Missing Plane Pilot Supporter of MB-Linked Politician

MH370 path

It is significant that the Malaysian pilot was a fervent supporter of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked politician, but questions still remain.

By Ryan Mauro:

The most popular theory now about the hijacking of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 is that it is retaliation by one of the pilots for the imprisonment of an opposition leader linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. There is increasing suspicion that he landed or sought to land the aircraft. This theory is certainly plausible, but there are multiple reasons for skepticism.

The most likely scenario is that whoever controlled the flight sought to strike a target. It is most probable that at least two operatives were involved because someone would need to handle the flight controls while the second pilot was neutralized. The pilots did not ask to fly together, making it less likely that both were involved. If a group was involved, it points in the direction of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and/or Jemaah Islamiyaa.

There is a near-consensus that one of the pilots was involved, with most attention being given to Zaharie Ahmad Shah. He had a flight simulator in his house and was an “obsessive” supporter of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. His family moved out of his house shortly before the disappearance of the plane.

Less is known about his co-pilot, Fariq Abdul Hamid. He spoke the last communication to air traffic control about 30 minutes after the data recorder was disabled and 10 minutes after the transponder was shut down.  He planned to marry his girlfriend. He also invited young women to the cockpit and smoked cigarettes there.

photo of Shah wearing a shirt with the words, “Democracy is dead” is receiving due attention. He told friends that he was going to attend the March 7 trial of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who had been acquitted of sodomy charges in January 2012. The acquittal was overturned and the airliner flown by Shah disappeared only hours later.

Read more at Clarion Project with video

Missing Malaysian Flight 370 – Five Theories

cockpit

The latest information about the mysterious disappearance of Flight 370 and five scenarios, the most likely one being terrorism.

BY RYAN MAURO:

***

Now, the media has learned that the aircraft’s data reporting system was shut down at 1:07AM. The transponder was then turned off at 1:21AM. U.S. officials can only see “manual intervention” as the cause. It then flew four or five more hours. The only plausible explanation is that whoever controlled the cockpit did not want the flight to be monitored. A senior U.S. official says there is a “significant likelihood” it then crashed in the Indian Ocean, an area that was outside of the search zone until now.

If a mechanical failure is responsible, it will have to be one that no credible expert has theorized. The circumstances point very strongly in the direction of terrorism and more information is pointing in the direction of the groups we pinpointed earlier.

We now know from the court testimony of an Al-Qaeda terrorist named Sajjid Badat that Al-Qaeda previously planned to use a cell in Malaysia that included a pilot to hijack an airliner in December 2001. Badat even provided the shoe-bomb that would blast open the cockpit door. It is also known that Al-Qaeda held high-level meetings to plan the 9/11 attacks in Kuala Lumpur, where Flight 370 departed.

On February 19, the Department of Homeland Security told the aviation industry that it has credible but non-specific information about a shoe-bomb plot against an airliner. Anonymous officials say it was prompted by “very recent intelligence.”

On February 24, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIP), also known as the Turkestan Islamic Party, released a video of one of its clerics threatening attacks on Chinese Buddhists. The group is linkedto Al-Qaeda and wants China’s largely-Muslim Xinjiang Province to gain independence. The Turkic population there is called Uighurs.

On March 1, seven days before the Flight 370 disappearance, a vicious knife attack took place that killed 29 Chinese civilians. ETIP is almost certainly the culprit.

On March 3, China Airlines issued an alert about a “significant risk of terrorist attacks and military actions against aviation.”

On March 4, the China Airlines branch in Taiwan receives an anonymous phone call in French. He says he tried to call the Beijing airport but did not get through. The caller claims to be part of a counter-terrorism group but speaks in his native Chinese when he isn’t understood. He says that Beijing’s airport and subway system will soon come under attack.

On March 8, Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing disappears. The majority of the passengers are Chinese.

On March 9, a previously-unknown group called the Chinese Martyrs’ Brigade claims credit. Although Islamist terrorist groups sometimes use different names, the statement includes no supporting details to lend it credibility. The separatists also do not usually refer to themselves as being Chinese.

On March 13, it was reported that a 35-year old Chinese Uighur passenger with flight simulation training is being looked into as a possible suspect.

It was also reported that several homes belonging to flight crew members were being searched, though one Malaysian official denies it. The family of the chief pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was reportedly interviewed. No public evidence points to Shah being an extremist at this stage.

The reported name of the Uighur is Maimaitijiang Abula. He is from Kashgar in Xinjiang Province, a town near the borders of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. An online resume states he was an assistant professor at a university in Turkey. From 2004-2005, he was a researcher for a training and simulation center in Sweden. One report says he received flight simulation training there.

Read more at Clarion Project including the FIVE THEORIES for possible scenarios

Islam Prof, Saudi Cleric & Clarion Slam Jihadists on Arabic TV

RM

Anti-Islamist language and attitudes used show how disconnected CAIR and others are from the mainstream Muslim public.

BY RYAN MAURO:

On March 8, I was invited to appear on a panel on the television network Al-Hurra a U.S.-based Arabic language satellite TV channel, as the Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst. To be honest, I expected to be ganged up on. Instead, the Muslims fired away at the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar, using terminology that groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations claim are forms of “Islamophobia.”

