing, following on the heels of the Fort Hood shooter and several other terrorists who have attended the mosque just outside Washington.

More interested in outreach, authorities overlooked these disturbing patterns.

After 9/11, the Pentagon even invited the Dar al-Hijrah cleric, who ministered to the very hijackers who torpedoed the military headquarters, to an interfaith luncheon. That same cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, would go on to head al Qaeda’s operations in Yemen before a drone-fired missile finally caught up to him.

Muslim Brotherhood archives uncovered last decade in an FBI raid of a terrorist suspect’s basement in a Washington suburb list NAIT as one of the movement’s key fronts in the US. They also describe its Islamic centers as “bases” from which to train and deploy its “battalions” in jihad.

NAIT holds title to more than 300 mosques and has helped finance more than 500 Islamic centers in America. Imams insist that none of them preach hate. But is it enough for law enforcement to just take their word for it?

We can’t let political correctness spare these mosques due scrutiny.

Paul Sperry, Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Georgetown’s Bridge Initiative Partners with Think Tank linked to Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas

1111091100Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, July 24, 2015:

Georgetown University’s “Bridge Initiative” will now be holding weekly classes to those interested in learning how to identify dreaded Islamophobes:

Students will learn about the history of the term “Islamophobia” and its earliest manifestations; its parallels with similar prejudices that have affected other groups through time; and creative ways to counter it. Classes will include a lecture that introduces basic concepts and expands on the recommended readings. The presentation will be followed by an opportunity to ask questions, engage with one another in small group conversations, and participate in group discussions to not only learn about Islamophobia, but offer ways about how to respond to and counter it. Upon completing this course, students will have a foundational understanding of Islamophobia that extends beyond daily headlines, and should feel empowered to address issues of prejudice and discrimination in their own communities and beyond.

The course will be held weekly at “The Fairfax Institute” in Northern Virginia. Despite the rather innocuous sounding name, The Fairfax Institute is in fact a school operated by a well known Muslim Brotherhood front, The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

As the we wrote in the Center for Security Policy’s white paper entitled, “IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank,”

“The organization was founded following an international conference of major Muslim Brotherhood figures, including Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Al Qaradawi, in Lugano, Switzerland in 1977. The conference was held under the auspices of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), which was its self an outgrowth of the Muslim Student’s Association, the first Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States.”

IIIT was founded to promote an ideology of “civilizational battle” against the West, particularly in regards to western educational practice. From IIIT’s 1989 publication, “Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan,” written by IIIT founder, Abdulhamid AbuSulyman:

Unlike the past, the civilizational forces contending in this century can reach and overtake anyone without invasion or military occupation of his land. They can subvert his mind, convert him to their world view, neutralize and contain him as a puppet whether he is aware of it or not. Certainly these forces are contending with one another to dominate the world. And it is the decision of Muslims today whether Islam will be the victor tomorrow, whether Muslims will be the makers of history or merely the objects. Indeed, a civilizational battle now in progress in the world scene will not leave anyone unscathed.
Far from disowning AbuSulyman, IIIT continues to honor their Muslim Brotherhood founder, granting him the title President Emeritus in 2014.

In addition to promoting Muslim versus non-Muslim “civilizational battle”, IIIT has also been linked to supporting actual violence. In a sworn affidavit in support of search warrants on the IIIT property located on Grove Street (where students of the Bridge Initiative will be attending their Islamophobia course),  Special Agent David Kane noted:

“Based on the evidence in this affidavit, I know that they [IIIT’s founders] are ardent supporters of PIJ and HAMAS. They have repeatedly voiced their ideological support. I have seen repeated instances of their financial support, and believe that they have acted to conceal many other instances of their financial support.”

