by Steven Emerson
June 5, 2014
Note: This article originally was published by the Daily Caller.
The New York Times has become complicit in a stealth jihad against free speech in the United States undertaken by Islamists and their sympathizers who masquerade as “civil rights” groups.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) recently bought a full-page advocacy adin the print edition of the Times. It discussed extensively the need for the media and government to directly address the reality that many acts of terrorism are rooted in radical Islam — as articulated by the terrorists themselves — and that Islamist groups attempt to deflect attention from radical Islam’s role.
A similar yet more concise version of the ad was scheduled to run on the NYT website the following day. However, something happened from one day to the next that caused the Times to demand that the IPT change the language immediately, or it would pull the ad.
Asked about the new demand, the Times replied: “In addition to being inundated with customer complaints. [sic] I have been asked for the immediate change by the publisher.”
The NYT ordered us to insert the word “radical” before the term “Islamist groups,” so that it read, “Stop the radical Islamist groups from undermining America’s security, liberty and free speech.”
An “Islamist” is not simply an individual who privately observes Islam as his faith. An Islamist is an individual who blurs the ideological lines between personal religion and the nation state — a boundary upheld as one of America’s founding principles and sustained in the First Amendment — to foster a governmental system that relies upon the supremacy of Islam.
“Islamic,” on the other hand, is an adjective that describes an idea or element derived from or inspired by Islam. Islamists promote an Islamic agenda, though some do it more subtly than others.
Groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are Islamist, hiding behind their Muslim faith and a veneer of “civil rights” as they seek to mainstream an agenda that elevates Islam above other faiths. Their agenda subjugates democracy and supports overseas terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and various individuals such as Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Qaradawi, who inspires suicide attacks and other forms of violence.
The NYT’s directive to add the word “radical” is a seemingly minor, nuanced change. But here’s why it matters: IPT’s ads hold Islamist groups like CAIR accountable for refusing to acknowledge what many terrorists themselves acknowledge — that their acts of violence were motivated by Islamic text.
That the publisher saw fit to order changes at such a late stage — after the ads had already been approved, purchased by the IPT, and were running on nytimes.com — and that the demands for change escalated so quickly is unusual.
We have to wonder who exactly exerted what kind of pressure.
We can only conclude that the same Islamist forces that the IPT devoted its full-page ad to discussing were at work again — abetted by media sympathizers — in this case, the publisher of the newspaper of record.
CAIR would probably have preferred that the Times shut down the digital ad altogether — as part of its longer-term campaign to paint the IPT as anti-Islam and Islamophobic, while portraying itself as moderate. In a letter to the Times about IPT’s ad, CAIR said, “[IPT's] new ad takes up this defamatory theme by bizarrely attacking the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, for rightly stating that ‘Islam is not the problem; extremism and violent extremism is the problem’ when it comes to terrorist attacks.”
The IPT never said Islam is the problem in its ads. IPT suggested that radical Islam is a problem, and that CAIR — and other Islamists like them — are a problem, for their unwillingness to call out other members of their own faith who use Islam to justify their atrocities. IPT’s print ad specifically lauded those Muslim voices who criticize Islamists. Our digital ad used the word “Islamists” rather than Muslims on purpose.
The very attempt to discuss the role of radical Islam in motivating terrorists spawned a campaign to shut the debate down.
America is not at war with Muslims or Islam. The U.S. remains a welcoming and tolerant nation – one in which Muslims are freer and more secure to practice their faith than anywhere else in the world.
The censorship of free speech by Islamist groups and their media apologists continues to prevent America from addressing the core threat of radical Islam. Recognizing reality is not an attack on Islam or Muslims. Those who say otherwise are the ones of whom we — and, particularly, those in the media such as the NYT — should be wary.
Steven Emerson is the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.
May 23, 2014
A full-page ad by the Investigative Project on Terrorism in Wednesday’s New York Times, followed by a prominent ad Thursday on theTimes‘ website, is generating attention and controversy.
That’s no surprise.