The topic was Saudi Arabia’s blacklisting of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. The other panelists were a professor of Islamic studies and a former member of the Saudi Shura Council, the body that oversees the application of Sharia.

rm2Both guests wholeheartedly endorsed the crackdown on the Brotherhood, with one even stating that it should have been done 20 years ago. The government of Qatar was a subject of scorn for its support of the Brotherhood and, to a lesser degree, so was Turkey. The host even asked me if it was possible that the Saudis would designate Turkey’s ruling AKP party as a terrorist group.

The lexicon of my Muslim co-panelists would have enraged the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the other large Muslim-American groups linked to the Brotherhood. They used terms like “Islamist” and “jihadist” without reservation.

While CAIR and its allies point to that kind of vocabulary as proof of anti-Muslim bigotry, these Muslim panelists expected the Arab audience to understand that this is not the case. They didn’t need to clarify what they meant because it is obvious that they weren’t attacking Islam or all of its adherents. I freely used similar terms without confrontation.

This aspect of the show demonstrates how CAIR’s voice is not reflective of the Muslim world.

CAIR rallies against these terms because it does not want its Islamist ideology questioned and it wants to silence its opponents. In the Muslim world, the use of terms like “Islamist” and “jihadist” are not offensive; they are necessary and understood. The controversy over them was manufactured by CAIR and similar groups for political purposes.

More broadly, my appearance on Al-Hurra is an indictment of the American media’s handling of Islamist issues.

Read more at Clarion Project

Fox Haters Carrying Water for CAIR

The Council on American-Islamic Relations Announces Educational Initiativeby :

For some progressive writers, it’s more important to bash Fox News than to expose American Islamist groups’ rejection of liberal values. In recent weeks, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has aggressively promoted articles by Fox haters who are more concerned with smearing CAIR opponents as anti-Muslim bigots than addressing facts and evidence.

The U.S. Justice Department says CAIR is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and labeled it an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial. Federal prosecutors said in a 2007 court filing that CAIR uses deception to “conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.” CAIR’s documented record should alienate every progressive.

Part of those efforts is taking advantage of writers with influence in the media. Don’t take my word for it. Look at what CAIR Vice Chair Sarwat Husain said at another terror-tied conference:

“Media in the United States is very gullible, ok? And they will see that if you have something, especially as a Muslim, if you have something to say, they will come running to you—and take advantage of that.”

In a presentation by CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, he told supporters how to manipulate reporters. One of the slides was titled “Characteristics of a Journalist” and said, “They will expect you to do their work. Let them.”

CAIR also said to exploit the fact that journalists do “little primary research,” are “under extreme deadline pressure” and “fea[r] charges of inaccuracy.” This is especially true of CAIR’s media allies that choose political ideology over all else.

On February 20, CAIR distributed a Media Matters hit piece by Michelle Leung describing me as “Fox’s Newest Anti-Muslim ‘National Security Analyst,’” even though I am neither anti-Muslim nor “new” on Fox. If she had checked her own website’s archives, she would have seen a hit piece from 2011 about an appearance. The premise of that article is that I am not a credible speaker on Libya because I opposed the Ground Zero Mosque.

My appearance was about the Clarion Project’s disclosure of a jihadist enclave in Texas run by Jamaat ul-Fuqra/Muslims of the Americas. Her article didn’t even mention the topic I was discussing because that might wake readers up as to why this was a story worth covering.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said the discovery is “appalling.” Despite Leung’s description of Clarion and me as “anti-Muslim,” around a dozen Muslim organizations in the U.S. and Canada endorsed a statement calling on the U.S. government to label Jamaat ul-Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Read more at Front Page

U.S. Military Chaplains Linked to Terror Group

muslim-chaplain-photo-1Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro on Fox News discusses how the government is using chaplains from a Muslim group that they know is extremist and involved in terror funding.

Also see: U.S. Military Hires Chaplains Endorsed by Brotherhood Entity

Megyn Kelly Show: Brutal Attack on U.S. Citizen by Muslim Gang in London

gangs

Clarion Project:

A student from Florida was brutally beaten by a Muslim gang in London. The gang was part of a self-appointed street patrol enforcing sharia (Islamic) law in London. The “crime” of the student, an American citizen who was in England to advance his studies, was drinking a beer.  

The patrols, who began appearing on London’s streets in 2011, are followers of radical Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary, whose goal is to enforce sharia law even in non-Muslim countries.

The Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro discussed this case and the larger phenomenon of the Muslim patrols with Fox news’s Megan Kelly on “The Kelly File.”  On the show, Mauro also discussed the radical Islamic group Jamaat ul-Fuqra which has large communes all around the U.S. where member are trained in guerrilla warfare. A video of women receiving such training at the group’s “Islamberg” headquarters in New York is shown below.

 

See also:

DEBATING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA Part IV: “Islamophobia”

600x668xme-600x668.jpg.pagespeed.ic_.OLmPVV4k0T

Juicy Ecumenism:

The Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series

DEBATING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA

An Interview with DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary

Ryan Mauro,  The Clarion Project

Made possible through the Institute for Religion & Democracy

Part IV: “Islamophobia”

Here, Elibiary admits that the US Muslim Brotherhood existed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but references its internal communications that complain about the group’s inability to control the Muslim-American community. After pointing out that these communications were decades ago, Elibiary says “the concept of a US Muslim Brotherhood becomes even more of an absurd overreach.”

