Also see Poole’s latest at PJ Media: The Lies Behind #FreeSoltan: No, Mohamed Soltan Is NOT a ‘Humanitarian Activist’
Also see Poole’s latest at PJ Media: The Lies Behind #FreeSoltan: No, Mohamed Soltan Is NOT a ‘Humanitarian Activist’
Clarion Project, March 5, 2015:
An Egyptian born Imam who has publically supported the death penalty for those who choose to leave Islam has since been hired by the Department of Justice to teach Islam in prisons.
Fouad al-Bayly, the Imam of the Islamic Center of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, said in 2007 that Ayan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian women’s rights activist and fierce critic of Islam, deserves to die for her public attacks on the faith. She regards Islam as damaging to women, in part due to her own experience suffering female genital mutilation as a child.
Ali was scheduled to speak at the nearby University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown in 2007, and al-Bayly was involved in protesting against her visit. He told local newspapers: “If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death.”
This is a mainstream view among Islamists. Hardline cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Ali has every reason to take death threats seriously. She has received multiple death threats in the past. Dutch Film Director Theo Van Gogh, who made the film Submission, scripted by ali, which criticized Islam, was killed in 2004. A note pinned to his chest with a knife said that Ali was next.
Yet despite his extremist past, government records show that as of 2014 Fouad al-Bayly has been hired to teach Islam in prisons to the inmates.
Records state that he received two contracts, one for $10,500 for February of last year and another one for $2,400 dated to December. He was hired to provide “religious services, leadership and guidance.” The second contract was to provide “Muslim classes for inmates.”
This is not the first time Imams and Mosques with extremist connections have been allowed access to prisoners despite their records. Clarion Project previously reported that Dar al-Hijrah, an extremist mosque attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers, has engaged in prison outreach in Washington D.C. for 10 years.
In another example, the head of Islamic Affairs for the New York State Prison’s Department of Ministerial Services was later caught justifying the 9/11 attacks and terrorism to prison inmates.
Watch the clip from The Third Jihad on Prison Radicalization:
Time, By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Feb. 20, 2015:
How can the Obama Administration miss the obvious? Part of the answer lies in the groups “partnering” with, or advising, the White House on these issues. Groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council or the Islamic Society of North America insist that there should be no more focus at the Summit on radical Islam than on any other violent movements, even as radical Islamic movements continue to expand their influence in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria, and elsewhere.
Amplifying a poor choice of Muslim outreach partners, however, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have argued in recent days that economic grievances, a lack of opportunities, and countries with “bad governance” are to blame for the success of groups such as ISIS in recruiting Muslims to their cause. Yet, if this were true, why do so many young Muslims who live in societies with excellent governance—Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, the United States—either join ISIS or engage in Jihadist violence in their own countries? Why do young Muslims with promising professional futures embark on the path of Jihad?
Neither the Summit partners nor the U.S. Administration can effectively answer these questions.
Both Denmark and the Netherlands have “good governance.” Denmark and the Netherlands not only offer free health insurance but also free housing to Muslim refugees, along with high-quality education for their children. This should produce an outpouring of gratitude by young Muslims towards the host society, and no Jihadists.
Yet there are dozens of Jihadists hailing from the Netherlands and a recent attack in Copenhagen was committed by a man who was raised in Denmark and had effectively enjoyed years of Danish hospitality.
The question is not limited to Europe. Minnesota, for instance, is hardly a state with “bad governance.” Minnesota offers ample opportunity for immigrants willing to work hard. Yet more than a dozen young men from the Twin Cities area have joined the Jihadist movement in recent years.
How can Barack Obama or John Kerry explain this? Based on President Obama’s public statements and John Kerry’s analysis in The Wall Street Journal, they cannot.
It is worth remembering Aafia Siddiqui, the M.I.T.-educated neuroscientist who could have enjoyed a prestigious and lucrative career in the bio-tech industry but instead chose to embrace radical Islam, eventually becoming known as “Lady Al-Qaida.”
Or think of the three Khan siblings who recently sought to leave Chicago in order to go live in Syria under the rule of ISIS. The Khan sister, intelligent and studious, had planned to become a physician. The siblings were intercepted before they could fly out of the country, and prosecutors argue they wanted to join armed Jihad. Defense attorneys have a different explanation, stating the siblings desperately wanted to live under a society ruled by Shariah law—under the rule of Allah’s laws, without necessarily wanting to commit acts of violence.
It is this motivation—the sincere desire to live under Islamic religious laws, and the concomitant willingness to use violence to defend the land of Islam and expand it—that has led thousands of Western Muslims, many of them young and intelligent—and not the oft-described “losers”—to leave a comfortable professional and economic future in the West in order to join ISIS under gritty circumstances.
In its general strategy, the U.S. Administration confounds two things. It is true that in “failed states” criminal networks, cartels, and terrorist groups can operate with impunity. Strengthening central governments will reduce safe havens for terror networks. Secretary Kerry’s argument in The Wall Street Journal is different, however, namely: If we improve governance in countries with “bad governance,” then fewer young people will become “violent extremists.” That’s a different argument and not a plausible one. In fact, it’s a really unpersuasive argument. Muslims leave bright, promising futures to join ISIS out of a sense of sincere religious devotion, the wish to live under the laws of Allah instead of the laws of men.
In reading Kerry’s piece, I am glad that in the late 1940s the U.S. had people such as George Kennan employed in its service to see the Communist threat clearly and describe it clearly. But where is today’s Kennan in this administration? Who in the U.S. government is willing to describe the threat of radical Islam without fear of causing offense to several aggressive Islamic lobby groups?
American policymakers do not yet understand Islamism or what persuades young Muslims to join Jihad: sincere religious devotion based on the core texts of Islam, in particular early Islam’s politicized and aggressive period in Medina (compared to Islam’s spiritual and ascetic period in Mecca).
How does one tackle misguided religious devotion of young Muslims? The answer lies in reforming Islam profoundly—not radical Islam, but mainstream Islam; its willingness to merge Mosque and State, religion, and politics; and its insistence that its elaborate system of Shariah law supersedes civil laws created by human legislators. In such a reform project lies the hope for countering Islamism. No traditional Islamic lobbying group committed to defending the reputation of Islam will recommend such a policy to the U.S. government. Yet until American policymakers grapple with the need for such reform, the real problem within Islam will remain unresolved.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the founder of the AHA Foundation and the author of Infidel, Nomad, and the forthcoming Heretic: The Case for a Muslim Reformation, to be published next spring.
Update: This article has been roundly criticized and thoroughly debunked
5. A 2014 photo does not show President Obama flashing a “Muslim gang sign.” For starters, Islam is a religion, not a gang. And the religious gesture in question — basically pointing one’s finger upward, or “Usbu al-shahada” — is made while reciting the Muslim testimony of faith, not just casually walking around. Finally, as if all that evidence weren’t yet enough, video of the event makes it pretty clear that Obama is just wagging his finger. Alas, this bit of conspiracy-mongering shenanigans has been shared 5,000 times on Facebook and has only begun to make the conservative blogosphere rounds. A scoop, for the entrepreneurial among you: Did Ronald Reagan make a Muslim gang sign, too? –
American Thinker, by F. W. Burleigh, Feb. 18, 2015:
Is President Obama a Muslim? A lot has been written about this, but if photographs speak louder than words, then a photo taken at last August’s U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in Washington D.C. might shed considerable light.
