Category Archives: Political Islam

Robert Vaughan in Conversation with Dr. Bill Warner – Political Islam

Posted on by
Reply

imagesCA81OQHTRobert Vaughan of Just Right Media  interviewed Dr. Bill Warner in Toronto on Nov. 25, 2012. Dr. Warner holds a PhD in physics and math from NC State University, 1968. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied physicist. He has authored several books on Political Islam, chief among them being “The Islamic Trilogy,” a three volume analyses of The Sira, The Hadith, and The Koran. Dr. Warner currently runs the web site politicalislam.com which has as its Mission Statement: “…to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.”

Think Again: The Muslim Brotherhood

Posted on by
1

MB protestorsBY ERIC TRAGER:

How did so many Western analysts get Egypt’s Islamist movement so wrong?

“They’re democrats.”

Don’t kid yourself. Long before the Jan. 25 revolution that ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, many academics and policymakers argued that his main adversary — the Muslim Brotherhood — had made its peace with democracy. This was based on the assumption that, since the Muslim Brotherhood participated in virtually every election under Mubarak, it was committed to the rule of the people as a matter of principle.

It was also based on what typically sympathetic Western researchers heard from Muslim Brotherhood leaders, and what I heard as well. “Democracy is shura,” Brotherhood Deputy Supreme Guide Khairat al-Shater told me during a March 2011 interview, referring to the Islamic jurisprudential tool of “consultation.” The implication was that the Brotherhood accepted a political system that encouraged open debate.

Yet since the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohamed Morsy, was elected president in June, the exact opposite has been true. The Brotherhood’s only real “consultation” has been with the Egyptian military, which the Brotherhood persuaded to leave power by ceding substantial autonomy to it under the new constitution. Among other undemocratic provisions, this backroom deal yielded constitutional protection for the military’s separate court system, under which civilians can be prosecuted for the vague crime of “damaging the armed forces.”

Meanwhile, the Brotherhood has embraced many of the Mubarak regime’s autocratic excesses: Editors who are critical of the Brotherhood have lost their jobs, and more journalists have been prosecuted for insulting the president during Morsy’s six months in office than during Mubarak’s 30-year reign. And much as Mubarak’s ruling party once did, the Brotherhood is using its newfound access to state resources as a political tool: It reportedly received below-market food commodities from the Ministry of Supply and Social Affairs, which it is redistributing to drum up votes in the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

The Brotherhood’s most blatantly undemocratic act, however, was Morsy’s Nov. 22 “constitutional declaration,” through which he placed his presidential edicts above judicial scrutiny and asserted the far-reaching power to “take the necessary actions and measures to protect the country and the goals of the revolution.” When this power grab catalyzed mass protests, Morsy responded by ramming a new constitution through the Islamist-dominated Constituent Assembly, and the Brotherhood later mobilized its cadres to attack the anti-Morsy protesters, and subsequently extract confessions from their captured fellow citizens. So much for promises of “consultation.”

As the Brotherhood’s first year in power has demonstrated, elections do not, by themselves, yield a democracy. Democratic values of inclusion are also vital. And the Muslim Brotherhood — which has deployed violence against protesters, prosecuted its critics, and leveraged state resources for its own political gain — clearly lacks these values.

Read the rest of this excellent piece at Foreign Policy

What is the Truth about American Muslims, Part 2/3

Posted on by
1

By Bill Warner

The First Amendment Center, the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted leftists at the Interfaith Alliance have produced a polished piece of apologist propaganda for Islam. It has been getting a lot media play, because it says all the things the public would like to believe about Islam. It is a textbook summary of arguments made by Islam’s apologists and serves as a teaching example of how to refute this propaganda using the scientific method.

Here is the truth about Muslims. They will not tell you the whole truth, but only a half truth. Islam is inherently dualistic and holds two opposing truths at the same time. There are two Korans, an early Koran written in Mecca and a later Koran written in Medina. There is no jihad in the early Meccan Koran, but the later Medinan Koran is filled with jihad. So which is the real Islam? Both peace and war are true Islam. A Muslim will only talk about the half he needs. But, there is one Muslim who will tell you the complete truth—Mohammed. Needless to say, this propaganda does not consult him.

Here is the second part of the analysis:

9. How do American Muslims participate in American public life?

American Muslims have created institutions of their own in the United States, just like other religious communities. There are many long-established groups such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an umbrella organization of some 300 mosques and Islamic centers based in Indiana, and newer organizations like the Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals.

“Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)”

Whoa! ISNA is participation in American life? ISNA is pure Muslim Brotherhood; in fact, they are at the top of the list in the Muslim Brotherhood memo submitted in the Holy Land Foundation trial. And what is the Muslim Brotherhood? An organization dedicated to bringing the caliphate to rule over the entire world and to destroy our Constitution by replacing it with Sharia law.

And remember the Muslim Brotherhood motto? Here it is:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

ISNA and all other Muslim Brotherhood types participate in American life in the sense of working to annihilate it.

10. Is Islam a political movement?

No. Islam is a religious tradition and adherents to Islam are called Muslim. Of course, American Muslims like Americans from other religious groups, participate in American political life. American Muslim voting patterns generally mirror the broader American population. American Muslims are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, liberals, and conservatives. There is no one political platform or agenda for those who practice the religion of Islam in the United States.

“Islam is a religious tradition”

Yes, but it is also a political tradition. To prove that read the Sira, the biography of Mohammed. It is very interesting to plot the data found in the Sira about how Islam grew. Here is the plot:

The religion of Islam was a failure. In preaching the religion of Islam, Mohammed converted 150 Arabs to Islam. Then he went to Medina and became a politician and a jihadist. During the last 9 years of his life in Medina, he averaged an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks. When Mohammed died every Arab was a Muslim. Without politics and jihad there would have never been an Islam. The religion failed, the politics succeeded.