Mauro: Why do you think concern about the US Muslim Brotherhood, whose existence was proven during the Holy Land Foundation trial, is “Islamophobia” and what do you think should happen as a result?

Elibiary: American Muslim Brotherhood leaders themselves, as far back as the late 1980s and early 1990s in publicly-available documents from the HLF trial, lament the fact that the American Muslim community had grown way too large for them to influence it. Add to that another nearly three decades of further growth and the concept of a US Muslim Brotherhood becomes even more of an absurd overreach.

In other words, Elibiary argues that the US Muslim Brotherhood essentially evaporated. The fact that the US Muslim Brotherhood network does not enjoy as much Muslim support as it would like is presented as proof that it doesn’t exist anymore at all. However, most of the organizations identified as US Muslim Brotherhood entities still exist, as do many of the officials that served during the time that Elibiary concedes they were Brotherhood groups.

2009 Hudson Institute study looked at the Islamic Society of North America, one such Brotherhood entity. It concluded, “All but one of the individuals listed on the ISNA founding documents remain active either in ISNA or one of its affiliated organizations” and that ISNA and other Brotherhood affiliates “continue to exist in their original form.” Furthermore, a 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation gave readers “a rare look at [the] secretive [Muslim] Brotherhood in America.”

Elibiary (cont’d): Plus, as part of my engagement with Muslim communities across the country, I have met privately with all the major national Muslim organizations regularly demonized as “front groups” for the Muslim Brotherhood and gained from them all a very clear understanding of their perspectives on Islamism/Political Islam in our country. In my opinion, these community organizations are in 2013 operating as American organizations fully within the bounds of US law for the benefit of the American Muslim community and broader American society.

If it’s a matter of recognizing and addressing legitimate security concerns about the “US Muslim Brotherhood,” you’d be hard pressed to find someone who’s done more substantively on the topic than I have over the past decade.

As the FBI’s own press release about some of my work stated, I’ve been building up community-based partnerships with law enforcement since 2003. One can’t do that in the Dallas-based environment where I grew up without first addressing the mess left behind by HLF. Therefore, it’s illogical to ever accuse me of being dismissive of legitimate “concerns about the US Muslim Brotherhood” as simply “Islamophobia.”

The most important part of this section is Mr. Elibiary’s comments suggesting that he has helped protect US Muslim Brotherhood entities. The language strongly infers that the US government was preparing to indict components of the US Muslim Brotherhood network besides the Holy Land Foundation—and, perhaps, he played a role in stopping it from happening. There are three quotes that stand out:

  • “I helped my community pick up the pieces and safeguard its nonprofit organizations, in order to protect its liberties, after the HLF’s closure and eventual conviction.”
  • “But the corollary to my position was that if the Muslim community leadership and the government can mutually reconcile and turn a new page, then the targeted national Muslim community organizations should be allowed to proceed anew.”
  • “As has been reported in multiple conservative media outlets over the past few years, the long-desired HLF 2.0 trial for the unindicted co-conspirators isno longer going to happen.”

Elibiary’s efforts to “safeguard” American Islamists from prosecution substantiates the April 2011 reports by Patrick Poole that the Justice Department stopped planned indictments of HLF co-conspirators including a founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and several officials with the International Institute of Islamic Thought and the now-defunct SAAR Group.

Elibiary (cont’d): The bottom line is that my decade-plus track record is clear to anyone with an objective eye. In my career, I have both advocated in defense of the Muslim community as well as directly pioneered the at-times dangerous counter-ideological work associated with several of our nation’s biggest homegrown terrorism investigations.

Post-9/11, I decided to respond by assisting our government counter threats to the homeland from al-Qaeda and its associated allies. Simultaneously, I helped my community pick up the pieces and safeguard its nonprofit organizations, in order to protect its liberties, after the HLF’s closure and eventual conviction.

A segment of our fellow Americans see those two goals as mutually exclusive. I naturally disagree with that assessment and my track record indicates that. I staked out a flag early after HLF was closed that, due to some mistakes made before 9/11 by community members, the criminal trial should be allowed to proceed and the criminal justice system’s verdict respected. But the corollary to my position was that if the Muslim community leadership and the government can mutually reconcile and turn a new page, then the targeted national Muslim community organizations should be allowed to proceed anew.

The following passage is important, as Elibiary acknowledges America’s “legitimate security concerns about Muslim Brotherhood-associated networks.” While being candid, Elibiary recognition of these networks at all puts him at odds with most of his ideological allies in Muslim activism—and, indeed, the mainstream media and far-left activists as well—who disregard the mountains of court-admitted evidence of Brotherhood’s web of influence in America as little more than a conspiracy theory. Later in the interview, though, Elibiary seems to contradict himself and approve of this narrative, if only to use as a cudgel against his critics.

Elibiary (cont’d): Staking out that middle-of-the-road position that would satisfy all of the government’s legitimate security concerns about Muslim Brotherhood-associated networks providing material support to terrorism and the organized Muslim community maintaining certain nonprofits and their civic engagement capabilities, naturally was not acceptable to absolutists at both ends of the spectrum.