The ad called for the end of a prohibition on references to jihad and radical Islam in government publications and programs. It cited several examples of terrorist attacks motivated by radical Islamist ideology, and showed how organized groups try to bully anyone who calls attention to the connection. To do so, they argue, is inherently bigoted and blames all Muslims for the actions of a relative few.
Those critical of the ad cast it as anti-Muslim and Islamophobic.
That, too, is no surprise. If anything, it reinforces the ad’s message.
The ad contained no critical statements about Islam, and it did not blame the vast majority of Muslims who do not engage in violence.
For specifically calling out Islamist groups which try to stifle debate, the Religion News Service called the IPT an anti-Muslim group in a headline. The service’s stories arepicked up on the Washington Post website, dramatically expanding their reach and influence.
The judgmental label is appropriate for a news story, RNS Editor-in-Chief Kevin Eckstrom wrote in response to a complaint from the IPT, even though the original IPT ad reserved special praise for “courageous Muslim voices who dare criticize radical Islam.”
“We believe the IPT ad speaks for itself, and we quoted from it,” Eckstrom wrote. He saw no problem with reporter Cathy Lynn Grossman’s failure to contact the IPT seeking comment for her story, which again, cast the organization as “anti-Muslim.”
But Grossman did turn to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), specifically mentioned in the ad as one of the groups trying to bully opponents into silence. The ongoing “Islamophobia industry that seeks to blame Islam for any violence or terrorism anywhere in the world,” a spokesman said. The goal of such ads, he said, is to “demonize Islam and marginalize American Muslims.”
No. The goal of the ad was to trigger a debate about acknowledging the role radical Islam plays in fueling terrorism in the United States and throughout the world. The terrorists themselves acknowledge this fact, but everyone else is supposed to pretend it doesn’t exist.
The ad is judged without giving IPT a chance to respond. CAIR’s claim that the ad’s focus on radical Islam, and its praise for reformist Muslim voices, is part of an “Islamophobia industry” goes unchallenged.
The ad quotes Grossman’s source, Ibrahim Hooper, denying radical Islam plays a factor in Boko Haram’s campaign of brutality and horror in Nigeria, even though the terrorist group’s leaders repeatedly say otherwise. “And we’re tired of people coming on television and examining, ‘Well, where does this ideology come from?’ This ideology comes from nowhere,” Hooper said.
If Grossman asked Hooper how that’s true, or anything more than wishful thinking, her story never addresses the substance.
“I know IPT and CAIR have a long-running dispute,” Eckstrom wrote, “but I’m not going to get involved in the middle of that fight. Just as you would not agree that you’re ‘anti-Muslim,’ they would not agree with IPT’s characterization of them as terrorist sympathizers. Again, that’s not a fight I’m going to step into the middle of.”
So much for a journalist’s commitment to fact-finding. When the IPT writes that CAIR was founded as part of a Hamas-support network in the United States, it cites theofficial assessment of the FBI, reinforced by a written opinion from a federal judge who reviewed the evidence and found “at least a prima facie case as to CAIR’s involvement in a conspiracy to support Hamas.”
Open-minded people who take the time to review the record, including the original source documents admitted into evidence in a 2008 Hamas-support trial, are left scratching their heads by CAIR’s ability to deny history.
“It is astonishing, given this history, that the mainstream American media should routinely describe CAIR as ‘a Muslim civil rights organization,'” Peter Skerry, a former legislative director for Rep. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and senior fellow at Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics, wrote in an article for the Brookings Institution in 2011. “It is one thing for CAIR’s leaders to ritualistically deny and obfuscate the organization’s origins; it is quite another for America’s academic, political, and media elites to systematically ignore them.”
Have you signed the petition to End the current policy of censoring free speech in discussing radical Islam yet?
You can also send a very informative pre-written letter to your representatives Here
by Steven Emerson
May 13, 2014
On the front page of Sunday’s New York Times was a hysterical article charging the New York Police Department with trampling Muslim civil rights by trying to recruit Muslims who had been arrested on other charges to be informants. The headline screamed “New York Police Recruit Muslims as Informants on Terrorism” and proceeded to “expose” the “profiling of Muslims” by the NYPD to serve as potential informants from within their communities. Reporter Joseph Goldstein interviewed people who had been questioned by police and found the exercise “coercive.”