11. Have American Muslim leaders spoken out against extremist violence?

Yes. Many American Muslim leaders and organizations have repeatedly denounced extremist violence in the strongest possible terms.

Of the many statements and actions taken by American Muslims to condemn and counter terrorism, the fatwa (religious ruling) from the Fiqh Council of North America (an Islamic juristic body) captures the views of the vast majority of American Muslims: “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism.”

Fiqh Council of North America condems violence, but Islam does not condemn jihad. Jihad is neither extremism nor terrorism. The Fiqh Council of North America (a Muslim Brotherhood group) may condemn terrorism, but Allah does not.

8:12 God revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the Kafirs. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’

“innocent lives”

As you read about innocence, remember that a Kafir is in perpetual rebellion against Islam. Hence, Kafirs are never innocent, but guilty of offending Allah.

The Fiqh Council of North America’s statement affirms the following Islamic principles:

“All acts of terrorism, including those targeting the life and property of civilians, whether perpetrated by suicidal or any other form of attacks, are haram (forbidden) in Islam.

“All acts of terrorism…are haram”

Well, so acts of terror are forbidden in Islam. But jihad is a community obligation for all Muslims. Jihad is not terror, but sacred violence to prepare the world for Islam and the Sharia.

Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not.

“It is haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or prohibited violence.”

I guess that Mohammed did not get this memo, because he said, just the opposite:

[Bukhari 4,52,96] Mohammed: “Anyone who arms a jihadist is rewarded just as a fighter would be; anyone who gives proper care to a holy warrior’s dependents is rewarded just as a fighter would be.”

“It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to undertake full measures to protect the lives of all civilians, and ensure the security and well-being of fellow citizens.”

Muslims are to undertake full measures to follow the Sunna of Mohammed and he attacked every single neighbor, without a single exception. And he did it year after year, until he ran out of enemies in Arabia and then he left Arabia to go to Syria and attack the Christians there.

12. Are American Muslims concerned about extremist violence in the United States?

Yes. Most American Muslims, like most other Americans, are deeply concerned about the problem of extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. According to the most reliable data we have, the overwhelming majority of American Muslims is well integrated into American society and report criminal activity. Over the past decade, 40% of domestic terrorism plots have been uncovered or deterred with assistance from American Muslims.[iii]

“40% of domestic terrorism plots have been uncovered or deterred with assistance from American Muslims”

Since 100% of the domestic jihad has been by Muslims, what can be said about the other 60%? What Muslims did not turn them in?

13. Do American Muslim leaders support freedom of expression and religious liberty?

“support freedom of expression and religious liberty”

Really? Then why do the Muslim Brotherhood organizations demand that only Muslims be allowed to talk about Islam to government officials? That is freedom of expression? Under pressure of Islamic leaders, no US agency can listen to a lecture about Islam if it is given by Kafirs, courtesy of Obama.

Yes. Many American Muslim leaders, educational institutions, and advocacy groups have repeatedly spoken out for freedom of expression and are actively involved in promoting religious liberty for all people both in the United States and abroad.

“promoting religious liberty for all people both in the United States and abroad”

The Center for the Study of Political Islam publishes a monthly newsletter called the Bulletin of Christian Persecution. It documents the murder, rape, kidnapping of Christians in Muslim nations. Thousands of Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus die each year at the hands of Muslims. This persecution was started 1400 years ago by Mohammed and sanctioned by Allah. Here is the liberty promised by Allah:

Koran 9:29 Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given [Christians] as believe in neither Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostles have forbidden [follow Sharia], and do not embrace Islam, until they pay the dhimmi tax out of hand and are utterly humiliated.

Allah’s liberty for Christians includes murder until the survivors agree to live by the Sharia, pay special taxes and are humiliated.

read more at Political Islam

What is the Truth about American Muslims, Part 1

Posted on by
2

By Bill Warner:

The First Amendment Center, the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted leftists at the Interfaith Alliance have produced a polished piece of apologist propaganda for Islam. It has been getting a lot media play, because it says all the things the public would like to believe about Islam. It is a textbook summary of arguments made by Islam’s apologists and serves as a teaching example of how to refute this propaganda using the scientific method.

The theme of this propaganda brochure is that “truth” about Islam is all about opinions. But, the truth of Islamic ideology is found in the Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his Traditions). Mohammed’s acts and words are the perfect model of actions (Sunna) for all Muslims.

The grand lie of this propaganda comes from confusing cause and effect about Islam and Muslims. Islam is a concrete doctrine that produces Muslims. This brochure, What is the Truth about American Muslims, argues that we may learn about Islam from Muslims. The beauty of this approach is that you can choose the Islam you want by choosing the right Muslim. Although Islam can be precisely defined, Muslims are all over the map. There is one Islam, but 1.5 billion Muslims and whatever answer you want about Islam, you can find a Muslim who will tell you what you to hear. And that is what this piece is about—finding the Muslims who will tell you what you want to hear.

Here is the truth about Muslims. They will not tell you the whole truth, but only a half truth. Islam is inherently dualistic and holds two opposing truths at the same time. There are two Korans, an early Koran written in Mecca and a later Koran written in Medina. There is no jihad in the early Meccan Koran, but the later Medinan Koran is filled with jihad. So which is the real Islam? Both peace and war are true Islam. A Muslim will only talk about the half he needs. But, there is one Muslim who will tell you the complete truth—Mohammed. Needless to say, this propaganda does not consult him.
Knowing all of this, the following quotes are taken from the brochure, What Is the Truth about American Muslims?

“This resource has been endorsed by 21 diverse religious, secular, interfaith and civil rights organizations…”

Immediately we that learn the authority of this document is based on 21 groups of diverse people. Sounds good? Maybe. But the brochure is supposed to give us the “Truth about American Muslims”. If we are talking about Muslims, then there is no organization that matters. When we talk about Muslims, there is one way to find out the truth about Muslims–Islam. The only place to find the truth about Islam is in the Koran, Sira and Hadith—the Trilogy—Mohammed and Allah.