In addition to support Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, IIIT also hosted an employee with ties to Al Qaeda.  IIIT:

“counted Tarik Abdulmalik Hamdi as one of its employees–entering the UnitedStates with the assistance of [convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizer Sami] Al-Arian–who also provided assistance to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaida and Osama Bin-Laden, and used his house to hold property for Bin-Laden and other designated terrorists. He personally provided Bin Laden with the battery for the satellite phone that prosecutors at the New York trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers described as, “the phone bin Laden and others will use to carry out their war against the United States.”

The Bridge Initiative’s work to portray as islamophobic those who raise national security issues about the Muslim Brotherhood and its subversive efforts to support terrorism and wage “civilizational jihad”, would perhaps be better served if they did not themselves associate with organizations which supported terrorism, and promoted “civilizational jihad.”

Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga is an Enemy Outpost

Islamic-Society-of-Greater-Chattanooga3Understanding the Threat by John Guandolo, July 24, 2015:

This 5 minute video reveals the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga – like all “Islamic Society of” organizations – is a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood organization and, therefore, supports jihadi operations like the killing of 4 Marines and 1 sailor on July 16, 2015.

The US v HLF (Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development) (Dallas, 2008) was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history. The evidence revealed the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are controlled by Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood. The list of Hamas/MB groups includes the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Students Association (MSA), Islamic Centers, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), American Muslims for Palestine, EMERGE, US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), and many others.

Also see:

So the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga announced in 2009 that it openly aligned its views of Jihad with the views of Qaradawi and Maududi, and told its Muslim congregants that donating to the construction of ISGC was permissible, because it represented funding jihad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freeze frame for a moment.

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

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

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

CVE agenda chart

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

Muslim Brotherhood Skeletons Remain in Hillary Clinton’s Closet

Richard Ellis/Getty Images

Richard Ellis/Getty Images

Breitbart, by JAMES ZUMWALT, July 20, 2015:

No sooner had Hillary Clinton announced the start of her U.S. presidential campaign than several skeletons popped out of her closet.

The Clinton Foundation skeleton, at worst, gave foreign contributors a “pay to play” influence at the U.S. State Department, or, at best, the appearance of such. If the former, the Clintons have taken Harry Truman’s motto, “the buck stops here,” to mean millions of them.

Another skeleton is Hillary’s unauthorized use of a private email server along with her erasure of those communications while announcing her candidacy.

A third skeleton, Benghazi, is being examined by Chairman of the House Select Committee which is investigating the matter.

These three skeletons demand, and are receiving, close scrutiny. However, a fourth and much more damning skeleton—Hillary’s Muslim Brotherhood connection—still escapes scrutiny. Interestingly, in connection with the Benghazi investigation, three Hillary aides have been subpoenaed by Gowdy to produce emails. The one who has yet to do so completely is the one with the closest ties to the Brotherhood—Huma Abedin.

The subpoena stems from Gowdy’s efforts to track what communications were made by Hillary and her staff concerning Ambassador Chris Stevens movements prior to the Benghazi attack. Of interest also will be why efforts were undertaken after the attack to minimize involvement by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some background about the Brotherhood is needed to understand its driving force and why, under Hillary’s leadership as Secretary of State, a decision would have been made to embrace an organization determined to eliminate America and her allies.

Because our Middle East allies understand this background, they have outlawed the group.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Sunni Islamist religious, political and social movement. Founder Hassan al-Banna’s fundamental goal was Islam’s global domination. That effort quickly turned violent. As its influence grew, its tentacles spread to 80 other nations, laying the groundwork for an envisioned global caliphate.

An early influential Brotherhood member, Sayyid Qutb, wrote of the need to cleanse the world of Western influence by imposing sharia. Years later, his work became Osama bin Laden’s and Ayman al-Zawahri’s “bible.” But, feeling the Brotherhood was not moving fast enough to achieve global Islam, they created an offshoot group—al-Qaeda—to quicken the pace.

At various times, as the Brotherhood gained influence causing domestic instability, nations cracked down on it. To survive, it renounced violence—birthing numerous splinter groups to do its violent bidding.