NYPD records show “that religion had become a normal topic of police inquiry in the city’s holding cells and lockup facilities,” the story said. Police reports noted which mosque a suspect attended or whether he “had made a pilgrimage to Mecca.” The story did not say why this is inherently problematic and how this differs from policing on everything from drug peddling to organized crime. But its appearance on Sunday’s front page — on the right column above the fold — tells readers that this is a big deal.
The article implied that Muslims were being singled out by law-enforcement officials because of their religion, and that they were asked invasive and improper questions about their religion.
Freedom of the press is limited to those who own it, H.L. Mencken once said, an axiom that The Times has demonstrated repeatedly by routinely deprecating the threat of “Islamic terrorism” in the United States. For years, The Times has blindly pursued an agenda that coincides with the same agenda of radical Islamic groups masquerading as “civil rights” groups in trying to prove that Islamic terrorists were unfairly convicted and framed.
Ignoring the facts about U.S. law enforcement techniques that apply to all members of divergent ethnic and religious groups to collect intelligence, Goldstein reported on what he presented as the improper questioning of Muslims held in jails. Amazingly, the paper did not question at all the credibility of the allegations perpetrated by those he interviewed, all of whom had been arrested and jailed for violating laws, including an NYPD sergeant convicted of perjury in the fabricated hunt for scoundrels in the NYPD.
As part of the paranoid Times narrative, the reporter portrayed as unethical and racist the tried and proven law-enforcement technique of recruiting informants among different ethnic population pools. The same tactic is applied in the fight against illegal gangs, druggies, and criminal organizations: street gangs, Mexican drug cartels, Japanese yakuza gangs, Italian mafia, etc. Recruiting members of different ethnic and racial groups to infiltrate gangs and criminals has been a successful, legal and proven technique of collecting vital intelligence by law-enforcement officials across the country.
For The New York Times to claim that recruiting jailed Muslims as informants in their own communities is somehow racist is manifestly disingenuous and dishonest. Pat Dunleavy should know. He served as deputy inspector-general of the New York State Department of Corrections.
“I can emphatically state that arrestees have been asked the question ‘what is your religion’ for over 40 years,” he said in an interview. “It is a core part of the initial intake assessment of an individual about to be admitted to a jail. It goes part and parcel with height, weight, color of eyes, ethnicity, etc.”
The reporter wants readers to believe that this only applies to Muslims.
Why? It goes along with the radical Islamic narrative — perpetrated by radical Islamic groups masquerading as “civil rights groups” — that Muslims are being singled out arbitrarily by police and intelligence officials. This is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the informants the NYPD has recruited in the Russian, Chinese, black, and Italian communities.
In the Times story, the paper’s agenda converged with wild conspiracy charges by Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States, who allege that Muslims are arrested driven by “Islamophobia.” This is defined as a pervasive and racist fear of Muslims throughout America orchestrated by a secret cabal of allegedly “anti-Muslim activists” (of which I have been accused of being a member).
Well, guess what? Just last week the State Department issued its annual report on terrorist groups and attacks: Of the 54 foreign terrorist organizations listed for 2013, 39 (72.2 percent) were Islamic. And in the last annual report on international terrorism issued by the National Counter Terrorism Center, its statistics showed that more than 70 percent of all international terrorist groups were Islamic. Of the top 10 most wanted FBI terrorists, eight are Muslim, and New York, since 9/11, has been subject to more Islamic terrorist plots — more than 40 — than any other city in the United States. [emphasis added]
The Times deliberately omitted numerous examples of successful cases in which intelligence gathered from speaking to an individual in jail led to the thwarting of a terrorist act.