It shows Barack Hussein Obama flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates.
Barack Hussein Obama flashes the Muslim shahada to delegates of the US-African Leaders Conference in Washington DC in August 2014.
The Associated Press took this astonishing photo as the African dignitaries joined Obama, who hosted the event, in a State Department auditorium for a group photograph. It was published in an article in Britain’s Daily Mail, and it was the only use ever of the photo.
The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
Thus when believers stick their index finger in the air, they demonstrate they are partisans of Muhammad’s God concept. And they also affirm their belief in Muhammad’s claim he was the interface between God and man. They also demonstrate they are part of the umma, the exclusive transtribal supertribe of believers that Muhammad started 1,400 years ago.
With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe.
ISIS fighter displays the gang sign. To Muslims, the extended forefinger is symbolic of the fundamental belief of Islam: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
The Daily Mail editors did not understand what they were looking at. They captioned it “finger wagging” by Obama. But the African dignitaries understood, and a range of reactions can be detected among the ones who observed the gesture: amusement, surprise, curiosity, disapproval, contempt. Note the reactions of Abdelilah Berkirane, the prime minister of Morroco pictured just behind Obama’s left shoulder, and Ibrahim Boubacas Keita, the president of Mali in white garb and hat. They are Muslims through and through, and they are all smiles. They knew what Obama’s upright forefinger meant.
The reaction of Togo president Faure Gnassingbe, at the top row second to the left, is less approving. Through his face you can read the mind of this Sorbonne- and George Washington University educated leader. His mind is screaming, “You gotta be kidding!”
Gnassingbe’s country is squeezed between Benin and the Ivory Coast and is not far from Nigeria and its Boko Haram plague — perhaps a two-hour flight in a slow Cessna from Togo’s capital to the Nigerian capital, less than an hour in something faster. At the time of the Washington conference, Boko Haram’s leader Abubakar Shekau had just declared Borno State in northeastern Nigeria as the seat of his caliphate. Massacres of entire villages were taking place; only a few months earlier nearly three hundred girls were abducted from a Borno secondary school.
Togo has seven million people, 50 percent animists, 30 percent Christian. The remainder are Muslims, part of the umma. Gnassingbe and all other non-Muslims of Togo have reason to worry about radicalization of some of these members of the transtribal supertribe of Muhammad who reside among them. And so his look of disdain. “You gotta be kidding.”
Maybe it was Obama’s idea of a joke, but that is unlikely. The finger in the air was a position statement brazenly stated. His entire administration has been a promotion of Islam at home and abroad, and just cataloging the evidence would fill a book. He has made this country cozy for Islam, from ordering NASA to make Muslims feel good about themselves to calling ISIS beheading victim Peter Kassig by the Muslim name that he had adopted in the vain hope of saving his life.
If only Obama’s coziness were limited to such gestures, but from the very beginning of his administration, he labored to topple the strongman governments that had kept a lid on Islamic extremism: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen. Overthrowing the Syrian government was also part the program, not yet achieved but still possible. The methodology of each was a tactic from old-school radicalism: stir up domestic trouble that triggers a crackdown, then use the reaction to discredit the government and as a pretext for stirring up greater cycles of trouble until the targeted regime is replaced.
Obama is comfortable with Islam’s extreme. He arms such people throughout the Middle East. He has let them into our government. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi as the replacement for Hosni Mubarak, a staunch US ally and enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood, and threatened and bullied Egypt when a massive revolt replaced Morsi with a religious moderate.
The thread of all of these efforts was the reestablishment of the Islamic caliphate, the line of successors of Muhammad that ended nearly a century ago with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This has always been a Muslim Brotherhood objective. In their grandiose plans, the reestablished caliphate would stretch across the Middle East with Jerusalem as its capital. The glory of Islam resurrected! These people aspire to world domination, and the caliphate would serve as the base for an ever-expanding war on the world until domination is achieved. That was always the goal of their role model. Muhammad ordered his followers to make Islam the only religion — to create a universal umma. As with Obama, they are just following orders.
The caliphate was resurrected last year, only it is not in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood — not yet anyway. However it came about, the caliphate was Obama’s creation, and he has only half-heartedly pushed back against it. Now he has asked the U.S. Congress for authorization for use of military force against what he created. What is Obama up to with this? In everything he does, mischief is the purpose. What mischief does he intend now?
There is nothing in Obama’s head that is American. He is an antithetical American, a polar opposite of its values that he is routinely undermining. He is an unabashed member of the transtribal supertribe that Muhammad created 1,400 years ago; he is of the umma, not of America. His finger in the air at the African Leaders’ Conference is unambiguous evidence.
And it is evidence that you have been had America. God, have you ever been had.
F. W. Burleigh is author of It’s All About Muhammad, a Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet. The author blogs at http://www.itsallaboutmuhammad.com
CJR: The perennial debate over use of qualifiers such as radical, extremist or even fundamentalist to describe Islam is brought up by the intrepid Diana West at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit. Diana West believes that we are in fact abiding by Islamic blasphemy laws when we say “radical” Islam rather then just Islam.
Stephen Coughlin comes at this from a military intelligence perspective which seeks to define just what the Islamic threat doctrine is so that we can “orient on the enemy”. He explains that he chooses to refer to The Reliance of the Traveller shariah manual because it represents the sanctioned views of A Azhar, the OIC and the American Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore it represents the prevailing view of Sunni Islam and can be said to be Islam…not radical Islam. Coughlin then says something very interesting that needs to be highlighted. He refers to the tactic of using qualifiers in order to “bring people along”. In other words, some counter jihadists, especially those who are working in the political arena, choose to use qualifiers in order to soften the message for politically correct ears, including moderate Muslims.
Following Coughlin, David Yerushalmi speaks to the legal issues of trying to reform shariah law with an explanation of Fiqh and what it would take to overturn articles of Islamic jurisprudence developed over thousands of years as Islamic reformers such as Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Al Sissi are advocating.
Debra Burlingame then speaks to the quandry of Moderate Muslims who have no safe place to express their views. Andrew McCarthy and Fred Fleitz believe it is important to reach out to Moderate Muslims and enlist their help.
I think a general consensus was reached that it is not necessary to address what the true Islam is if you can identify as the enemy those Muslims who subscribe to the Islamic Threat Doctrine of Shariah. John Guandolo gets down to law enforcement brass tacks and asserts that we need to start prosecuting those in high positions who are aiding and abetting terrorists. While John Guandolo did not agree that moderate Muslim outreach is producing results, he asserted that counter jihadists do not have to agree on everything in order to work together. I heartily agree.