In 1981, one such group assassinated a Middle East peace apostle—Egyptian President Anwar Sadat—for his peace treaty with Israel. Hamas was another terrorist splinter group.

Viewing America as an obstacle to Islam’s global dominance, the Brotherhood—to this day—seeks to destroy America, informing followers to be “patient” as it so plots to do so.

In the 1990s, Brotherhood leaders mapped out a secret war plan to accomplish this—one discovered completely by accident in 2004. Despite this discovery and our knowledge about what is in the plan (such as using Muslim Brotherhood front companies within the U.S. and making claims of Islamophobia whenever Islam is criticized), the Brotherhood openly continues implementing that plan today. Meanwhile, under Obama’s tutelage, the federal agencies responsible for protecting us from such a threat fail to do so.

Just like Osama bin Laden’s 1997 declaration of war against America received little media attention, so too did the Brotherhood’s 2010 war declaration against America by its Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi.

Badi called for jihad against “the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.”

The Brotherhood’s long running anti-American platform properly inhibited U.S. recognition of the group. But, incredibly, under the Obama/Clinton team, that changed overnight.

Failing to support our long-time ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Obama welcomed the Brotherhood with open arms in June 2011—without even demanding it withdraw its war declaration or otherwise renounce its anti-American platform.

The skeleton in Hillary’s closet now in need of close scrutiny is how the Muslim Brotherhood instantly converted—in the Administration’s eyes but not those of the Brotherhood itself—from foe to friend.

Of note in all this is that the family of Hillary’s now longest serving assistant, Huma Abedin, has enjoyed an intensely close relationship with the Brotherhood for decades. Her father, Zyed Abedin, served as editor of an anti-Semitic journal funded by an Islamist; her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, replaced him as editor in 1993 when he died. As editor, Saleha has promoted the Muslim Brotherhood (she is a member of its female division), violent jihad and the “right” of women to be repressed under sharia.

Despite this connection and despite the fact Abedin was working for a Muslim Brotherhood journal at the time, Clinton’s request Abedin’s security clearance be expedited was honored. Yet, astonishingly to this day, the Abedin skeleton receives little media scrutiny.

The extent of the media’s focus on Abedin has been extremely limited. National security issues seem to be of no concern as it only placed Abedin in the spotlight as the wife of U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner. He was the one who gave the Oscar Mayer weiner song new meaning after exposing himself on Twitter.

If lines were drawn from opposite ends of an influence graph, one depicting the Muslim Brotherhood under President Obama and the other Abedin under Secretary Clinton, convergence occurs as America embraces a group still committed to our destruction.

Despite continuous Brotherhood terrorist activity since receiving Obama’s embrace—including the destruction of 52 churches in Egypt within a 24-hour period on August 13, 2013 and the arrests in Cairo earlier this month of thirteen members seeking to plant explosives to disrupt Suez Canal maritime traffic, Obama regularly welcomes Brotherhood representatives at the White House. He also continues his Muslim outreach programsgranting access to Brotherhood agents at the highest levels of our government despite convictions in U.S. courts of some for terrorist funding activities.

In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood continues to implement its war plan against America with the help of our own President.

Obama’s unbending commitment to a Muslim Brotherhood that, both in his eyes and Hillary’s, can do no wrong, is detailed in a secret directive known as “Presidential Study Directive-11.” It borders on treason this policy continues in place based on the Brotherhood’s aggressive anti-U.S activities both before and after its issuance.

Whether due to political correctness or naiveté, the media has failed to pull the Muslim Brotherhood’s skeleton out of Hillary’s closet. It needs to do so—thoroughly examining it to determine how a group so committed to America’s destruction remains so warmly embraced by those responsible for protecting us from it.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of “Bare Feet, Iron Will–Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam’s Battlefields,” “Living the Juche Lie: North Korea’s Kim Dynasty” and “Doomsday: Iran–The Clock is Ticking.” He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.