In the case of the Newburgh Four, now a cause du jour for those naive Hollywood know-nothings, the question of religion, as Dunleavy pointed out, was core to the identification of the leader of the plot, James Cromitie. The four were indicted and convicted of a plot to bomb synagogues and shoot down National Guard aircraft. But as much as their defenders cried entrapment, the courts have affirmed the guilt of these terrorists. Still, the incontrovertible evidence against the Newburgh Four did not stop the Tribeca Film Festival from awarding a “documentary” that claimed they were innocent and had been framed because they were Muslim. Predictably, HBO is now going to air this propaganda.
(Curiously, HBO had a different attitude on Islamic terrorism some 16 years ago. When I was an associate producer on the 1998 HBO docudrama “Path to Paradise,” about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, HBO was petrified of potential radical Islamic retribution. As a result, it pulled its hundreds of thousands of dollars of advertising and hired security guards at all of its offices around the country.)
As court records show, Islamic terrorists had close ties to Islamic leaders and mosques in their communities. Prison records show that El Sayyid Nosair, who assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane in 1991 and later participated in the 1993 World Trade Center plot, had been affiliated with several radical mosques and Islamic leaders. Rashid Baz, the Islamic terrorist who shot up a bus of Jewish students on the Brooklyn Bridge, killing 17-year-old Ari Halberstam, had heard a sermon encouraging the killing of Jews at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge’s mosque the previous Friday night.
In a one-year exhaustive investigation of mosques whose members or leaders participated in terrorist plots, the Investigative Project on Terrorism found that scores of Islamic terrorists plotted their attacks in mosques in their own communities. Most recently, in the case of the terrorist who plotted the blow up the Capitol, the Justice Department censored prosecutorial indictments that revealed that the conspirator had prayed at one of the most radical mosques in the United States, Dar al–Hijrah in northern Virginia, which has been associated with some of the most violent plots in the United States since 9/11. All references to the mosque in the prosecutor’s indictment were ordered censored by Justice Department headquarters.
The Times has long been an echo chamber for radical Islamists seeking to deceive Americans that radical Islam is not a problem.
New York Times reporters have secretly collaborated with radical Islamic leaders. During the height of the Ground Zero mosque controversy in September 2010, Ingrid Mattson, then head of the Islamic Society of North America — a group which the FBI had identified as a secret arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, and which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas money-laundering case — revealed in an internal email the advice she confidentially received from Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein, who was then covering the Ground Zero Mosque controversy.
On Sept. 1, 2010, Mattson wrote to a secret ad hoc group of 50 Islamist officials who were conspiring to portray local New York opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque as part of a wider and massive national campaign of “Islamophobia.”
In her email, Mattson wrote: “I just had a two-hour conversation with Laurie Goodstein of the N.Y. Times about all the different things that are going on. One of the things she said to me is that the Muslim haters all have PR firms behind them that promote them to TV programs, etc. Just today, for example, she received an notice for a new ‘expert’ on Islam — an Orthodox Anglican who works in Africa, ‘has traveled six continents,’ and is an expert on the way Shariah is hurting Christians in Africa. Laurie said that the groups regularly roll out new ‘experts’ because TV shows like to have new faces, and that they send out these notices to thousands of journalists and editors. Whether it is laziness or simply because they know that self-styled experts, unlike academics, tend to be good on TV, they pick them up.
“So it seems to me (and Laurie was willing to give me this advice) that we can only push back if we regularly roll out and promote our own experts to the same shows. We select them, train them, then promote them vigorously. We will need a professional PR firm to make this successful, and I do not think we have a choice other than to find a way to do it.”
This is a smoking gun of a New York Times reporter advising a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States how to carry out the Ground Zero Mosque campaign. This is not an isolated incident.
The Times has repeatedly referred to the Council on American Islamic Relations as a “civil rights and advocacy group” — akin to referring to the Ku Klux Klan as a civil rights group. The Times failed to point out that CAIR was created by Hamas in the United States; that its leaders have justified terrorism; and that FBI prohibited contact with CAIR because of its ties to Hamas. CAIR has repeatedly charged that the “selective” prosecutions of Islamic terrorists and the recruitment of Muslim informants proves there is a “war against Islam,” a mantra, which the Canadian intelligence service concluded was the single biggest motivating factor in inducing Muslim extremists to carry out acts of terror.