Watch the debate which goes from 5:03 to about 5:38 in the video. I’ve set the video to begin with Diana West but if for some reason that changes just move the progress bar with your cursor:
Here are some clips of the Summit now available at securefreedom:
On February 10, 2015, Americans for Peace and Tolerance launched its “Countering Violent Deception” campaign with a full page ad and an opinion column in the Washington Times. The campaign’s purpose is to draw attention to concerns about the Obama administration’s “Countering Violent Extremism” initiative, announced in 2011 and fast tracked after the Paris attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Casher kosher supermarket. The White House’s announcement of a conference on “Countering Violent Extremism,” to take place on February 18th, names Boston as one of the pilot cities where law enforcement officials have developed partnerships with Muslim community leaders. Unfortunately, to counter “violent extremism,” Federal agencies in Boston are working with the Islamic Society of Boston and its political arm, the Muslim American Society, which both have links to many extremists who are either in jail, in flight from federal authorities, or have been killed during terrorist attacks. Indeed, as APT research has shown, both the ISB and the MAS are Muslim Brotherhood entities that indoctrinate their followers with radical Islamist ideology. Far from being a model, Boston should serve as a cautionary tale – about deception and denial. To counter today’s “violent extremism” we need to deal with the root cause – the spread of Islamist ideology. At the same time, instead of the administration’s extremist partners, we must embrace the true moderate Muslims who can defend America by proactively countering the radicalizing doctrines that reach into their communities.
By Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov – – Tuesday, February 10, 2015
President Obama’s project to “combat violent extremism,” to be showcased in a Washington “summit” on Feb. 18, cites Boston as one of three model cities that can lead the way.
That will be a problem: The central Muslim institution that Boston law enforcement agencies are partnering with against extremism is itself extremist.
The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) and its political arm, the Muslim American Society, seen as the go-to groups for civic and law enforcement partnerships, have links to many extremists who are either in jail, in flight from federal authorities, or have been killed during terrorist attacks.
In Boston, deception and self-deception have ruled: The first Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge was founded in 1982 by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, a man who convinced both Presidents Bush and Clinton that he was a moderate, but who turned out to be a Muslim Brotherhood operative. He is now serving a 23-year prison term for raising money for al Qaeda.
For decades, ISB radicals have cultivated Muslim students from Boston’s schools and campuses. Some became notorious jihadis. Aafia Siddiqui, a highly regarded ISB congregant at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, raised money for al Qaeda at Boston mosques and, as “Lady al Qaeda,” became the most wanted woman in the world. Arrested in 2009 in Afghanistan with plans for a mass casualty attack on New York City, she opened fire on FBI agents and is now serving 86 years in prison for attempted murder.
Starting in 2000, with millions of Saudi dollars, the Islamic Society of Boston built its second mosque in Roxbury, the largest mosque on the Eastern Seaboard. When it emerged that Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a founding trustee, the ISB told Boston officials that his name on their documents was “a clerical error.”
When informed that federal authorities labeled the Muslim American Society “an overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Boston officials again turned a blind eye. Qaradawi calls for the genocide of Jews and the murder of homosexuals. Interpol has a warrant for his arrest on charges of incitement to murder.
Meanwhile, several Boston Muslim youths, inculcated with the theology of jihadism, have acted upon their convictions. Tarek Mehanna, an Islamic Society of Boston congregant who planned a machine-gun jihad attack on a mall in Attleboro, Massachusetts, was convicted in 2011 of providing material support to al Qaeda and is now serving 17 years in federal prison. Ahmad Abousamra, indicted with Mehanna, fled to Syria in 2006 where he resurfaced as an Islamic State “social media guru.” Islamic Society of Boston congregant Rezwan Ferdaus, arrested in 2011 for planning to send remote-controlled airplane bombs into the U.S. Capitol, pleaded guilty and is serving 17 years in federal prison.
Several Islamic Society of Boston-Muslim American Society leaders themselves turned out to have been jihad supporters. Oussama Ziade, a major ISB donor indicted in 2009 for dealing with terrorist funds, is a fugitive living in Lebanon. According to The Times of India, Hafiz Masood, a Muslim American Society religious leader deported for immigration offenses, raised money and recruited people in Boston for his brother’s terrorist group, which committed the Mumbai massacre. Now in Pakistan, he is the terror group’s director of communications.
Then there are the Boston Marathon bombers. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, caught on surveillance tape placing a bomb, changed his persona, according to his ex-girlfriend, after joining the ISB: “One minute he was a normal guy, the next minute he is watching these crazy Muslim videos.” His brother Dzhokhar, who occasionally attended the Islamic Society of Boston, allegedly helped place and detonate the bombs that killed four and injured 264.
Some leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston-Muslim American Society, who are meant to partner with Boston law enforcement in Mr. Obama’s program, have defended Siddiqui, Mehanna and Masood as victims of a supposed American war on Muslims. All along, the Islamic Society of Boston has hosted speakers and programs that preach Islamic supremacism and hatred. The recently resigned Imam Suhaib Webb, who for years ran the Roxbury mosque, promotes a national program, called “Young Muslims of the Islamic Circle of North America,” which educates American Muslim youth in classical and modern jihad ideology.
Islamic Society of Boston leaders work with senior levels of Massachusetts law enforcement in order to advance their own agenda. In 2010, the Massachusetts attorney general’s office publicly accepted a $50,000 grant from ISB Imam Abdullah Faaruuq to establish Muslim “sensitivity training” for the police. Under the program’s guidelines, law enforcement officers are barred from studying radical Islamist ideology as a motive for the violent extremism that the president’s program is supposed to counter. Imam Faaruuq was later found on tape urging Boston Muslims to “pick up the gun and the sword to defend Aafia “Lady al Qaeda” Siddiqui, who was then on trial.
Far from being a model, Boston should serve as a cautionary tale — about deception and denial. To counter today’s “violent extremism” we need to deal with the root cause — the spread of Islamist ideology. Those who promote and enable Islamist ideology should not be able to do so in secret. How many more Muslim children will be poisoned and turned into terrorists, and how may American lives will be lost before we demand to know what is being taught in America’s Islamic communities and who is doing the teaching? We must embrace the true moderate Muslims who can defend America by proactively countering the radicalizing doctrines that reach into their communities.
Charles Jacobs is president and Ilya Feoktistov is research director of Americans For Peace and Tolerance.
Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Feb. 7, 2015:
The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.
As previously uncovered by Breitbart News, the White House confirmed that Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was one of the Muslim leaders that met with President Obama. ISNA was founded in 1981 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Federal prosecutors have previously described how ISNA funneled its money to Palestinian terrorist group Hamas (via Investigative Project):
ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahadeen,” the original name for the HAMAS military wing. Govt. Exh. 1-174. From that ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to HAMAS leader…
Azeez’s bio also reveals him as a founding member the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas/Fort Worth Chapter. CAIR has also allegedly funneled money to Palestinian terror groups and was also started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In October, 2014, Azeez signed a letter endorsing Sharia Islamic governance. Under the Sharia, non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens. The Sharia also endorses the hudud punishments in the Koran and Hadiths, which state that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death.
Hoda Elshishtawy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) was also in attendance at the Muslim leaders’ meeting with President Obama.
MPAC, just like CAIR and ISNA, was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group has written and often endorsed a paper rejecting the United States’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations, and has insisted that the Jewish state of Israel be added as a state sponsor of terrorism. The group’s former president, Salam al-Marayati, has publicly encouraged officials to look at Israel as a suspect in the 9/11/01 attacks.
He has said that Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel should be seen as “legitimate resistance.” In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, an MPAC senior official described the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah as one that fights for “American values.” In an MPAC-sponsored March 2009 protest to “Defend al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds,” participants could be heard chanting slogans encouraging Palestinians to wipe out Israel. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” demonstrators chanted.