There were those voices in the Muslim community who wondered if I might be a sellout because I wouldn’t join the HLF’s Hungry for Justice Coalition and instead staked out an independent public messaging line in the media. Similarly, there were voices in the anti-Islamist advocacy community, including their law enforcement and media allies, who frankly continue to see that, because I won’t accept the marginalization and eventual indictment of the HLF unindicted co-conspirator community organizations, that I can’t be fully trusted in a post-9/11 Global War on Terror.

Naturally, I have been happy to see, by and large, the United States government arrive at a similar endpoint as I staked out a decade ago in Dallas. As has been reported in multiple conservative media outlets over the past few years, the long-desired HLF 2.0 trial for the unindicted co-conspirators is no longer going to happen.

So with the HLF 1.0 trial’s appeal process now complete and no more HLF-associated “US Muslim Brotherhood” trials coming, an honest and frank discussion should publicly happen between all the parties so our country can move forward.

As to the topic of “Islamophobia,” this term is too often used as a political weapon and fundraising plea. There have been incidents of discrimination and hatred towards Muslims, but the rapid-fire use of the “Islamophobia” term was being used by Islamists long before September 11, 2001.

A former member of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (a US Muslim Brotherhood entity), Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, recalls being at a group meeting in the early 1990s where they discussed using the term against their opponents. He later said, “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”

Elibiary (cont’d): Islamophobia or anti-Muslim bigotry as I prefer to call it, today in “God’s greatest nation” as Michael Medved says, to me comes in three varieties. The first form of Islamophobia is simply an irrational bigotry towards anything Islam- or Muslim-related, and that’s a very small percentage of our population that I don’t really worry about because it’s driven by a diminishing emotional radicalization dynamic.

The second form of Islamophobia is a Western civilization phenomenon, aptly coined “anti-Semitism on training wheels” by Suhail Khan, a former Bush White House official, during his debate with Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy at the Harbor League years ago.

This form is strongly rejected by Jewish community leaders because it smacks of a “Protocols of Elders of Zion”-type narrative about Muslims trying to take over the world. It tells Americans that Islamic theology is uniquely a threat to our way of life and therefore needs special preventative legal measures, just as in centuries past, Western anti-Semites used to make the same arguments of Jews and their faith as being incompatible with enlightened European Christian values.

The third form of Islamophobia treats the 2013’s organized American Muslim community as a counter-intelligence subversive front group for the international Islamist movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood. This approach treats the American Muslim community with undeserved and unfair suspicion, and marginalizes a sizable portion of our fellow citizens out of the political mainstream, like a pariah.

I, more than most, have gone out of my way to sit down with fellow Americans who find themselves concerned about Muslim Brotherhood associations within the American Muslim community to help them find peace of mind after separating fact from fiction.

Unlike some other Muslim community leaders who’ve wholesale labeled all Americans in this category as similar to the “anti-Semitism on training wheels” second category of “Islamophobia,” I have privately gone out of my way to speak graciously with those who’ve most viciously attacked me publicly as a subversive threat myself to our national security and offered to clarify their misunderstandings in this area.

Patrick Poole broke the story that Elibiary was suspected of trying to leak confidential information for political purposes. Elibiary claims that Poole never contacted him before publishing the story, while Poole told me that Elibiary never responded to him.

As Poole previously pointed out, the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed that Elibiary downloaded the documents in question. When Secretary Napolitano apparently denied Poole’s story, she was responding to a question about whether Elibiary tried to leak “classified” information. Poole never asserted that the documents were classified; he said they were marked “Law Enforcement Sensitive.”

In addition, Poole told the Clarion Project that the Department of Homeland Security: “At no time was I or my source ever contacted by anyone at DHS. How could they have done an investigation with only one side being heard?”

Elibiary (cont’d): For example, in early 2011, after completing my speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I approached Patrick Poole, a terrorism investigative reporter, and handed him my business card offering to talk and explain things after his public broadside of me in Andrew Breitbart’sBig Peace news site for helping the Department of Homeland Security with its Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) policies.

I never heard from Patrick until 8 months later when he emailed me requesting my response to his charge against me of mishandling classified intelligence, a charge I would later be publicly cleared of a few months later in a congressional hearing after an investigation by our government.

Similarly with Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, as he personally recalled our interaction on a conservative talk radio program, I privately walked up to him in June 2012 at the Texas GOP Convention and offered to answer any of his concerns about my work. Unfortunately, the Congressman declined my offer and proceeded to, within about a month in partnership with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Congressman Trent Franks and others, to fire off a letter to the Inspector General of DHS requesting I get investigated for Muslim Brotherhood influence.

Part I: The Holy Land Foundation

Part II: Elibiary & the Muslim Brotherhood

Part III: Elibiary’s Relationship with American Islamists

Part IV: “Islamophobia”

Part V: US Policy (To be published tomorrow)

How the Muslim Brotherhood Is Winning in America

mbBY RYAN MAURO:

jgJohn Guandolo is the author of Raising a Jihadi Generation: Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in America. He is also the founder of  UnderstandingTheThreat.com.

In 1996, Guandolo left the Marines to join the FBI’s Washington Field Office, focusing mostly on narcotics investigations until 2000. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, he began an assignment to the Counterterrorism Division.