In this story, The Times exaggerated the grievances of a few disgruntled arrestees seeking a “get-out-of-jail” card, and one police official convicted of perjury. As is so typical of the mindset of reporters nowadays, the enemy is the government, not Islamic terrorists, who are portrayed as the “victim.”
A similar set of reckless articles were published two years ago by the Associated Press, “exposing” the NYPD’s program of covertly collecting intelligence within the Muslim community to avoid another 9/11 attack. But in response to a lawsuit filed by New Jersey Muslim citizens against the NYPD, Judge William Martini not only rebuked the AP for being reckless in endangering national security, but also provided the moral and legal justification for the NYPD program.
“The more likely explanation for the surveillance was a desire to locate budding terrorist conspiracies. The most obvious reason for so concluding is that surveillance of the Muslim community began just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself.”
We can surely expect numerous press conferences this week by radical Islamic groups and their supporters threatening the NYPD with lawsuits as well as admonitions to Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI, a message that has routinely been promoted for years by groups such as CAIR, the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
We can also expect The New York Times to collaborate with these Islamist groups to embrace their agenda uncritically. The public is now on notice. The New York Times has shown its true colors.
Steven Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the author of six books on terrorism, and the executive producer of the newly released documentary “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception.”
IPT, By Steven Emerson:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) waged a new attack Tuesday on anti-Islamist Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, asking that a federal commission investigate Jasser’s financial supporters.
Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, also serves on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). CAIR and other Islamist groups tried to block that appointment in 2012. Now, CAIR wants the USCIRF to investigate Jasser’s donors, who also give to other groups CAIR doesn’t like. The AIFD received $45,000 from the Abstraction Fund from 2010-12, a letter from CAIR’s Corey Saylor said.
The New York-based fund also gives money to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Middle East Forum and Jihad Watch. All, Saylor claimed, play an “active role in spreading anti-Islam prejudice.”
“At issue here is the reasonable concern that arises regarding Dr. Jasser accepting financial support from anti-Muslim groups while he is serving on a commission advocating for religious freedom,” Saylor wrote.
What a load of nonsense. As we have shown, CAIR and others toss around accusations of “Islamophobia” as a means of stifling criticism and deflecting attentionfrom their own shady records. Jasser is a devout Muslim who repeatedly points out that Muslims are freer to practice their faith in the United States than anywhere else in the world. He calls out the victimization narrative promoted by CAIR and other Islamist groups.
In response to CAIR’s attack Tuesday, Jasser posted a link to a 2011 IPT reportshowing CAIR solicited money from Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad praised Gaddafi’s rambling, 100-minute speech to the United Nations General Assembly for having “an impact in the hearts of many people in the world.” Awad later sought financial help from Gaddafi to underwrite a program to give away 1 million Qurans to government officials and the general public in America and to help start up a new foundation.
In addition, State Department records obtained by the IPT show CAIR solicited huge donations during 2006 trips to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Despite that, CAIR continues to label information about its foreign financial support as “Internet Disinformation.”
“CAIR’s operational budget is funded by donations from American Muslims,” its website says. (To see a debunking of CAIR’s “disinformation” claims, click here.)
Tuesday’s letter was CAIR’s second to the USCIRF about Jasser in the past month. It also took statements Jasser made during a recent television appearance to argue that he would “deny religious rights to Muslim military personnel.” In fact, Jasser – a Navy veteran – said that during his service “I was able to practice my faith, fast, pray, and I never saw the need for” new policies allowing for beards, turbans and other religious garb for active duty military members.
It’s fine to debate that point. But CAIR’s ongoing campaign to strip Jasser of his position shows they don’t want debate. They want a monopoly on determining what is acceptable for American Muslims to believe.
By Steven Emerson:
Newly released records confirm a 2012 Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) report that the State Department cleared the way for a visiting delegation of Muslim Brotherhood officials to enter the country without undergoing routine inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents.