Mohamed Majid, who serves as Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), was also in attendance at the White House meeting with the President, and senior advisors Ben Rhodes and Valerie Jarrett.
In 2002, ADAMS was raided as part of a U.S. government initiative called “Operation Green Quest,” where federal agents suspected the group of supporting terrorist organizations. Government documents said that the ADAMS Center was “suspected of providing support to terrorists, money laundering, and tax evasion.”
Majid is also an official with the brotherhood-affiliated Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
He also signed the October 2014 letter, along with White House meeting attendee Azhar Azeez, insisting that Sharia law should be an acceptable political system worldwide.
It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “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.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Breitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Nov. 15, 2014:
(Washington, D.C.)– 100 years ago today, on November 14, 1914, the last “Caliph” of the Islamic world declared a holy war on all non believers. Just a few months later, a jihadist genocide of Christians occurred on a massive scale, resulting in the deaths of millions.
On the 100th anniversary of the religiously-motivated genocide of Christians, several Islamic groups, all of which have alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, hosted the first Muslim prayers ever at Washington, D.C.’s National Cathedral.
As Breitbart’s Dr. Sebastian Gorka reported earlier, two of the Islamic groups who organized the event–CAIR and ISNA–were documented by U.S. federal officials as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial in United States history. Additionally, evidence exists that each of the five Islamic groups who helped organize the event have deep connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to federal prosecution documents, is to wage a “grand jihad [holy war] in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within…”
Breitbart News was on the scene at Washington’s National Cathedral, hoping to get some answers to concerns about Islamic prayers being hosted at the Cathedral on such a painful anniversary and why the event was sponsored by alleged members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Breitbart News asked Dean of the National Cathedral, Gary Hall, whether it was appropriate to host Muslim prayers on the 100th anniversary of the last Caliph’s call for Jihad against nonbelievers, which resulted in the slaughter of innocent Christians.
Hall responded, “I did not know that it was that anniversary. But knowing it now, it actually seems to be more appropriate to have an event that is on an anniversary of a hard time… There have been atrocities on both sides. There have been extremists on both sides.”
He added: “The second thing, is that, the Christian church… a few centuries before was doing similar kinds of things in the holy land with the Crusader states and the Crusades themselves. Almost every religious tradition is guilty at some point of fostering violence in the name of that religious tradition.
Breitbart News asked Hall whether he knew that all of the Islamic organizers of the interfaith prayer event have been associated or direct members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
“No, I’m not aware of that,” said the Dean of the Cathedral. “We’re a faith community… This essentially was the time to come together and pray. I have not heard those allegations. I don’t think that they are germane to an event that is just essentially a prayer event.”
This reporter asked Mr. Hall whether he was troubled by the possibility that the organizers of the interfaith event have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, when the MB has previously been connected to prominent terrorists such as Osama Bin laden and Abu Bakr.
Hall responded, “No more so that it would alarm me that people in my own faith and tradition have links to other kinds of… inappropriate or unethical or immoral kinds of behavior. In other words, if I have a congregant that I would find unseemly, that’s guilt by association… I hear people’s concern, but it seems to be that the role of a faith leader is to try to bring people together.
“We always have to remember that Menachem Begin was a terrorist,” said the Dean of the National Cathedral. “Many of the early generations of Israel’s government were terrorists,” he added.
“Everyone’s hands are dirty at some point… There’s no one in the world who has absolutely clean hands,” Hall alleged.
Breitbart News questioned Hall about whether he knew about the Muslim Brotherhood’s extensive history of subversion in order to achieve their ends.
“I’m aware that they are the legitimately elected government of Egypt,” Hall stated.
When questioned whether he knew that the Muslim Brotherhood was started by devout Hitler admirer Hassan al-Bana, Hall said, “This event is not about the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“The kinds of things you are bringing up are the kinds of extremism that we are actually trying to disassociate with,” he said, accusing this reporter of being an ‘extremist,’ simply for mentioning the roots of the group who organized in his Cathedral.
Hall then accused this reporter of being a “McCarthyite,” because this was nothing more than “guilt by association,” he concluded.
Watch video of the interview at Breitbart. Jordan Schachtel really did a good job exposing interfaith dupe Gary Hall.
Here is a video of the entire service:
Published on Nov 16, 2014 by Kenneth Sikorski
Gates of Vienna got an Arab translator to review and assess what was said: Taqiyya and Kitman in Washington D.C.
Breitbart, by MILO YIANNOPOULOS, Nov. 14, 2014:
British police forces are sharing platforms with Islamic extremists from discredited Islamist organisation MEND, formerly known as iENGAGE—and even co-hosting events with them—throughout November as part of Islamophobia Awareness Month, a Breitbart investigation has revealed.
In November, Mark Burns-Williamson, police and crime commissioner for West Yorkshire Police, will share a platform at an event called Building Bridges in Leeds with Azad Ali, Head of Community Development & Engagement for Islamist organisation MEND. Ali is a notorious Islamic extremist who once suggested that the killing of British troops in Iraq was justified.
The Telegraph reported in 2012 that Ali “has written on his IFE blog of his ‘love’ for Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda cleric … used to attend talks by Al-Qaeda’s main representative in the UK, Abu Qatada … described al-Qaeda as a ‘myth’ and said that the Mumbai terrorist attacks were not terrorism.”
Harvinder Saimbhi, Leeds City Council’s Head of Anti-Social Behaviour, is also sharing the same platform with Ali at the Building Bridges conference, an initiative from South Asian charity Hamara, which describes itself as “the largest ethnic minority organisation in the voluntary and community sector in Leeds, based in a purpose developed £1.2 million centre in Beeston”.
Meanwhile, the National Association of Muslim Police are co-hosting an event with MEND’s founder and managing director, Sufyan Ismail. The event will take place on Monday, 24 November at the City of London Police Headquarters in Wood Street, London. A representative from City of London Police will speak alongside Ismail, according to email invitations seen by Breitbart, dated 7 November and signed by Fatima Khan, MEND’s “Hate Crime and Stakeholder Lead”.
Sufyan Ismail has promoted hate preacher Hatham al Haddad, who believes that Muslims should cut all ties with family members who leave Islam, non-Muslim political systems are “filthy” and “slavery” is superior to Western prisoner of war protocols, among other distasteful things catalogued by political blog Harry’s Place.
To those unfamiliar with MEND, the outfit is a rebrand of an earlier, widely discredited organisation known as iENGAGE, a detail confirmed by the City of London Police’s own invitations, which refer to “MEND (formerly known as iENGAGE)”. MEND’s website still resides at iengage.uk.net.
As iENGAGE, MEND targeted Muslim campaigning groups and individuals who spoke out against Islamism, condemned David Cameron for severing ties with the Muslim Council of Britain after its deputy general secretary, Daud Abdullah, refused to withdraw his support from the Istanbul Declarations, and objected to the banning of terrorist group Hizb ut Tahrir from universities and schools.
An All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia voted 60-2 to dispense with the services of iENGAGE when these facts came to light in 2011. This followed the resignation of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Group in protest at iENGAGE’s head of research, Islamist sympathiser Shenaz Buglawala, being awarded a House of Commons pass.