Chattanooga Shooter’s Mosque Fundraised on Behalf of Jihad in 2009

Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga

Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga

Center for Security Policy,by Kyle Shideler, July 18, 2015:

As we reported Friday, the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga (ISGC) is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood through the Hamas-linked North American Islamic Trust (NAIT.) Now new evidence has been revealed showing that ISGC actually raised funds for the building of their new mosque in 2009, by referencing jihad and key Muslim Brotherhood figures.

According to a 2009 Iftar fundraising dinner slide show, first apparently noticed by Twitter user @alimhaider, contained an overt reference to key Muslim Brotherhood figure Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The title of the slide, “In the cause of Allah” is an English translation of Fi Sabil Allah, as in the phrase “Jihad Fisabilallah”, which means violent jihad against unbelievers. Classic Islamic law reference book, the Reliance of the Traveller, notes in its index, “Fisabilallah: See Jihad”. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the phrase in context.

The reference to jihad in the fundraiser related to the Mosque, was done as a means of explaining that a contribution to the building of the mosque qualified under “Zakat” (annual tithe which is obligatory in Islam), under the category of funding Jihad.

ISGCZakat-300x225

Reliance of the Traveller notes, “The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration)…”

The slide “Cause of Allah” references Yusuf Al Qaradawi, and S.A.A. Maududi, founder of Pakistani Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. Both Qaradawi and Maududi are prolific on the subject of Jihad.

Qaradawi has been noted for his avid support for the terrorist group Hamas and their jihad against Israel, including issuing fatwas authorizing suicide bombing, and has supported jihadist movements in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and most recently in Egypt. Qaradawi is the leader of the Hamas financing network known as the “Union of the Good”, which utilizes Zakat funds received by its charities in order to support Hamas.

In his work, “Islamic Education and Hassan Al Banna,” Qaradawi discusses how it was the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) which revitalized the classical concept of Jihad for a modern age:

The aspect of Ikhwani training which makes it eminent and unique is Jehad or crusade i e. : Crusader·like training…The real implication of · Jehad (crusade) had been dismissed from Islamic training and way of life, before its conception among the lkhwans.

And in his “Priorities of the Movement in the Coming phase” Qaradawi says:

…it is a duty to defend every land invaded by infidels, stating that such jihad is imperative for Muslims in this land as an individual obligation and that all Muslims must support them with money, arms and men as required until all their land has been liberated from any aggressor who usurps it. Therefore, the Islamic Movement cannot stand idle and watch while any part of Muslim land is occupied by a foreign aggressor.

The other modern Islamic scholar referenced by the document, Maulana S.A.A. Maududi, was famous for successfully merging classical Islamic concepts of Jihad with a modernist language of revolution. He noted the following in his work “Jihad in Islam”:

It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of the Islamic ‘ Jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the State system of the countries to which they belong, but their ultimate objective is no other than to effect a world revolution.

So the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga announced in 2009 that it openly aligned its views of Jihad with the views of Qaradawi and Maududi, and told its Muslim congregants that donating to the construction of ISGC was permissible, because it represented funding jihad.

Chattanooga shooter Mohammed Yusuf Abdulazeez and his family were regular attendees as ISGC. Despite claims by the mosque leadership that Abdulazeez was a rare attendee or little known there, a photo from a family Facebook account shows that Abdulazeez held his graduation party at the mosque, and that it was well attended, indicating they were well known regulars.

This fundraising document was publicly available information, three years before U.S. District Attorney William Killian attended the grand opening in 2012 and expressed his friendship with a mosque leadership who built their mosque with a promise that funding them represented an investment in jihad.

Now that investment appears to have matured.

U.S. District Attorney William Killian should recuse himself from this case, because of his association with ISGC, and the investigators must begin to conduct a detailed and through investigation of ISGC itself, and what role its support for violent jihad may have played in the attack in Chattanooga which claimed the lives of five servicemen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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