The April 2012 visit came before the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate was elected Egypt’s president, although the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) had won a plurality of seats in parliamentary elections. The expedited entry is known as a “port courtesy” normally reserved for high-ranking visiting government officials and dignitaries.
The records, marked “sensitive but unclassified,” were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. They offer few details. The State Department released a one-page document labeled “Compiled References to MB Delegation Arrival and Departure” containing four separate communications between March 30 and April 16, 2012 about the Brotherhood delegation. It is not clear who wrote them or who received them.
“In the coming days, we’re going to write down a list of procedures for dealing with MB visits to the United States,” an April 16, 2012 entry says.
A March 30 communication offers help dealing with “FJP Delegation and POE [port of entry] Courtesies: Please let the desk know over the weekend if you’d like our help submitting to DHS the ‘Special Alerts,’ which are used to request that travelers not be pulled into secondary [inspection] upon arrival at a point of entry.”
But one member of the Brotherhood delegation, which met with U.S. academic and senior government officials, had been linked to a child pornography investigation in the United States years earlier. Under normal circumstances, he likely would have been subjected to extra scrutiny.
The records released do not address that issue. They do, however, report that “The MB/FJP delegation’s scheduler reported that their arrival at JFK on Saturday went very smoothly.”
And the official in question, Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, traveled separately and was escorted through security checks in Minneapolis and New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport “In response to a request from the MB … We did not hear anything further from the MB so we assume to departure went smoothly,” the records show.
In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood has open connections with Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group which was created to be the Brotherhood’s Palestinian jihadist wing. That fact would have made a secondary inspection for the delegation a natural, if not for the State Department’s instructions.
A U.S. official familiar with immigration procedures told the IPT in 2012 that the exemption for the Brotherhood delegation was “extraordinary.”
- A Red Carpet for Radicals at the White House (investigativeproject.org)
November 18, 2013
Cornered by a straightforward question he did not want to answer, the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Los Angeles office chose instead to misrepresent his organization’s actions and feign outrage that the question itself was bigoted.
“Will CAIR-Los Angeles or CAIR-National – will you condemn Hamas?” Hussam Ayloush was asked outside his chapter’s annual fundraising banquet Saturday evening.
Initially, Ayloush tried CAIR’s standard response, saying he condemns “any group … who engages in the harming of civilians, innocent people.” That sounds like an answer to the question, but avoids specifically addressing whether Hamas is included.
Then the deception and intimidation kicks in.
“But as a civil rights organization we’re not here in the business of being dragged into the Middle East affairs and the conflicts of the Middle East,” Ayloush said. “We are an American organization.” The question itself is “not acceptable,” and “proves that you have nothing but bigotry in you.”
You can see the full encounter by clicking on the video frame at IPT.
Ayloush’s claim that CAIR is “not here in the business of being dragged into the Middle East affairs and the conflicts of the Middle East” is beyond disingenuous, given how often CAIR chooses to weigh in on Middle East issues. Its statements on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict always condemn Israeli actions. If Hamas is referenced at all, it is to minimize the threat of attacks by Hamas, a group which rejects any peaceful settlement to the conflict and which vows to destroy Israel.
For example, CAIR held a news conference in Washington to condemn Israel’s 2008 “Cast Lead” incursion into Gaza aimed at stopping rampant Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians. CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad didn’t need to be “dragged into the Middle East” debate. He demanded “that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population.”
Hamas is never mentioned.
Ayloush made a nearly identical statement during a Southern California press conference, demanding that “our government take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza.”
When the rocket fire continued unabated, Israel again took military action last year to protect millions of civilians who continually were sent scurrying into bomb shelters. Ayloush seemed more than happy to get into the business of Middle East conflicts,appearing on a Los Angeles television station to place the blame solely on Israel and minimize Hamas’s culpability.
In 2004, CAIR issued a press release condemning Israel’s targeted killing of Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin. The statement never mentions Hamas or Yassin’s role as a Hamas founder and leader at a time when Hamas conducted waves of suicide bombings. Rather, CAIR “condemned the assassination of a wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader, calling it an act of ‘state terrorism.'”