Taxpayers will want to know why founder Sufyan Ismail, who has promoted a hate preacher and who founded and still runs an organisation which in its previous incarnation was repeatedly banished from public life for extremist views, is co-hosting an event with a senior police officer aimed at lecturing officers about “hate speech”.
Even more disturbing is the fact that West Yorkshire Police and Leeds City Council have seen fit to share a platform with Ismail’s subordinate, Azad Ali. According to the Telegraph‘s Andrew Gilligan, despite his position as chairman of the Muslim Safety Forum, a body closely linked to the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe, Ali was appointed the Metropolitan Police’s “principal” representative of the Muslim community in 2006.
But, in 2008, Ali was forced to resign from his position as chair of the Muslim Safety Forum, just two years after establishing it as founding chair, after his extremist opinions came to light. The MSF received £30,000 in public funding in 2009 under London mayor Boris Johnson and at least £70,000 under previous mayor Ken Livingstone.
The IFE was the subject of a BBC Dispatches exposé in 2010 which revealed that its stated objectives are jihad, the transformation of Britain into an Islamic state and the establishment of sharia law. In 2012, Ali was the IFE’s community affairs co-ordinator.
In 2009, Ali was suspended from his public sector job at the Treasury after he praised Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Ali had also blogged supportivelyabout Azzam’s son, who had written: “If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq, I would kill him because that is my obligation … I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for jihad.”
In 2010, Ali lost a legal action against the Mail on Sunday for an article about him in which the paper reported some of these unsavoury views. The same year, Labour Cabinet ministers were heavily criticised for sharing a platform with him.
As long ago as 2010, Tory MP and counter-terrorism expert Patrick Mercer said of Ali: “It beats me why the police should want to take the advice of this man. They should have nothing to do with him. I know for a fact that there are just as knowledgeable members of the Muslim community who do not share his subversive views.”
Yet, in spite of his extremist views, Ali’s MEND biography states that he is a member of the IPCC’s Community Advisory Group and the Home Office’s Trust and Confidence Community Panel. West Yorkshire Police, which is sharing a platform with Azad Ali in Leeds this month, did not return a request for comment.
Hamara, the group behind the Leeds Building Bridges conference at which Ali will speak, says it “stands out as a beacon within the community and voluntary sector and its success has inspired many other organisations to emulate its achievements”. It did not return a request for comment.
Invitations to Building Bridges were sent from a Leeds City Council email address on 5 November to delegates within Leeds City Council and Leeds University, according to messages seen by Breitbart, as well as to other police forces, charities and housing associations. Leeds City Council did not provide a spokesperson for comment.
City of London Police’s Equality Diversity and Human Rights Unit confirmed to Breitbart that it was running an event with MEND, and that MEND’s managing director, Sufyan Ismail, would be speaking alongside a representative from City of London Police, but declined to answer further questions by email.
The London Muslim Communities Forum, a strategic body that advises Scotland Yard on Muslim issues, promoted the National Association of Muslim Police event on 24 November to officers elsewhere in the force, charities, youth groups, the Home Office and even Transport for London staff in an email on 10 November, seen by Breitbart.
The LMCF did not respond to a written request for comment, despite agreeing over the telephone to respond to any enquiries sent by email.
by IPT News • Oct 28, 2014
Just after last week’s terrorist attacks in Ottawa, the city’s police chief Charles Bordeleau reached out to various Muslim leaders and organizations with questionable ties to radical organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, according to a report produced by the Canadian website Point De Bascule.
Sikhander Hashmi, the imam at the Kanata Muslim Association (KMA), acknowledged that Bordeleau contacted him to reassure the Muslim community in case of “backlash” from the terrorist attack. This perceived “backlash” remains to be seen. More significantly, the Ottawa Police Service overlooks connections between Hahsmi’s organization and the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in Ottawa. That includes money it transferred to the Hamas-linked IRFAN-Canada in 2010, according to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
IRFAN-Canada lost its charity status in 2011 following a CRA audit that exposed the organization as an “integral part” in Hamas’ international fundraising infrastructure. The donations in question were sent between 2005 and 2009. Canadian authorities designated IRFAN-Canada as a terrorist organization earlier this year after determining the charity served as a front for Hamas, transferring close to $15 million to the terrorist organization.
The KMA also transferred money to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), an organization linked to the Pakistani Jammat-e-Islami.
Moreover, Chief Bordeleau previously met with other controversial Muslim leaders in Ottawa. In January 2013, he met with Jalil Marhnouj, vice president of the Assunnah Muslims Association and other leaders affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood network in Canada. The Assunnah Muslims Association transferred $29,880 to IRFAN.
Despite the Canadian government’s acknowledged link between the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and Hamas, the Ottawa Police Service maintains an extensive relationship with the controversial group. The NCCM, formerly known as CAIR-CAN, has trained Ottawa Police officers since February 2002, according to a Senate Committee testimony provided by a former Ottawa police chief. The NCCM is a recognized affiliate of CAIR, which has been identified by the FBI as part of a Hamas-support network in the United States.
Click here for the full Point De Bascule.
by David B. Harris
Special to IPT News
October 7, 2014
Ever since full-blown cases of the disease hit the United States, Canadians have dreaded the contagion’s arrival north of the 49thparallel.
Its effects: blindness and a deadly incapacity to recognize and adapt to reality.
The malady? The White House’s refusal to identify the leading terrorist enemy by name and combatant doctrine.
President Obama began his administration by avoiding counterterror language likely to link Islam with violence. This reflected a civilized and practical impulse to avoid alienating Muslims at home and abroad.
But perhaps influenced by the demonstrable fact that President Obama, as former terror prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy put it, “made Islamic supremacists key administration advisors,” this effort quickly got out of control. Now the White House fetishizes and enforces on its security agencies, a refusal to identify the doctrine underlying the bulk of the world’s terrorism woes: radical Islamism.
Remarkable, considering that Muslims sounded the alarm years ago.
“Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists but, regrettably, the majority of the terrorists in the world are Muslims,” wrote Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed in a 2004 Al-Sharq Al-Awsatarticle flagged by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Despite this, the Obama White House banned words like “Islamists,” “Muslims” and “jihad” from security documents, even from FBI and other government agencies’ counterterror training manuals.
Lawyer and retired US military intelligence officer Major Stephen C. Coughlin exposed the censorship’s extent at a February 2010 conference. In 2004, he noted, the 9/11 Commission Report made 126 mentions of “jihad,” 145 of “Muslim,” and used the word “Islam” over 300 times. No surprise.
But Washington later purged such terms completely from the FBI counterterrorism lexicon (2008), National Intelligence Strategy (2009) and even the 2010 panel reviewing jihadi Nidal Malik Hasan’s 2009 Fort Hood massacre – except as unavoidable parts of names of terror organizations or the like. The practice seems to continue.
Understanding the threat – extremist Muslims, in this case – requires understanding their doctrine. If terrorists were invoking Christianity – it has happened – security and intelligence organizations would focus on problematic churches and related facilities connected to radical preaching, funding and recruitment. Christian holy literature would be scrutinized, in order to anticipate terrorists’ plans, targets and attack-dates. Redouble the guard on Christmas or Easter? Could atheists, Muslims or Jews be targets? Regardless whether extremists’ interpretations should, in any objective sense, be true or false representations of the ideology in question, serious intelligence must look at these things in order to understand and master the threats posed by all extremist strains of religion or other ideologies. Politicians and the public must discuss them. Public education, transparency, democracy and our defense, demand this. Anything else is misleading, self-deceiving and likely self-defeating.