In 2006, Guandolo created and implemented the FBI’s first Counterterrorism Training/Education Program focusing on the Muslim Brotherhood. He was designated a “Subject Matter Expert” by the FBI and his program was praised by the FBI Executive Assistant Director in a brief to the Vice President’s National Security Staff.

The following is Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with John Guandolo:

Ryan Mauro: In your new book, you estimate that about 2,000 non-profits in the U.S. are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. How did you come up with this estimate?

John Guandolo: First, we must begin by remembering that the Islamic community in America continues to be led by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) here. The first national Islamic organization in the U.S., the Muslim Students Association (MSA), was created by the Brotherhood in 1962-1963.

When the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development was indicted in November 2001, it was the largest Islamic charity in America, and it was a MB/Hamas entity. Hamas is the MB in Palestine.

In 2004, the FBI raided the residence of a senior Hamas/MB operative, Ismail Elbarasse, in Annandale, Virginia. In his home, the FBI discovered the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. Much of the evidence, as you know, was entered into the U.S. v. HLF trial—the largest terrorism-financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history.

Of the many documents, records and other items that were discovered, one was a recording of a senior MB leader—Zeid al-Noman—speaking to a group of Brothers in Missouri in 1981. This tape and the corresponding transcript were entered into evidence at the HLF trial and stipulated to by the defense.

While there are numerous documents discovered that make my point, this recorded discussion is, in my opinion, one of three pivotal finds at the Elbarasse residence. Al-Noman tells the entire story of how the Muslim Brotherhood came to America.

They first settled in Indiana, Michigan and Illinois, which explains why the MB’s largest organization, the Islamic Society of North America, is headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana. It explains why Detroit and Dearborn are points for significant jihadi activity, and why Chicago is the hub for Hamas in the U.S.

The MB set up “Usras” about 150 miles apart across the U.S. An Usra consisted of a few men. Each Usra would grow and establish itself in an area and as Muslims came from overseas, the Muslims already there would incorporate them into what was already going on.

As these small pockets of activity grew, the MB did exactly what their By-Laws said they would do. They established schools, mosques, clinics, shelters and the like to expand their influence in the community. By the early 1980s, nearly all of the Islamic organizations in America were established by the MB. A powerful beginning.

In 1983, the MB established the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to be the “nucleus” of their movement and, within the year, about 100 “Islamic Societies” were established across the U.S. In 1991, the Brotherhood published an “Explanatory Memorandum”—the strategic plan for North America. Following that, they approved and published the “Implementation Manual” which put into action the strategic plan.

When you track the number of Islamic non-profits created against the years in which they were created, there is a direct correlation between the MB strategic actions and the creation of Islamic non-profits.

Prior to 1983, very few Islamic non-profits were created except those that were created by the MB. In 1983, there is a spike of about 100, all of which are subsidiaries of ISNA. In 1992, after the publication of the strategic plan and Implementation Manual, there is a large spike in the creation of Islamic non-profits that never comes down again.

From that time to today, between 60 and 120 Islamic non-profits are created each year. A large number of those organizations match the organizations that the MB said it would create.

Here is an easy snapshop: There are over 2,100 Islamic Centers in the U.S. today. From investigation and research, we know a large portion of them are controlled by the MB. Through land ownership by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)—the bank for the MB—or through known MB leaders at these Centers, we know that a large percentage of the Islamic Centers belong to MB.

Today, there are over 600 MSAs on nearly every college and university campus. There are over 320 Islamic Societies and several hundred chapters of the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Communities Associations, Islamic Teaching Centers and professional organizations like Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers and Association of Muslim Social Scientists.

You see, “2,000” is an extremely conservative number.

Mauro: How much decentralization is there in the American Islamist networks? For example, could a CAIR or MAS chapter leader be a non-Islamist who agrees with the groups’ humanitarian and political work?

Guandolo: No. While there are people employed by these organizations who have varying levels of enthusiasm for the MB movement, the leadership of all of these organizations does not suffer from that problem.

Colleagues of mine have worked/studied at various military institutions, the National War College for instance. On several occasions, officers from Islamic countries have remarked on the significant and overtly-noticeable control the MB has here in the U.S. over the Muslim community.

The State Department has a program where they pay for imams to fly from overseas to the U.S. to meet with “Islamic leaders” here—almost all of whom are MB. One imam from Indonesia who is not supportive of the MB movement reported back to the U.S. Ambassador that this program should be shut down because the U.S. government, in this imam’s opinion, was paying for jihadis overseas to meet with jihadis here in America that have “control” over the Islamic community.

In my professional opinion, this aspect of the threat cannot be overstated. Prominent Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser commented a few years ago that the MB controlled the access to the Iftar dinners at the White House and kept him out for several years.

Mauro: Is it possible that the Brotherhood-linked groups have evolved and become moderate over time? Some of their officials have admitted that Brotherhood ideologues set them up, but claim that they have since gone their own way.

Guandolo: This is utter rubbish. There is not one shred of evidence that they have slowed down their movement at all. All of the evidence points to a rapid acceleration of their plans. The influence of easily identifiable MB leaders inside our national security apparatus is evidence enough of their massive influence.