Think about it. Who cares what some theology graduate of divinity school says about Islam? If he agrees with Allah and Mohammed, then he is redundant. If he disagrees with Mohammed or Allah, then he is wrong. All the organizational “expert” brings is either redundancy or error. Skip the diverse, secular, interfaith and civil rights bureaucracies, and go to the factual basis of Islam—Koran, Sira and Hadith.

The same thing applies to all Muslims. A Muslim is only a Muslim when they follow the doctrine of Islam. When they don’t follow Islam, they are not being a Muslim. It is so simple. Neither a Muslim nor a non-Muslim has an opinion that is worth a hoot, unless it references the doctrine of Islam.

“During the past decade, acts of violence by extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam have raised fears and created confusion about Islam. In the United States, some individuals and groups have attempted to conflate all of Islam with extremist violence by disseminating misinformation and distortions about Islam and American Muslims. This has led to a rise in discrimination against American Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims, attacks on American Muslim institutions, and protests against the building of mosques in local communities.”

“acts of violence by extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam”

What are these “acts of violence”? There is a massive amount of violence in the Koran, Sira and Hadith and it is the violence of jihad. Here is a chart of how much violence there is in Islam’s sacred texts.


Nearly a third, 31%, of the complete doctrine of Islam is about violence. And who is committing this violence? Both Mohammed and his warriors. Is Mohammed an extremist? No. His actions, the Sunna, are the very definition of moderate Islam. There 91 verses in the Koran that say that the entire world is to follow his perfect example. The Koran defines moderation, the moderation of Islam. Islam is violent; hence when Muslims are violent against the Kafir, that violence is moderation. So say, Mohammed and Allah.

Most people consider “moderate” to mean non-extreme, normal, or average and hence, peaceful. But, pay attention here. Moderation implies some scale or reference. As an example, the temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit would be extremely hot in your living room. But, if you are talking about stars, then 10,000 degrees is moderate, and not even that hot. In the same way, peaceful relations between people are moderate on the scale of the Golden Rule. But, on the scale of the Koran, murder of Kafirs is moderate. So far as “claiming” to act in the name of Islam, when Major Hassan shoots 42 soldiers in Fort Hood while yelling “allahu akbar”, he is claiming to act in name of Islam. But what he is doing is not violence, it is moderation in the name of Islam—the moderation of jihad.

“some individuals and groups have attempted to conflate all of Islam with extremist violence by disseminating misinformation and distortions about Islam and American Muslims.”

Note that we do not conflate “all” of Islam with jihad. No, it is clear that since 67% of the Sira is about jihad, then 33% of the Sira is not about jihad. This analysis exactly measures the truth of the statement.

What is an “American Muslim”? What is any Muslim? A Muslim is one who follows the doctrine of Islam. What is the American Islam that an American Muslim follows? There is no American Islam because there is no American Koran and no American Sunna. There is only the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. End of story. There is only Islam. Muslims are in America as part of the umma (the Islamic community) first, being American is secondary.

Exactly, what part of the Koran and the Sunna does an American Muslim reject or reinterpret? It turns out the words “American Muslim” cannot be defined in terms of doctrine, only in misdirection campaigns such as this.

“By seeking to provide accurate information about religious freedom and American Muslims, this publication does not ignore or minimize the significant threat posed by extremists who promote and commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. We fully recognize the challenge to peace and justice posed by small factions within Islam who lift up extremist theology and pervert their faith to support their violence. All of the world’s major religions have faced similar challenges. But acts of violence by radical individuals and groups must not be used to condemn Islam itself – or to paint all Muslims with the brush of extremism.”

This paragraph is a target rich environment because it contains so many apologist clichés. Let’s tackle them one by one.

First cliché: “religious freedom”

What every person must care about is political Islam, not religious Islam. As an example, the Sharia dictates that during a part of Islamic prayer a Muslim’s backside must be higher that his head. Who cares? Who is trying to restrict that?

Jihad, a part of Islamic doctrine, is political since it is carried out against non-Muslims, the Kafirs. All of Islamic doctrine that concerns the Kafir is political. The amount of Islamic doctrine that is devoted to Kafirs is astounding. Look at this chart based on word count:


The big picture is that over half of Islam’s foundational texts are about the non-Muslim, the Kafir. Islam has a highly detailed doctrine about the Kafir and that means that most of Islamic doctrine is political. This is the reason that Islam has such political impact in America and everywhere Muslims exist.
So drop the “religious freedom” distraction. Let’s deal with the politics of Islam, let’s keep it political and talk all we want.

Next cliché: “must not be used to condemn Islam itself”

We do not need to condemn Islam. We need to know Islamic doctrine and see how it drives the actions of all Muslims, both peaceful ones and jihadists. Islam is dualistic and contains both peace and war (jihad). That is its true nature and we must not condemn it, but know it. We must know the detailed history of political Islam and how the Sharia has annihilated all Kafir civilizations for 14 centuries. We must understand Islam in both root and branch. It condemns itself; we do not need to condemn it.

Next cliché: “paint all Muslims with the brush of extremism”

No, we do not want to paint Muslims with extremism. We want to paint all Muslims with the brush of Islam. We must ask Muslims where they stand on Sharia, the Kafir, jihad, the beating of women, death to apostates and so on. Every Muslim must be confronted with Islamic doctrine. Do they reject the assassination of intellectuals who oppose political Islam? If so how do they oppose it, because Mohammed repeatedly ordered the assassination of all intellectuals and artists who opposed Islam? Assassination of opponents is Sunna, normative Islam.

“Our purpose here is to inform Americans about the vast majority of their fellow citizens who are Muslim. In doing so, we seek to uphold our shared commitment to religious freedom and contribute to a climate of understanding and respect among Americans of all faiths and none.”