So it was that, three years ago, the Canadian government published the first of its annual series of public threat reports. This straight-talking assessment pinpointed “Sunni Islamist extremism” as a primary menace to Canadians.
But, tragically, the D.C. disease had overtaken Canada’s security bureaucracy by the time August brought the 2014 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat to Canada. This report expunges all direct references to Islamists, other than in terror-organization names.
Take, for example, the latest report’s warning about Canadians joining terror outfits abroad. Gone are terms like “Islamist extremists” and even “violent jihad.” The report’s authors – apparently burdened by “advice” from misguided outreach to Canadian Islamists – slavishly substituted generic terms like “extremist travellers” for language revealing the religious claims, affiliations, motivations and doctrines of our enemies. “Extremist travellers” appears dozens of times to the exclusion of meaningful nomenclature – an editing embarrassment, on top of a national-security one. From the 2014 report:
Europol estimates that between 1,200 and 2,000 European extremist travellers took part in the conflict in Syria in 2013. There appears to be an increase in extremist travellers. This suggests that the threat posed to Europe by returning extremist travellers may be more significant than the threat facing North America because greater numbers of extremist travellers are leaving, then returning to Europe, than are leaving and later returning to North America. This difference between Canada and Europe in numbers of extremist travellers can be attributed to a variety of factors. Regardless, Europe and Canada face a common, interconnected threat from extremist travellers. [Emphasis added.]
In just one paragraph, Canada’s self-censoring report says that many Europeans are “fighting abroad as extremist travellers“; “they attract extremist travellers … and continue to draw European extremist travellers“; there were “European extremist travellers in Syria and other conflict zones”; the “influx of these extremist travellersinto Syria” increases the European terror risk; “an extremist traveller who returned from Syria” allegedly slaughtered several Belgians. (Emphasis added.)
This doubletalk undermines public awareness, public confidence in authorities and the ability of officials and citizens alike to recognize, assess and confront terrorist and subversive enemies and their doctrine.
We saw the absurd far reaches of this self-blinding mentality a few years ago when Canadian police officers at a terrorism news conference thanked “the community” for facilitating an Islamist terrorist take-down. When a journalist asked which community they meant, the officers – not daring to say “Muslim” – all but froze, thawing only enough to become caricatures of stymied stumbling. Because paralyzing PC protocols banned the M-word, the conference ended without the officers having been able explicitly to thank the deserving “Muslim community.”
How has Canada come to this?
Among other sources, Canadian security officials get advice from their federal government’s Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security. Prominent member Hussein Hamdani reportedly campaigned to drop language implicating things “Islamic.” Meanwhile, Hamdani, the subject of a just-released report by Canada’s Point de Bascule counter extremist research organization, remains vice-chair of the North American Spiritual Revival (NASR) organization. On its website, NASR boasts – as it has done for years – of sponsoring an appearance in Canada by U.S. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, frequently tagged a radical and a 1993 World Trade Center bombingunindicted co-conspirator. Fellow American Muslim Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, once said of Wahhaj: “He’s the No. 1 advocate of radical Islamic ideology among African-Americans. His stuff is very appealing to young Muslims who are on a radical path.”
Hamdani’s NASR also brought American Imam Ziad Shakir to Canada. His disturbingideology, as I’ve written elsewhere, “was condemned by moderate American Muslim leader and retired U.S. naval Lt. Cmdr Zuhdi Jasser, and by the American Anti-Defamation League.” Some have other concerns about Hamdani.
Now comes word that Hamdani, squired by Angus Smith, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) analyst sometimes linked to the censorship policy, will appear on a Montgomery County, Md. panel tomorrow to enlighten Americans about radicalism and the ISIS terror threat.
by Mark Durie
September 26, 2014
The past few weeks have been hard ones for Australians, not least for Australian Muslims. Various alleged plots by Islamic State supporters to slaughter Australians has Islam in the news. Even as I write, five out of ten of the “most popular” articles onThe Australian‘s website are about Islamic jihad and national security.
What are ordinary Australians to make of conspiracy theories aired by Muslims on the ABC’s Q&A program, implying that recent police raids were staged as a cynical act to manipulate public opinion? Are Muslims being unfairly victimised by all these security measures?
How are we to evaluate Senator Jacqui Lambie’s claim that sharia law “obviously involves terrorism”? Or the Prime Minister’s decision to mobilise Australian troops against the Islamic State?
What about the Islamic State’s grandiose claim that “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women.” Or [Prime Minister Tony] Abbott’s declaration that the balance between freedom and security needs to be adjusted in favour of greater security and less freedom?
Earlier this month, an 18-year-old Melbourne man, Numan Haider, was shot dead by police after he stabbed two officers outside a suburban police station. At the time of writing, news was breaking that authorities believed he intended to behead a police officer and post the photos online.
Prison officers in Goulburn jail have struggled to contain the worst riot in ten years, during which rampaging prisoners were heard to be crying “Allahu Akbar.”
A Christian woman who works in a church close by an Islamic centre has asked her employer to install security measures to protect her and others at the church. Someone else, a convert from Islam to Christianity, reports that his personal sense of being under threat has risen, because he feels that people he knew from his earlier life as a radical Muslim are more likely to be activated to violence after the successes of the Islamic State and their global call to arms. Are such responses reasonable? Or are they Islamophobic?
Many young Muslims have been using the hashtag #NotInMyName on social media. Many are insisting that IS does not speak for them: as Anne Aly put it “This isn’t in my name, this isn’t what Islam is about, I am against it and they don’t have my allegiance, they don’t have my support.” How then can we know the truth about Islam?
What is a Christian response to all this? How can we find our way through these crises: does protecting national security mean we risk losing some part of our soul?
A truly Christian response to the multi-faceted challenge of “Muslims behaving badly” must embrace both truth and love in equal measure.
Truth will acknowledge that the Islamic State ideologues do claim to speak for Islam, and that they justify their actions from the Koran and Muhammad’s example. Truth will acknowledge that IS has recruited tens of thousands of Muslims to fight for their cause, but apparently not a single Christian, Jew or Buddhist. As Brother Rachid, a Moroccan convert to Christianity put it in a widely distributed letter to President Obama “ISIL’s 10,000 members are all Muslims. None of them are from any other religion. They come from different countries and have one common denominator: Islam.”
Truth will recognise that the self-declared “caliph” of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic studies: he is not ignorant of Islam. It will also acknowledge that the very idea of a caliphate – a supra-national Islamic state – is a religious ideal widely shared by many Muslims. However this ideal bodes ill for any non-Muslims who fall under its power.
Truth will accept that there is a price to pay for increased security. Since 9/11 we wait in queues at airports because of the actions of jihadis. As the level of threat increases, it is inevitable that our need for increased security measures will only grow.
Truth will also acknowledge that many Muslims vehemently reject the methods and goals of the Islamic state, and that the #NotInMyName hashtag campaign is genuine and heartfelt. But this begs the question: “What is the real Islam?”