Men like Sayyid Syeed, Muzammil Siddiqi, Ishan Bagby, Mohammed al-Hanooti, Iqbal Unus, Ahmad Totonji, Hisham al-Talib, Yaqub Mirza and the children of the first-generation MB leaders (e.g. Suhail Khan and Zainab Alwani) are all heavily involved in the most prominent Islamic organizations in North America.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is more powerful today than it has ever been.

Read more at Clarion Project

Ryan Mauro: Homeland Security Advisor Openly Supports the Muslim Brotherhood

download (48)The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund), the Center for Security Policy and the Institute on Religion and Democracy have published a shocking interview with Mohamed Elibiary, a senior Department of Homeland Security adviser. The Daily Caller reported on it yesterday.

Elibiary is a member of the Secretary’s Homeland Security Advisory Committee and founder of Lone Star Intelligence LLC. He served on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and the DHS Faith-based Security and Communications Advisory Committee.

On September 12, he announced that he had been reappointed to the Committee and promoted to Senior Fellow. He was also a delegate for Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008.

 

U.S. Professors Participate in Brotherhood-Linked Program

khan

In public documents, the FBI was told about the Brotherhood’s plan to infiltrate universities as early as 1988.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity based in Herndon, Virginia, held a summer internship for selected students that included instruction from U.S. professors. The Clarion Project has previously reported on how the Brotherhood front has gotten inside American academia.

1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo identifies IIIT as one of its fronts. The memo tells the clandestine Brotherhood network to think of their “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”

These linkages remain. On September 24, 2012, two IIIT leaders, Abubaker Al-Shingheti and Jamal Barzinji met with then-President of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, in New York. He was the Muslim Brotherhood’s official candidate. The IIIT website has a photo of them together with the caption, “[Morsi] welcomed the participation of IIIT in the rerform [sic] of higher education in Egypt.”

In 1988, an FBI informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network warned that IIIT is a front and it is following a six-staged plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The first stage was to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.”

Keep that in mind as you read the rest of this article. We also encourage you to read our earlier expose.

This summer, IIIT held a summer students program from May 27 to July 3. According to a written account by one participant, 17 students were chosen for it.

They learned about the Quran and Sunna from Professor Mahmoud Ayoub of Connecticut’s Hartford Seminary. IIIT donated over $1 million to endow a Chair in Islamic Chaplaincy at the school. As our earlier expose documented, the Seminary’s President has spoken at an IIIT fundraiser.

Contemporary Islamic Thought was taught by Dr. Ermin Sinanovic of the U.S. Naval Academy. He also lectured at IIIT headquarters last year.

Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh, was taught by Dr. Jasser Auda of the Qatar Foundation. The Foundation is strongly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and its spiritual leader, Yousef al-Qaradawi.

Muslim World Affairs was taught by Dr. Muqtedar Khan of the University of Delaware. He previously spoke at IIIT headquarters about the Islamist political victories due to the Arab Spring.

The written account states that they were also instructed by Professor AbdulAziz Sachedina. He is the IIIT Chair in Islamic Studies at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He is also listed as a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Virginia.

Islamic History and Civilization was taught by Dr. Imad ad-Dean Ahmed, a Muslim chaplain at American University in Washington, D.C. He also leads the Minaret of Freedom Institute.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Disturbing Facts About a Senior Homeland Security Adviser

elibiaryMohamed Elibiary praises the Muslim Brotherhood and says the U.S. should support it.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Clarion Project, the Center for Security Policy and the Institute on Religion and Democracy have published a shocking interview with Mohamed Elibiary, a senior Department of Homeland Security adviser. The Daily Caller reported on it yesterday.

Elibiary is a member of the Secretary’s Homeland Security Advisory Committee and founder of Lone Star Intelligence LLC. He served on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and the DHS Faith-based Security and Communications Advisory Committee.

On September 12, he announced that he had been reappointed to the Committee and promoted to Senior Fellow. He was also a delegate for Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008.

The complete 37-page annotated interview is available here. The report is full of interesting material, but here are 15 important points to focus on. If you feel that these facts are concerning, e-mail, mail and/or fax a copy of this article to the House Homeland Security Committee, the Senate Homeland Security Committee as well as your congressman whose job is to represent you.

1. Elibiary says he knows the Muslim Brotherhood in a “personal manner.”

In 2007, Elibiary wrote, “[O]ur government is playing a post-9/11 script it played in the 1960s against the Mafia, but this time against a social network it calls the ‘International Muslim Brotherhood.’ People like me know of the brotherhood group in a much more personal manner than the Average White Guy, who has no more insight than what’s available in the media.”

2. Elibiary praises the Muslim Brotherhood and says the U.S. should support it.

In his interview with me, Elibiary said, “MB in Egypt is a pragmatic, non-violent and generally pluralistic socio-political movement by Egyptian cultural standards. It is not accurate to paint MB-Egypt as dogmatic, violent or autocratic, much less more sensationalized terms like dictatorial, totalitarian or jihadist.”

He continued: “I believe that MB and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, has by and large acted responsibly, if not always effectively, during the democratic transition period that Egypt is in the very early stages of.”

His Twitter photo has a pro-Muslim Brotherhood “R4BIA” logo that protests a violent crackdown on a Brotherhood protest in Egypt after the military toppled President Morsi by popular demand. He says it is a pro-freedom symbol that is “bigger than” the Brotherhood.