Read more at Political Islam

The Political Warfare Campaign Against U.S. Counter-Terrorism Experts

Posted on by
1

By Katharine Cornell Gorka:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has laid out a strategy for preventing reference to terrorism in association with Islam. They are targeting training and education for the military and law enforcement, and pursueing their strategy by working through NGOs, think tanks and international organizations to label as Islamophobes those counter-terrorism trainers who were not approved by specific front-organizations. This article looks at the most recent initiative in this campaign of political warfare: a report by the Muslim Public Affairs Council entitled Not Qualified: Exposing the Deception Behind America’s Top 25 Pseudo Experts on Islam.

As Sun Tzu pointed out, the greatest warrior is one who can win without having to fight. Political warfare—operations designed to influence the perceptions or beliefs of one’s adversary—is thus an invaluable tool because it is a way of winning a conflict without having to use force.  The Soviets knew this well, as did numerous other totalitarian regimes, and the OIC is now using this form of attack to shut down crucial counter-terrorism experts and training in the United States.  This meets both a theological and a strategic imperative for the OIC.  Theologically, the campaign of psychological warfare against CT experts helps to shut down criticism of Muhammad and of Islam, which is deemed forbidden, based upon several different verses of the Koran.  Strategically, it is an advantageous approach because it neutralizes those who have become most knowledgeable on the Islamist threat, thus allowing even greater impunity for agents working to undermine U.S. national security.

The strategy to shut down critical analysis of Islam by declaiming Islamophobia was made public in 2005.  That year, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with its 56 member nations, stated that Islamophobia would be a major focus for the coming decade:

A Ten-Year Programme of Action has been developed, which reviews the most prominent challenges facing the Muslim world today…establishing the values of moderation and tolerance, combating extremism, violence and terrorism, countering Islamophobia, achieving solidarity and cooperation among Member States, conflict prevention, the question of Palestine, the rights of Muslim minorities and communities, and rejecting unilateral sanctions.”[1]

In order to combat Islamophobia, the report stated, the OIC would take a number of steps:  it would establish an observatory to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, work with the UN to adopt a resolution to counter Islamophobia, and urge states to enact laws to combat it.  The broad conclusions of the 2005 meeting were these: Islam can never be criticized and Islam must be de-linked from terrorism.

The OIC campaign scored its first big success with the March 2007 publication of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) “Resolution 4/9 on Combating Defamation of Religions,” which stated, “the council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.”  The resolution further stated that the Council would urge member states to ensure that “public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided…”  The UNHRC document specifically points to education and training for law enforcement and the military as the target of these efforts.

By the following year, the Islamophobia Observatory was up and running, and in March 2008, The 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia was published.  The report stated: “…the proponents of Islamophobia continue their campaign in defaming Islam and Muslims.” In laying out a strategy to prevent and preempt this perceived Islamophobia, the report stated that members would work with think tanks and NGOs in the US, the UK and Europe, to monitor and counter the “anti-Islam campaign” (sic).  What followed was a series of reports and articles attacking the alleged critics of Islam. In much the same way the Soviet Union used peace movements, trade organizations, and unions as front groups for their anti-American activity, so the OIC and individual Muslim funders worked through international and Western organizations for their purposes.  The first notable example was the University of Exeter’s Report entitled, Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: A London Case Study. Published in January 2010, the study called on the UK government to evaluate its current policies, asserting that “counterterrorism strategy still wrongly conflates the al Qaeda threat with other Islamist groups which in turn licenses anti-Muslim hate crimes.” The study was funded by Muslim sources:  Islam Expo, the Cordoba Foundation, founded by Anas al-Tikriti, son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader inIraq, and Sultan bin Mohammed al-Qasimi, a member of the Supreme Council of theUnited Arab Emirates and current ruler of the Sharjah emirate.

In the United States, the funding behind similar studies was never made public, but the themes are strikingly similar to those set forth by the OIC:  concerns over Islamophobia, defamation of Islam, and the need to change the counter-terrorism policies and practices of law enforcement and military.  Among the relevant studies in the United Statesis the Washington Post’s major story entitled Top Secret America.  Published in July 2010, the Post openly stated that more than a dozen WP journalists spent two years developing the study, a significant commitment of resources for a newspaper today.  The report was a wide-scale condemnation of the way theUnited States had addressed terrorism post-9/11.  But what is most interesting about the report is its close adherence to the OIC strategy of targeting the trainers of law enforcement and the military: “Seeking to learn more about Islam and terrorism, some law enforcement agencies have hired as trainers self-described experts whose extremist views on Islam and terrorism are considered inaccurate and counterproductive by the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies.”

Read more at the Westminster Institute

Katharine Cornell Gorka is Executive Director of The Westminster Institute, a non-governmental think tank whose mission is to promote individual dignity and freedom for people throughout the world, with a particular focus on the threat posed by extremism and radical ideologies.  kcg@westminster-institute.org

Europe Bows to Muslim Demands to Limit Free Speech

Posted on by
7

By Soeren Kern:

Protests over an American-made anti-Islamic YouTube film, Innocence of Muslims, have spread to Europe. Muslim rioters have clashed with police in several European cities, and more demonstrations are being planned. The protests are part of widespread anger across the Muslim world about the amateur film, which ridicules Islam and depicts the Muslim Prophet Mohammed as a fraud, a madman and a sexual deviant.

Muslims in many European countries are calling on governments to outlaw the controversial film. They are also pressing elected officials to enact anti-blasphemy laws that would criminalize the criticism of Islam. As most European countries lack American-like First Amendment protections, the momentum is building for the imposition of legal curbs on free speech when such speech is perceived to be offensive to Islam.