Love on the other hand, will reject stereotyping Muslims or denigrating them with labels of hatred and suspicion. Love will reach out a hand of friendship. It will show grace instead of fear, kindness instead of rejection or indifference. Love demands that we emphatically reject speech which dehumanises Muslims or pins labels on them. It will honour those Muslims who reject the Islamic State’s ideology. Love will find new friends even on the blackest of days.
It can be tempting at times such as this to chose between love and truth. Love without truth can be gullible, opening the door to many threats. I am reminded of a Persian fable. A Fox met a Heron and said “My, what lovely feathers you have, dear Heron. May I have one?” The Heron obliged. The next day they met again. Day after day the Fox’s question was repeated, and day after the day the Heron’s response was the same. One day they met for the last time. The Heron had been plucked bare, so the Fox said “Heron, you look delicious. Now I will eat you. And he did.”
Love without boundaries, at the cost of truth, can wreak incredible havoc on innocent lives. In the end, such love is false, and will prove profoundly unloving. Genuine love does not fear the truth. True love will not deny or obscure the damaging effect of sharia law upon Christians living in Islamic societies, or the atrocities being perpetrated in the name of Islam against Christians and others by the “caliphate”. It will be mindful of the words in Proverbs 24:11-12: “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering towards slaughter. If you say ‘But we knew nothing about this,’ does not he who weighs the heart perceive it.”
On the other hand, truth without love can become merciless, excluding and cruel. Love counts the cost of aggressive argument and rejects rhetoric. It takes pains to understand the other; it seeks to see the world through another’s eyes and to hear words through another’s ears. Love nurtures life-giving relationships. It reaches out to enmity and answers it with grace. It does not jump to conclusions, but is patient and careful. It delights to partner with and nurture truth and does not fear it.
Professor Peter Leahy, former Army Chief and leading defence strategist has warned Australians that we face a war that is “likely to last for the rest of the century”. If he is right, then the troubles we are facing now as a nation are only the beginning, and dealing with the potential horrors ahead will stretch our humanity to its limits.
As Christians we are called to be salt and light in the world. If this means anything, it means staying true to Jesus’ two great statements “the truth shall set you free” and “love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you”. This is no time for circling the wagons and cowering behind them in fear.
This is a time for Australians to reach out to our Muslim neighbours, to show and receive grace. In the present difficulties many Muslims will agree with Melbourne lawyer Shabnum Cassim who stated that “the everyday Muslim just wants to get on with their day.” As a nation the fact that we need to respond realistically to genuine threats to our peace, and seek a true understanding of the religious beliefs that generate these threats, should not deflect us from the everyday task of getting on with our lives together, graciously, inclusively and generously.
Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. His book The Third Choice explains the implications for Christians of living under Islamic rule.
CSP, By Kyle Shideler:
Following on the heels of targeted airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Obama Administration has continued to show a dramatic lack of strategic comprehension by publicly praising an Islamic cleric linked to previous calls to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Islamic cleric, Abdullah Bin Bayyah, was the vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, led by Muslim Brotherhood chief jurist Yusuf Al Qaradawi in 2004, when IUMS called for the killing of Americans in Iraq. This is not the first time Bin Bayyah has been close to the White House, having attended a meeting with White House advisors in 2013.
At the same time President Obama was praising Bin Bayyah, the Secretary of the Department for Homeland Security Jeh Johnson was in central Ohio, meeting with representatives of the Al Noor Cultural Islamic Center. This Islamic center has a long history of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and extremist activity, as ably chronicled by veteran investigative reporter Patrick Poole. It was made somewhat infamous as being the mosque at the center of the Rifqa Bary case, when a young Muslim teenager converted to Christianity, and fled Ohio, fearing that she would become the victim of an honor killing.
Most notable among those tied to the mosque is its former Scholar-in-Residence Salah Sultan, a long-time associate of Yusuf Al Qaradawi, and like Bin Bayyah, a member of the International Union of Muslim Scholars. Sultan is currently in Egypt, where he held a position under the Muslim Brotherhood dominated government, until its overthrow. The Chairman of the Noor Mosque board, at the time of Sultan’s attendance, was Hany Saqr, the Eastern masul (regional leader) for the North American Muslim Brotherhood, as named in a 1992 phone directory of the North American Muslim Brotherhood, as acquired by Federal prosecutors and entered into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation Trial. While Saqr is no longer Chairman at the mosque, he appears to remain a member of its Executive Council, and chairman of its Khutbah (Friday Sermon) committee.
In yet another coincidence, while these meetings were being reported, other individuals with known ties to the Muslim Brotherhood including the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, The ADAMS Center and the Fiqh Council for North America(of which Salah Sultan was a member), were holding a press conference at the National Press Club, issuing an open letter to AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi (aka Caliph Ibrahim) of the Islamic State, declaring “peace and mercy” upon him, and using Islamic law to supposedly critique his organization’s violence. Among the signatories on the letter was none other than Abdullah bin Bayyah.
The letter criticized ISIS for its behavior, in particular for killing journalists, using the logic (the same given by Jihadists including Al Qaeda) that the journalists were considered emissaries or diplomats and thus not eligible for killing. The letter also disagreed with other elements of ISIS’s practice of Islamic law, including the method by which AlBaghdadi was named Caliph.
While the letter supposedly condemns ISIS’ “offensive jihad”, it nonetheless endorses the very jihad that Bin Bayyah supported against U.S. troops in Iraq, namely a “defensive jihad.” The letter states, “All Muslims see the great virtue” in jihad, and that jihad is a “communal” not “individual” obligation. It also denounces the use of the term Jihad in killing Muslims (although notably not non-Muslims). The letter notes, “Jihad is tied to safety, freedom of religion, having been wronged, and eviction from one’s land.” Under such a rubric, one could see how the Muslim Brotherhood organizations may be denouncing ISIS, but endorsing (or at least not denouncing) other jihadist groups like Al Nusra Front, (which is Al Qaeda’s remaining Syrian unit), and Hamas, itself a part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is folly for the Administration to on the one hand bomb IS, as it seeks to perfect an Islamic state under shariah law, while at the same time endorsing, praising and working alongside those equally beholden to shariah.
As was the case with the Cold War, the conflict is principally an ideological struggle. You can not win by promoting and supporting the ideas of the enemy. President Obama could have used the opportunity to provide a full-throated support for what we as Americans believe, and the superiority of our way of life over the values of groups like ISIS, but instead, used his time to promote the very ideas of those like Bin Bayaah, who ultimately support the killing of Americans, as long as it is done under their say so, rather than al-Baghdadi’s. Likewise, we can not win by partnering with organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, who tell us that the solution to the Islamic state can be found in the application of Islamic law.
Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo:
President Barack Obama favorably quoted and praised on Wednesday in his speech before the United Nations a controversial Muslim cleric whose organization has reportedly endorsed the terror group Hamas and supported a fatwa condoning the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Obama in his remarks offered praise to controversial cleric Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah and referred to him as a moderate Muslim leader who can help combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL or ISIS) radical ideology.
However, Bin Bayyah himself has long been engulfed in controversy for many of his views, including the reported backing of a 2004 fatwa that advocated violent resistance against Americans fighting in Iraq.
This is not the first time that the Obama administration has extoled Bin Bayyah, who also has served as the vice president of a Muslim scholars group founded by a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader who has called “for the death of Jews and Americans,” according to Fox News and other reports.