CAIR’s Hamas Support Roots
The question about CAIR’s attitude toward Hamas is more than fair game given the organization’s roots in a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in the United States. Internal documents seized by the FBI show that Awad participated in a key meeting of support-network members, known as the Palestine Committee, which was called to discuss ways to “derail” U.S.-led peace efforts between Israelis and Palestinians. The meeting, secretly recorded by the FBI, included talk of how a new accord would marginalize Hamas and lead to Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
“[U] ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS,” an FBI official wrote in 2009, “the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”
Ayloush is not a stupid man. He knows this history, and he knows that a federal judge in Texas who saw the evidence found “ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.”
His options, therefore, are to acknowledge that record and perhaps try to claim that CAIR has changed, or to bluster his way into changing the subject. On Saturday, he chose the latter.
Ayloush pretended those court exhibits simply don’t exist and claimed the FBI’s decision to shun CAIR is “just part of the politics of civil rights in America.”
“For you to ask that question,” he said, “it’s almost there is an assumption that an American Muslim somehow accepts terrorism or condones terrorism.”
The question does nothing of the sort. It’s clear from the video that the questioner was asking specifically about whether Ayloush and his organization condemn Hamas for its terrorist acts. At no time was Ayloush asked to answer for the broader Muslim community.
We’ve shown how bogus accusations of “Islamophobia” are used as a shield by CAIR and other Islamist groups to duck difficult questions.
Ayloush’s response offers the latest example of a technique CAIR officials have used for years. In 2001, journalist Jake Tapper spotlighted the dodge:
Questions about whether CAIR would condemn organizations by name unequivocally, instead of qualifying the condemnations, were just “word games from the pro-Israel lobby,” Hooper said. Instead, Hooper said that the very questions were the problem, and part of a Zionist conspiracy. “This is a game they play,” Hooper said, referring to the pro-Israel lobby. “They give me a long list of people to condemn and if you don’t give sufficient condemnation you’re a terrorist. We would condemn any person or any group that kills innocent civilians. But it’s not my duty that when the pro-Israel lobby says ‘Jump’ I say ‘How high?'”
In 2011, CAIR legislative director Corey Saylor tried to dance around the same direct question from Fox News reporter David Lee Miller:
Saylor: “I’m telling you in a very clear fashion – CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.”
Miller: “That’s not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hizballah.”
Saylor: “Well I recognize that you don’t like my answer to the question, but that’s the answer to the question.”
And this is standard behavior for Ayloush. In January, he criticized the documentary “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” by Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson, claiming that it promoted intolerance of Islam. Emerson responded, pointing out that “Ayloush failed to make a single reference to [the film's] content” but chose instead to make ad hominem attacks. Emerson even proposed a public meeting in which Ayloush could discuss the film’s actual content.
Eleven months later, we’re still waiting for a response. But the question of whether CAIR condemns Hamas as a terrorist group is one that likely will never be answered.
Bill Hemmer: A stunning new documentary now revealing the rising influence it believes of the Muslim Brotherhood not in Cairo, Egypt but here in the United States. It’s called Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. It describes the Islamic group’s real mission they believe here in the U.S. Here is a clip discussing a secret document found by the FBI. Watch it and you’ll hear from the producer of this film.
Film Narrator: It was titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” It’s dated May 22, 1991.
Jeff Breinholt [Dept. of Justice Deputy Chief, Counterterrorism 2002-2007]: “The process of settlement is a civilization-jihadist process with all the word means. The Ikhwan, which is what the Brotherhood uses to describe themselves, must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” That’s pretty clear as to how they viewed their own objective. And this is, they’re talking about the United States here.
Hemmer: Wow. Steve Emerson is the film maker. Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. He is my guest now out of Washington. Steve, good morning to you. You’re gonna get a lot of attention for this film. I think you know that and I think you know it’s coming. Why did you make the film, first off?