Police clash with protesters in Belgium

In Belgium, police using pepper spray and batons arrested more than 200 Muslims in the northern city of Antwerp after clashes at a demonstration against the film. The protest in the Borgerhout district of the city was organized by an Islamic fundamentalist group called Sharia4Belgium. The protest was organized via a text message which read: “We are ready to work with our souls and hearts to fight for our beloved prophet, even if death comes to meet us. Whoever has love for the Prophet must be present.” In Brussels, police arrested more than 30 individuals who participated in two separate protests — one in the Sint-Joost-ten-Node district, and another one in downtown Brussels near the American embassy.

In Britain, some 300 Muslims protested in central London outside the American Embassy. The crowd included many radical Muslims associated with the hardline group, Hizb ut-Tahrir; they shouted slogans and held placards, saying, “America — Get Out of Muslim Lands.” The gathering, which consisted mostly of men but also some women and children, listened to speakers who condemned the film, U.S. foreign policy and the “oppression” of Muslims.

In France, police in Paris arrested 152 Muslims for taking part in an unauthorized, impromptu protest on September 15 at the Place de la Concorde near the American Embassy; there were a number of clashes, with four police officers hurt.

French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said he would prevent any further anti-American demonstrations sparked by the anti-Islam film. “I have issued instructions so that this does not happen again,” Valls told France 2 television. “These protests are forbidden. Any incitement to hatred must be fought with the greatest firmness.” Valls also said that among the roughly 250 protesters, there were some groups that “advocate radical Islam.”

Nevertheless, Muslims have now issued a call via text messages and social media for new protests to be held on Saturday, September 22, at 2pm at the Trocadero district in Paris. The President of the anti-immigrant National Front party, Marine Le Pen, said the protests mark the beginning of a process of “intimidation” by Muslims.

In Germany, major Muslim umbrella organizations have warned that the movie could “endanger the public peace” and lead to “street massacres” in German cities. The chairman of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims, Aiman ​​Mazyek, has also called for a legal ban on the film within the Federal Republic. “I do think that we must use all legal means to ban the film,” Mazyek said in an interview with ARD television. Mazyek continued that the video had the goal of “sowing discord and hatred,” and therefore “I would use all means possible to outlaw the film.”

German political leaders are now equivocating about their commitment to free speech. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, commenting on the anti-Islam movie, said, “I can imagine there would be good reasons to outlaw the film” – a reversal of her statement of just two years ago, when, commenting on the Danish cartoon controversy, she declared: “Free speech is one of the greatest treasures of our society.”

Separately, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said he would consider all legal options to ban public showings of the anti-Islamic film. He said Islamic extremists such as the Salafists are likely to incite violent protests within Germany, which Friedrich called a “highly dangerous” situation.

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has also pleaded for a ban on the movie, arguing that freedom of expression has its limits. “The abuse of a religion that is likely to disturb the public peace is forbidden to us,” he said in an interview on Deutschlandfunk German radio. He also argued that a ban on the film would send the message that “Germany does not stand behind right-wing radicals who insult other religions.”

Section 166 of the German Penal Code already restricts free speech when it involves “insulting religion or belief.” In a landmark Section 166 case in 2006, for example, a German retiree in Lüdinghausen was sentenced to 12 months in prison for writing the words “Koran, the holy Koran” on toilet paper and mailing it local mosques.

Read more at Radical Islam

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

Related articles

You Can Never Awaken a Man Who Is Pretending to be Asleep

Posted on by
4

Bill Warner:

The White House and media response to the events in the US embassies in Egypt and Libya can be characterized by the fact they speak like they have never seen Sharia mob justice before in their lives. Or, at least, you would think that from the knowledge and wisdom they display in their analysis.

For the last 11 years since 9/11, we have watched the same events unroll in the Islamic world and the same response come from our so-called leaders in the government, media, schools and the pulpits. The establishment view: Those Muslims are extremists, not real Muslims. We should be careful not to offend the religion of peace. When Muslims are offended by movies, Koran burnings and Mohammed cartoons, it is our fault.

The clue phone is ringing, pick it up. Here are the clues:

The murder of intellectuals and artists who criticize Mohammed is Sunna. Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed’s life. When Mohammed captured Mecca, he first prayed, then he destroyed all religious art and then he issued death warrants for the artists and intellectuals who had opposed him. There are only two new facts in the Koran, a derivative work. The first new fact is that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and the second new truth is that if you don’t believe he is prophet of Allah, you can be killed.

Violence is what brings Islam success. In Mohammed’s life, he preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 new followers. When he went to Medina and became a politician and a warlord, when he died every Arab was a Muslim. Jihad violence was what made Islam successful. If Mohammed practice jihad, Muslims must use the technique of jihad.

Hello establishment experts, the black flag is not an Al Qaeda flag. The black flag with the Shahada, “There is no god, but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” and the swords goes back to the Golden Age of Islam in Baghdad in the 9th century. (The establishment professors never tell you about this jihad aspect of the Islamic Golden Age.) This jihad flag is ancient.

Current news is that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was killed. If so, then this is pure jihad doctrine. The rules for rape of captured Kafirs (unbelievers) are Sunna. At the conquest of the Jews in Khaybar, the Hadith are explicit that captured Kafirs can be raped.

The mob is a manifestation of the Sharia and the umma (the Islamic community). Notice that when a fatwa is issued, such as the famous fatwa by Khomeini against Salmon Rushdie for his artistic work The Satanic Verses, the fatwa is not to be fulfilled by the Islamic police. No, the murder is to be carried by any member of the umma. This is vigilante justice, Sharia justice, mob justice. Pay attention to how often Muslims riot to make political gain.

The shortest hadith is: war is deceit. So here come all of the “good” Muslims to explain how the murder and riots are not real Islam. And they are so upset about what Arabs are doing at the US embassies. But, they still can tell us that Islam is the religion of peace, without a single trace of irony.