Elibiary says the U.S. should partner with the Muslim Brotherhood. In our interview, he said, “Our government needs to deepen our strategic engagement with MB.”

3. Elibiary compares the Muslim Brotherhood to Christian evangelicals.

In 2007, his organization made a presentation at a conference of theAssembly of Muslim Jurists of America. It stated: “The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Jordan, Tunis, etc. is a social movement for religious revival that seeks to Islamicize the society through cultural changing Dawah and that includes the political system, sound familiar? Yup you’re right they are the Muslim world’s version of the Evangelical Christian Coalition/Moral Majority movement.”

He told the Daily Caller “Islamism is a multi-century, transnational, intellectually grounded movement with influential philosophical works from multiple continents … It has many subcultures and currents of thought. Some are no different than conservatives who ground their values in a Judeo-Christian worldview and it has its violent extremist strains.”

4. Elibiary has associated with the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America and pro-Khomeini groups.

As mentioned above, Elibiary spoke at a joint conference of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) and the North American Imams Federation.

AMJA is a hardline Islamist group whose fatwas call for the gradual establishment of sharia law in America using deception; marital rape;jihad against Israel and ban Muslims from joining the FBI or serving the US military in a combat capacity.

AMJA opposes offensive jihad in the West because “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihadat this time.”

In our interview, Elibiary says he “spent a week with dozens of very senior Salafi scholars” from the group discussing Islamic jurisprudence.

He also speaks of when he brought a senior Salafi cleric “to give the first Friday Muslim congregational prayer literally inside the Texas State Capitol.” It is unclear if this Salafi cleric was from AMJA.

In 2004, Elibiary spoke at a pro-Khomeini conference. He said he did not know of the event’s extremist nature.

5. Elibiary says the U.S. should not oppose sharia law in Muslim countries.

In the same presentation, Elibiary’s group said, “We should remember that them [Islamists] ruling their countries with sharialaw doesn’t mean them coming to our country and using our planes to destroy our buildings.”

“We must always resist the temptation to force one group such as Islamists to reform by adopting ‘liberalism’ for example. That would be denying them their self-determination to structure their societies according to their public will,” it also said.

Much more at The Clarion Project

 

Exposed Islamist Group Scrambles

Picture-32 By Ryan Mauro

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) held a press conference on December 6 about “right-wing extremists” in response to my article originally published here criticizing the All Saints Episcopal Church of Pasadena for hosting its convention. MPAC founder and senior adviser Maher Hathout admitted to having been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but said the relationship ended when he moved to the U.S. and he is on the side of the Egyptian opposition to Mohammed Morsi.

The press conference’s speakers relentlessly bashed the raising of legitimate concerns about MPAC as “Islamophobia,” hate-mongering and bigotry. The Center for American Progress report “Fear Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” was made available for attendees. Rector Ed Bacon said the church received dozens of hate-filled emails, resulting in sympathetic media coverage.

“Kudos to All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena and MPAC for the promotional savvy to exploit a handful of negative emails into a major media story showcasing their supposed victimhood,” said Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which sponsored the original article. His organization was the only one directly attacked in the press conference.

Maher Hathout said that he is “very proud” of his work with the Muslim Brotherhood “student movement” against the Nazis and British, but never dealt with any organization outside the U.S. since coming to the country about 40 years ago. In our debate the day prior, MPAC President Salam Al-Marayati repeatedly slammed mentions of a Brotherhood connection to his group as “lies” rooted in hatred. When I challenged MPAC to take an active stand against the Brotherhood, Al-Marayati said it was a “ridiculous suggestion” and “it’s not worth our time.”

Hathout said that he is against the anti-democratic “trend” in Egypt and is on the side of the opposition.  He still took a soft view of the Brotherhood, saying its “work is changing” and its critics “freeze a point in history and think this is the whole story.”

MPAC was created to advance the Brotherhood ideology. The late Hassan Hathout, former MPAC President and Maher’s brother, said that they came to the U.S. to start the “Islamic Movement” inspired by Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Brotherhood. He described himself as a “close disciple” of al-Banna. A 1989 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Financial Committee document talks about working with someone named Hathout “in the field,” demonstrating that the Brotherhood had ties to at least one of the Hathout brothers after they arrived. MPAC has long collaborated with known U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities, as identified in the Brotherhood’s own documents, FBI investigators and the federal government during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation.

The privately expressed views of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood match the publicly expressed views of Hassan Hathout. A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood document says, “its work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” In 1997, Hathout said the U.S. needs the “Islamic Movement” because “If you look objectively you will see that this current civilization harbors in its body the seeds of its own destruction.”

Maher Hathout says he did not continue working with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood after he came to the U.S., but the Brotherhood is more than a political party. It is a movement based on Islamist ideology. In 1997, he praised Hassan al-Banna and two other Brotherhood-allied Islamists, Rashid Ghannouchi and Hasan al-Turabi, as “reformists.” Remember that when MPAC boasts that it is a voice of “reform.” Ghannouchi spoke at an MPAC event in 2011. Hathout is the spokesman for the Islamic Center of Southern California, which still suggests Brotherhood texts on Islamic law on its website.