The State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau (CT) was forced to issue multiple apologies earlier this year after the Washington Free Beacon reported on its promotion of Bin Bayyah on Twitter.
“This should not have been tweeted and has since been deleted,” the CT Bureau tweeted at the time after many expressed anger over the original endorsement of Bin Bayyah.
However, it appears that Obama and the White House are still supportive of Bin Bayyah, who, despite his past statements, is still hailed by some as a moderate alternative to ISIL and al Qaeda.
“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day,” Obama said before the U.N., according to a White House transcript of his remarks.
“Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies—Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: ‘We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace,’” Obama said, quoting the controversial cleric.
Concern over the administration’s relationship with Bin Bayyah started as early as 2013, when outrage ensued after he was reported to have met with Obama’s National Security Council staff at the White House.
While Bin Bayyah has condemned the actions of groups such as Boko Haram and ISIL, he also has taken controversial positions against Israel.
He issued in 2009 a fatwa “barring ‘all forms of normalization’ with Israel,” according to a Fox report on the White House meeting.
Additionally, the notorious 2004 fatwa permitting armed resistance against U.S. military personnel in Iraq reportedly stated that “resisting occupation troops” is a “duty” for all Muslims, according to reports about the edict.
Patrick Poole, a reporter and terrorism analyst who has long tracked Bin Bayyah, expressed shock that the Obama administration would endorse the cleric on the world stage.
“It is simply amazing that just a few months ago the State Department had to publicly apologize for tweeting out it’s support for Bin Bayyah, only to have Barack Obama go before the leaders of the entire world and publicly endorse Bin Bayyah’s efforts,” Poole said.
“It seems that nothing can stop this administration’s determination to rehabilitate Bin Bayyah’s image, transforming him from the Islamic cleric who issued the fatwa to kill Americans in Iraq and calling for the death of Jews to the de facto White House Islamic mufti,” he said.
This type of mentality has contributed to the administration’s foreign policy failures in the region,” Poole said.
“This is a snapshot of why this administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East is a complete catastrophe,” he said. “The keystone of their policy has been that so-called ‘moderate Islamists’ were going to be the great counter to al Qaeda. But if you take less than 30 seconds to do a Google search on any of these ‘moderate Islamists,’ you immediately find they are just a degree or two from the most hardcore jihadis and have little to no difference when it comes to condoning violence.”
A White House official said that the president’s remarks speak for themselves and declined to add anything further.
On Monday, I had a follow-up to last week’s column on why members of the Obama administration and other transnational progressives deny that the Islamic State is Islamic — viz., because they want to ally with what they call “moderate Islamists.” If Americans grasp that “moderate Islamists” and violent jihadists share the same basic ideology, such an alliance becomes politically untenable.
Case in point: The curious tale of Mohamed Elibiary, the Obama administration’s go-to “moderate Islamist” for counterterrorism advice.
The “moderate Islamist” folly has both domestic and international components, and the Obama administration is far from alone in it. On the foreign-policy side of the equation, see David French’s excellent post on Monday highlighting how the administration (echoed by the GOP’s McCain wing) is again calling for the arming of the purportedly “moderate Syrian rebels” — and don’t miss continuing coverage of these U.S.-backed “moderates” as they collude with terrorists from al-Qaedaand the Islamic State. When that same strategy was applied in Libya, it gave us the Benghazi Massacre, contributed to the rise of the Islamic State, and left the country in jihadist clutches.
My Monday follow-up column dealt with the domestic side of our government’s “moderate Islamist” charade: the appearance last week of several administration officials with a number of their Islamist advisers — leaders of enterprises linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. These organizations and institutions continue to have Obama’s ear even though some were proved in court to have conspired in the Brotherhood’s conspiracy to provide material support to Hamas, its Palestinian terrorist branch, through a “charity” known as the Holy Land Foundation.
Now the Washington Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo reports on Mr. Elibiary, Obama’s appointee to the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council . . . though not for long. The administration has quietly announced that Elibiary is about to be cashiered.
Obama and then–DHS secretary Janet Napolitano made Elibiary a key counterterrorism adviser even though he had been a regular contributor to the very Holy Land Foundation charity the Justice Department had prosecuted. The HLF, it turns out, was established by Elibiary’s longtime friend Shukri Abu Baker. The latter was among the defendants convicted of using the “charity” to finance Hamas — he is serving a 65-year sentence from the prosecution that Elibiary dismisses as Islamophobic persecution.
Elibiary’s intriguing credentials also include his appearance at a 2004 conference in Dallas that paid “Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In addition, he has publicly praised the Islamic-supremacist writings of Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb, so inspirational to Osama bin Laden, Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheikh), and other infamous terrorists.
As I’ve previously recounted, Elibiary was tapped by the Obama Homeland Security Department for its expert working group on “Violent Extremism” (because we wouldn’t want to call it “Jihadist Terrorism”). It was this panel that formulated the president’s vaunted counterterrorism strategy, which envisions having law-enforcement agents pare back their intelligence-gathering activities and take their marching orders from “community partners” (i.e., local Islamist organizations).
Elibiary’s star has fallen because even this Islamist-friendly administration is embarrassed over his commentary about the “inevitable” return of the Muslim “caliphate.” Islamic-supremacist rhetoric is not out of the ordinary for this, shall we say, nuanced counterterrorism expert, but it was a tad untimely: Elibiary’s tweets are being praised by Islamic State affiliates, potentially facilitating their recruitment of young Muslims into the anti-American jihad.
That’s not all. There are also allegations, broken by investigative journalist Patrick Poole in 2011, that Elibiary used the access to sensitive information afforded by his DHS position to obtain documents that he is said to have peddled to the media for purposes of manufacturing a claim of “Islamophobia” (what else?) against Texas governor Rick Perry.
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R., Texas), among others, has been pressing the administration for an explanation regarding both the leak allegations and how Elibiary managed to get a security clearance. Representative Gohmert, you may recall, is also one of the five House conservatives who asked how Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, managed to get a security clearance despite her extensive (and not very moderate) Islamist connections. For their trouble, the five were vigorously attacked by Senator McCain, who took time out from calling for arming the “moderate Islamists” in Libya — or was it in Syria? — to defend Ms. Abedin on the Senate floor.
Obama’s DHS denied any wrongdoing by Elibiary after what it claimed was a full investigation. Nevertheless, Mr. Kredo reports that when Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act claim for details about this investigation, DHS said it did not have any. After the usual Obama-administration foot-dragging, DHS finally acknowledged in a 2013 letter that it could not find any “investigative records regarding the alleged mishandling” of sensitive information by Elibiary.
Was there a real investigation by the Obama administration of its Islamist counterterrorism adviser? We don’t know. We just know it has suddenly been announced that Elibiary won’t be reappointed.
By the way, the Obama administration also consulted with Muslim “experts” when it purged information about Islamic-supremacist ideology from the materials used to train our law-enforcement, intelligence, and military personnel. I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but the administration refuses to identify its expert consultants — in fact, the administration took the astonishing step of classifying their identities when Congress started asking questions.
But don’t worry: We can rest assured that the experts Obama put in charge of what our national-security agents get to learn about our enemies are very “moderate Islamists.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.