The idea that we should not blaspheme Islam, Mohammed or Allah is pure Sharia and the position of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). It seems that none of the establishment experts have the foggiest idea of what Sharia blasphemy entails. Not believing that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, that a woman is a second class citizen, that jihad is part of Islam is all blasphemy. Critical thought is blasphemy. The Golden Rule is blasphemy. Any well-founded religion can survive blasphemy, except Islam, and that is the reason it is forbidden. But the worst part of this travesty is the refrain from Obama and Hillary that we should subvert our freedom of speech to the demands of the Sharia. The Sharia is Allah’s law and our Constitution is a document of ignorance to be removed from the world. So say the imams and Obama and Hillary.

And now for the last tired response from the apologists: those violent people are an extremist fringe. NO! The mobs are main-line Islam.

You can awaken a man who is asleep, but you will never awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep. That is the reason that we find our experts in the government, media, education and the pulpits to be such dhimmis. They have refused to learn a single thing about Islamic doctrine and history since 9/11. But, cheer up! When the dhimmis write about the beauty of Islam and how the Kafirs are wrong, read the comments. You will find that the common man knows far, far more about Islam than the experts. The higher you go, the less they know.

Muslim Brotherhood-ISNA Convention: “Don’t Talk to the FBI”

Posted on by
1

Pamela Geller:

Suhail Khan, Tariq Ramadan, John Esposito, the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Karen Armstrong all appeared at the ISNA convention, thereby revealing their true colors. This is what former FBI agent John Guandolo says about ISNA:

  • The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is the largest  Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organization in North America, created to be the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement, according to MB documents seized by the FBI in Annandale, Virginia in 2004.
  • Because of the evidence ISNA is a Brotherhood front, as well as  the numerous financial documents detailing money going directly from  ISNA and their banks to Hamas entities overseas, ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v. Holy Land Foundation), which was adjudicated in 2008 in Dallas, Texas.
  • When ISNA filed a motion with the federal court to have their  name removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list, the government  stated that ISNA exists to be a financial support entity for Hamas. The  federal judge agreed stating the government provided “ample evidence” and left ISNA on the list. A three-judge appellate panel unanimously agreed and left ISNA on the unindicted co-conspirator list.
  • ISNA’s two key directors and its President, Mohamed Magid (pictured above), all work with Secretary Clinton and her office. So, the leaders of a Hamas-supporting entity are advising the U.S. Secretary of State.

Here is the official TVC/VAST report on the Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention, by an eyewitness who managed to get in:

ISNA CONVENTION OFFERS TWO VIEWS OF ISLAM – THE MANUFACTURED PUBLIC PERSONA AND THE TRUTH

Washington, DC – The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) 2012 annual convention offered some stark contrasts between the Islam portrayed in CAIR press releases and speeches and the unavoidable facts about Islam’s size and objectives.

A project of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) and the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force (VAST) monitored several key briefings and presentations at the convention.

Sessions ran the gamut from “Islamic Finance” to Islam’s Response to Domestic Violence in the Muslim Community to If You Care About Your Future-I Spy With My NYPD Eye.

Some speakers criticized President Barack Obama for “letting down” Islam and not doing enough to advance its cause in America.  One official, CAIR Founder and long-time HAMAS/Muslim Brotherhood operative Nihad Awad, complained that the White House treats him and other activists like an ugly step-child.

Awad said that Muslim names are not published on the official White House visitor’s log.

“Even those who go to the White House and have a reception that’s great.  But their names are not published on the official list. Why?  Because Muslim money and votes are radioactive.”

Nihad Awad, ISNA Annual Convention September 1, 2012

Panel on Forming a More Perfect Union

The general rule established in many presentations was “Don’t Talk to the FBI”, don’t allow anylaw enforcement to enter your home or business without a search warrant and never talk with any police without a lawyer present.

Substantial portions of the convention program were devoted to vilifying three law enforcement agencies– the Intelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and the Joint Taskforce on Terrorism.

Deceptively named, the panel on “Working with Law Enforcement to Uphold our Civil Liberties” was anything but that.  All three panelists attacked law enforcement for using various techniques to monitor individuals believed to be a threat to our nation’s security.   Additionally, each speaker cautioned that law enforcement agencies have had too much access to the Muslim community with disastrous results.

Mike German, former FBI agent and now ACLU Policy Counsel on National Security, Immigration and Privacy repeatedly warned against speaking to the FBI and otherlaw enforcement. German advised ISNA members and allies that when approached by the FBI ask which division they are in. If they are from the FBI’s Office of Community Outreach or Office of Public Affairs, German suggested it was probably ok to speak with them.  However, if they were from the FBI Intelligence Division or the Joint Taskforce on Terrorism –German warned that they were not to be trusted and advised that individuals needed a lawyerpresent when speaking to them.

Ms. Rabia Chaudry also warned the Muslim community not to speak with law enforcement without a lawyer, stating that there needed to be some new “rules of engagement.”   Like many other speakers at the convention, she expressed outrage that government officials would dare monitor any Muslims or suggest their involvement in terrorism.

Not one panelist, in various sessions, acknowledged the reality of “home-grown terrorism.”   Rather, speakers and attendees alike mocked both the idea and Congressman Peter King of New York for holding Congressional hearings.

Chaudry repeatedly made it clear that the FBI, NYPD -who she called the “Big Bad Wolf”- and other agencies were not to be trusted.

Chaudry works with the Saudi-funded front group Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, serves as an immigration lawyer, as well as a board member of the Connecticut ACLU and is President of the Safe Nation Collaborative.  As President of the collaborative, Chaudry is working with the Obama Administration to rewrite the training manuals used to teach law enforcement personnel about the Islamist threat to America. She and others also want to ensure the new training manuals are “culturally sensitive”.

James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute and co-founder and chairman of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign continued the rant against law enforcementand the Obama Administration, complaining that things are “seen through the lens of Israel.”

Zogby encouraged the Muslim community to use “old fashioned guilt” tactics to extract what they want from the White House, Obama Administration and law enforcement as a result of law enforcementmonitoring the Muslim community. He referenced a tough letter he had sent to the White House as an “ultimatum.