A 2004 investigation into the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood by the Chicago Tribune makes this point. An official with the Muslim American Society admitted that it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, but explained that it “went way beyond that point of conception.” It is not administrated by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood but it follows its teachings. “We are not your typical Ikhwan [Brotherhood],” he explained.

This Islamist influence is apparent in MPAC’s history. In 1998, Maher Hathout said of Hezbollah: “I disagree with them on other issues, but on the issue of fighting to liberate their land and attacking only armed forces, this is legitimate, that is an American value — freedom and liberty.” In 1999, Salam al-Marayati said Hezbollah engages in “legitimate resistance.”

Read more at Front Page

Muslim Public Affairs Council Debates RadicalIslam.org

MPAC's President Salam Al-Marayati (l) and RadicalIslam.org's Natioanl Security Analyst Rayn Mauro

MPAC’s President Salam Al-Marayati (l) and RadicalIslam.org’s Natioanl Security Analyst Rayn Mauro

by: Ryan Mauro

Yesterday, RadicalIslam.org National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro debated the President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Salam Al-Marayati on Airtalk about his article on the group’s holding of its convention inside the All Saints Episcopal Church of Pasadena, C.A. MPAC is also holding a press conference about the “right wing extremists” criticizing the church.

The press release failed to address a single fact in the article. In his discussion with Mauro, Al-Marayati repeatedly accused Mauro and RadicalIslam.org of lying, bigotry and hatred without offering a substantive rebuttal to the facts we presented.

Al-Marayati denied that the MPAC is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and said it does not accept foreign money “even though foreign groups offered it to us.” He also claimed that he is not seeking to convert anyone to Islam because “we have more than enough Muslims.”

You can listen to the debate by clicking here.

When Mauro challenged MPAC to unequivocally condemn and stand against the Muslim Brotherhood as a way of improving the image of the Muslim-American community, Al-Marayati called it a “ridiculous suggestion.”  He said, “You want us to get into a political fight with these [Islamist] groups, it’s not worth our time…We are speaking to the masses.”

While MPAC is quick to condemn its opponents as “right-wing extremists,” its website does not condemn the Muslim Brotherhood as hundreds of thousands of Egyptians protest against it. Al-Marayati made a number of demonstrably false and misleading statements about MPAC on the radio show:

Claim: “[MPAC Founder Maher Hathout] has never said and I challenge anyone to come up with a statement or anything in any meeting or gathering that we are for the Muslim Brotherhood. It has never been stated.”

Maher Hathout, who Al-Marayati calls “the father of the Muslim-American identity,” has praised Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna as a “reformer.” He is a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Southern California, which he and his brother founded and MPAC originated in. The mosque recommends a book on Sharia Law titled Fiqh us-Sunnah by Sayyid Saabiq, a Muslim Brotherhood member working under the guidance of Al-Banna. It also recommends a book by senior Brotherhood cleric Shiekh Yousef Al-Qaradawi.

Hassan Hathout, former MPAC President and Maher’s brother, describes himself as a “close disciple of the late Hassan Al-Banna of Egypt” in their 1989 book. He says that Al-Banna is “the person who most influenced my life” and “centuries might roll over before a similar personality is produced.”

Before coming to the U.S., the Hathout brothers were arrested in Egypt, which banned the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan Hathout strongly suggested that it was their involvement with the group that led to their detainment, saying, “Long after Hassan Al-Banna, when Egypt had been through the Revolution and the new Regime, but Islam was always considered an enemy. We were persecuted; we were in jail, including my brother and myself.”

The two came to the U.S. in the years following Maher’s release from an Egyptian prison in 1968. Hassan said they sought to start the “Islamic Movement” in the U.S., which is the term that the Brotherhood uses to describe its work and that of fellow Islamists. He explained in 1997, “America needs Islam. If you look objectively you will see that this current civilization harbors in its body the seeds of its own destruction.”

The language mirrors that of an internal U.S. Muslim Brotherhood document from 1991 that describes “its work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” The battle, the Brotherhood wrote in its private communications, was a “civilization jihad.” A 1989 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Financial Committee document discusses working with someone by the name of Hathout that is “in the field.”

Claim: “There’s never been any mention of the Muslim Brotherhood since the inception of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is mentioned in MPAC’s policy paper, Building Bridges to Strengthen America. It states that “Conservative groups like the Muslim Brotherhood pose long-term strategic threats to violent extremists by siphoning Muslims away from violent radicalism into peaceful political activism.”

The paper also depicts the Brotherhood as an effective counter to Al-Qaeda and cites an article titled, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.” The depiction of the Brotherhood is wholly positive.

MPAC’s former Political Director Mahdi Bray went to Egypt in 2007 to, in the words of an Egyptian news site, “express solidarity with Muslim Brotherhood detainees on trial before a military court and to call for an end to the crackdown on the Egyptian opposition.”

Claim: “We are the ones that are your hope in terms of reforming the Muslim world … [to] bring that moderate voice up.”

MPAC upholds Brotherhood-linked Islamists as “moderates” and “reformists,” putting this statement in a different light. As mentioned, it depicts the Brotherhood as a moderate group and Hassan Al-Banna as a reformist.

Read more at Radical Islam