Referring to law enforcement, Zogby stated, you are “screwing up the world because you don’t talk to us” and then boldly proclaimed that

“This is no longer a white world.  This world is dominated by us, people of color.” James Zogby, ISNA Annual Convention, September 2, 2012

Panel on Working with Law Enforcement to Uphold our Civil Liberties

Zogby a delegate to the Democrat National Convention, opposed reinstating language in the party platform recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel because he said it was pandering to the Jewish vote.  Zogby is the brother of pollster John Zogby.

Conference speakers estimated the Muslim population of America as either “2-3 million” or “7 million”,depending on which version suited the argument they were making at the moment.

Many speakers including Suhail Kahn focused on the work of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer andlawyer David Yerushalmi.  An extensive campaign was outlined to stop what speakers said was a growing public sentiment against Shariah and challenge Geller/Spencer’s media presence and busy schedule of public speeches in strategic states.

Of course, ISNA also included an angry rant about the dominance of Israel on the American political scene and set a legislative priority of eliminating all U.S. foreign aid to the state of Israel.

The focus of the convention’s program was on three key messages:

  1. Refining Islam’s public image and presenting an apologetics course on what to do when confronted about the facts concerning Islam’s campaign to dominate the West.
  2. Continue the barrage of attacks on the most effective law enforcement agencies (FBI, NYPD, etc.) and challenge their efforts to stop the use of non-profit front groups to launder American dollars on their way to arming and supplying front-line terrorists here and in other countries.  (Increasing regulation and scrutiny of electronic fundtransfers is a grave concern to the ISNA attendees.)
  3. Continuing efforts to affect official Washington while recognizing that local police and government officials may be a more fertile ground for winning greater control.

Read the rest at Atlas Shrugs

Democrats Embrace Siraj Wahhaj: Supporter of Cop-Killer, Al Qaeda and Hamas, Part II

Posted on by
1

 

Siraj Wahhaj

by  :

In just a few days, the Democratic National Convention “Kick off events”week will include its first ever “Jumah (gathering) at the DNC” – three Islam-centered events beginning with a Friday prayer and sermon, an evening Islamic banquet and an all day Islamic festival.

Many of the individuals scheduled to speak during the DNC week have extremely spurious backgrounds, including support for Al Qaeda and the U.S. State Department designated terrorist organization, HAMAS.   Brooklyn-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj will headline the Muslim portion of the convention.

This is part two of an in-depth study of a man who will have the ear of thousands planning to attend the DNC Convention, thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ DNC. [To see Part I, click here]

Wahhaj Supports Islamic Extremism in Sudan

Hassan Al-Turabi was the leader of the National Islamic Front (NIF) political party in Sudan In the 1980’s. [i]   It was then that shari’ah law was implemented nationwide to Muslim and non-Muslim people alike.  The criminal code was changed to include such barbaric punishments as cross amputation (cutting off the left hand and right foot), stoning, flogging, and death sentences for apostasy and blasphemy.  The prominent Islam reformer, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (“Taha”) was executed in 1981 for apostasy. [ii]  Siraj Wahhaj supports Al-Turabi’s draconian shari’ah as it was enforced.  In one sermon at his mosque, Wahhaj proclaimed “I would cut off the hands of my own daughter (if she stole) because Allah stands for Justice.” [iii]

Sudan became a safe-haven for terrorists i.e. Osama Bin Laden and HAMAS, under Al- Turabi, And in 1993, after the World Trade Center bombing, Sudan was named by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror. [iv]

Siraj Wahhaj made these statements at the time Sudan was listed as a state sponsor of terror:

May Allah bless Sudan…these are people who want to establish the Shari’ah, establish Quran, and Sunnah, they want to establish the religion and therefore hated by the government of the U.S.A…I’m not going to make you comfortable because our book, the book we believe in, is not Dale Carnegie’s, How to Win Friends and Influence People; But it’s the Quran.

Wahhaj Joins ISNA in Support for HAMAS and the National Islamic Front (NIF)

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) calls itself the largest Islamic organization in the U.S..  The leaders of two terror groups Sami Al-Arian – Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Mousa Abu Marzook- HAMAS  “helped establish” ISNA in 1981.[v]

Wahhaj became a member of the ISNA Advisory Council in 1987.  10 years later, HAMAS leader, Mousa Abu Marzook who had been deported from Jordan for his terror related activities[vi], wrote a thank you to many organizations in The Washington Report Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) for their support of him..  One of the organizations he thanked was ISNA.  It was at that time, Wahhaj was ISNA Vice President, having been named to that position the same year, in 1997. [vii]

In the Spring 2001 edition of the ISNA publication, Islamic Horizons, the Sudanese leader Hassan Al Turabi, of the NIF, stated: “I do not think that it is only a dream, but there is a possibility not only for America to be Islamized, but also in fact to develop as the role model of Islam.” [viii] This ISNA article was published while Sudan was listed as a state sponsor of terror.

When asked, Siraj Wahhaj refuses to condemn HAMAS.  [ix]

Siraj Wahhaj and CAIR

Not only were Marzook and Al-Arian co-founders of ISNA, they were also co-founders of an Islamist organization, which evolved into the Council for American- Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Marzook and Al-Arian co-founded the precursor to the Council for American Islamic Relations, a U.S. front group for HAMAS.[x]

Article Eight of the 1988 HAMAS Charter proclaims:

“Allah is its goal; the Prophet is its model, the Quran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

Omar Ahmed, who co-founded the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), was caught just a few years after CAIR’s incorporation publicly stating similar goals:

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth. [xi]

Siraj Wahhaj has been on CAIR’s Advisory Board, [xii] and for over the last decade has been the designated fundraiser at many CAIR fundraiser banquets.  Wahhaj has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for CAIR. [xiii]  At a recent CAIR San Francisco fundraiser, where Siraj Wahhaj was listed as fundraiser, CAIR’s guest speakers included the attorney for Sami Al-Arian, Linda Moreno.[xiv]

Read more at Front Page

Frank J. Gaffney: The threat of Sharia is real

Posted on by
4

Egyptian supporters of new president-elect, Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, wave their national flag as they chant slogans in Cairo’s Tahrir Square MARWAN NAAMANI/AFP/GettyImages

Jonathan Kay: Canada is safe from Sharia

In his essay, Jonathan actually concedes points central to my argument including:

  • an ideology bent on global domination is at work at the moment;
  • the Muslim Brotherhood is a driving force behind that agenda;
  • Islamists have made inroads in Europe; and
  • a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohamed Akhram, described in a strategic mission statement for his group in North America that it must engage in “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within…by their hands [i.e., ours] and the hands of the believers so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Where Jonathan and I part company is on what to make of these and other relevant data. For him, the evidence amounts to a “conspiracy theory” – the sort of unfounded, if not unhinged, warnings that respectable people can safely ignore and, indeed, must if they are not to be relegated to the netherworld category of the politically incorrect.

I propose to respond by simply marshaling the facts and inviting the readers to decide for themselves which view is the more compelling.

• Knowing the enemy: Even the most cursory examination of the tenets, teachings and obligations inherent in the comprehensive political-military-legal doctrine of shariah shows it to require adherents to secure its triumph worldwide. Applying the model of Mohammed – who is believed by his co-religionists to be the perfect Muslim – the way this goal is to be achieved is through jihad or holy war.

Where practicable, jihad is to be waged in the most efficient fashion: through terrifying violence. Where the correlation of forces is adverse and the use of violence would be impracticable or actually counterproductive, the practitioners of shariah still have an obligation to engage in (or, at a minimum, support) jihad. They are simply to pursue the same objective in a stealthy, not so much non-violent as pre-violent, fashion. The Brothers call the latter “civilization jihad.”

Since 1928, the driving force the most organized, disciplined and ruthless promoters of shariah has been the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood’s goals have been unchanging from its inception: achieve the triumph of shariah all over the globe and re-establish a Caliphate (theocratic form of government) to rule in accordance with shariah. For most of the intervening period, however, the Brotherhood was forced by circumstance (oppressive secular regimes, hostile majority populations, lack of manpower or other resources, etc.) to operate in the shadows, both in Egypt where it was founded and increasingly elsewhere around the globe.

With the transfer in recent decades of immense wealth from the Western developed world to the Muslim petro-states and most especially Saudi Arabia, the Brotherhood has been able to secure access to substantial financial resources. They still have largely engaged in civilization jihad – though there are notable exceptions including their violently jihadist Palestinian franchise, Hamas, and spin-off organizations like al-Qaeda and Gama’at Islamiyya (the Islamic Group, headed by the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman).

One vehicle for purveying these billions of dollars has been an arm of the Saudi government, the Muslim World League (MWL). Under, in particular, the leadership of its former Secretary General, Abdullah Omar Naseef, the MWL seeded and nurtured myriad Muslim Brotherhood front groups around the world. Naseef turns out to be not only a top Muslim Brotherhood operative. He is also a designated terrorist for his involvement, among other things, with financing al Qaeda. One of Naseef’s priorities has been creating the infrastructure in nations where Muslims are in the minority to establish conditions where, over time, they can achieve dominance.

If such ambitions sound crazy, especially in countries like the United States where – as Jonathan points out repeatedly – the percentage of the population made up of Muslims, let alone shariah-adherent ones, is relatively small – one only need to look at the stated purposes of Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong and other totalitarians to realize that they can nonetheless be operationalized to horrific effect. We dare not make such a mistake again, in our time.

• Huma Abedin: Jonathan uses the case of Huma Abedin to try to discredit me and others who have warned that we are making such a mistake by ignoring the evidence of civilization jihad in our midst. As it happens, the deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be far more likely a case in point than proof I am in error.

As it happens, Ms. Abedin’s entire nuclear family has helped Abdullah Omar Naseef advance his agenda over the last few decades. Naseef set them up in what amounts to the family business: the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, initially under the leadership of her late father, Dr. Sayed Abedin, and after his death in [1994], under that of her mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin. Her brother, Hassan, and her sister, Heba, have also been involved with the enterprise, listed for years as associate editors of its main product, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. And so, as it happens, was Huma from 1996-2008. During seven of those years, she was on the masthead with Naseef identified as a member of the journal’s editorial advisory board.

In a case like Huma Abedin’s, do these sorts of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – both familial and in her own right – matter? Well, evidently not if you are, like Jonathan, determined to rebut any suggestion of a conspiracy. If, on the other hand, one applies, say, the guidelines of the Department of State designed to prevent foreign associations from translating into circumstances that will compromise a person in a position of trust and/or the mission of his or her agency, such ties should be a showstopper.

Consequently, the questions posed to the State Department inspector general by Reps. Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney about Ms. Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood ties are both well-founded and entirely legitimate. Ditto similar questions raised about several other individuals with similar associations in positions of influence with four other agencies.

• The stakes: The legislators’ questions take on particular urgency in light of the myriad changes the Obama administration has made that are bringing U.S. foreign, defense and homeland security policies increasingly into alignment with the aspirations and demands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among the most momentous of these are assistance and encouragement given to Islamists seeking the overthrow of governments relatively friendly to the United States.

Jonathan suggests that America could not have had much influence on such outcomes and that, as long as the changes have been made democratically, we must welcome them. In fact, for example, President Obama and his administration have helped legitimate, train and fund the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, encouraged the overthrow of the Mubarak regime and insisted that the military peacefully and promptly transfer power to the Brotherhood’s newly elected political forces. Could this have happened without our help? Possibly. Did it? No.

Read more at National Post

Frank Gaffney is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.

Related articles