Steve Emerson: Well my organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, has been investigating the whole network and infrastructure of radical Islamic groups in the United States, but not necessarily those that preach jihad openly or on television. Those that do it behind closed doors but pretend to be civil rights groups. So what we have and we’ve discovered is a massive deception perpetrated by these groups. It would be like David Duke parading himself as a civil rights organization and getting accepted and legitimized by the White House, by Hollywood, by the elite media, by Congress. And so I think this is a real corrosive effect on our democracy, on –
Hemmer: I want you to back up some of these claims, ok? Take them one at a time, you said a lot in your first answer there. Inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood they enjoy considerable influence in the United States. How and where?
Emerson: They operate under fake names or false names. They don’t call themselves the Muslim Brotherhood. And this was all laid out in various documents or even secret tape recordings that we actually portray in the film, or we reveal in the film. The document that viewers just saw talked about their ulterior agenda of infiltrating and destroying the U.S. from within. So all these groups, and I’m not exaggerating to say that there are scores of radical Islamic groups hiding under the pretension of being civil rights organization or simply a religious organization, but in fact have an ulterior agenda. And the film itself actually portrays what goes on behind closed doors with these organizations, whether it’s Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, whether it’s Hizballah. All of these groups have organizations in the U.S. and they portray themselves as simple, innocent civil rights organizations –
Hemmer: You take it a step further. They’re deceiving American leaders, deceiving law enforcement, media, universities across the country. That again is a big claim.
Emerson: Well unfortunately it’s true and don’t take my word for it, look at the film. The film can be purchased on Amazon or its being shown in New York this next week. Or go to the web site www.granddeception.com. Look and listen to a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood who appears in the film for the first time and renounces his membership and talks about the deception. Look at the clip of a major imam who was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, appears before Congress giving the invocation. Look at the way Hollywood –
Hemmer: Let me pause you right there because you brought it up. I think it hits at the 13 or 14 minute mark in the 70 minute film. I’ll ask you to explain this next. Watch.
Siraj Wahhaj before Congress: “In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful, guide the leaders of this nation who have been given a great responsibility in worldly affairs. Guide them, and grant them righteousness and wisdom.”
Narrator: Siraj Wahhaj, a sometime leader and prominent speaker at events hosted by American groups connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, was chosen to give the first Muslim invocation before Congress in 1991. Here he is after his Congressional appearance.
Wahhaj: They want to defend this country. You know what this country is? It’s a garbage can, filthy, filthy and sick.
Hemmer: Who is he and why was he invited to speak on the floor of the House?
Emerson: Well I can’t tell you why he was invited because I wasn’t around in 1991 when he was invited, but I assume it was in the spirit of ecumenical outreach. What the congressman who invited him didn’t do was the due diligence, was to show exactly what he says behind closed doors in contrast to what he says openly. What he says behind closed doors is what we captured in the film, along with many other groups who say preach peace and preach non-violence openly in front of TV cameras and say they condemn terrorism, but when you ask them will they condemn Hamas or Hizballah they don’t consider them terrorist groups. And behind closed doors they actually promote these organizations or tell their constituents like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which the FBI itself called a Hamas front, is routinely interviewed in major newspapers, the Associated Press, appears on television – just appeared the other day on network television as if they were a legitimate civil rights group.
Hemmer: But Muslim Brotherhood would say hey we’re here to help promote our religion, we’re here to help promote communities, we’re here to help promote education. In the thirty seconds I have left, can you prove that they’ve had success doing the things that you just described to us over the past several minutes, Steve?
Emerson: I think I can and I think I would let the viewers watch the film. But I think to the extent that they’ve been able to infiltrate law enforcement, to stop the FBI from actually circulating materials on the Muslim Brotherhood because “it was offensive to Islam.” It wasn’t offensive to Islam, it was offensive to the Muslim Brotherhood. And the same thing goes on in terms at the Department of Justice, where prosecutions have been quashed into terrorist financing because it might be considered offensive. And I think we need to get beyond this because we want to empower genuine moderates in the Islamic community, Bill.
Hemmer: It’s called The Grand Deception: Jihad in America. Steve Emerson is its producer. Steve, thank you.
- Blockbuster Interview With Steven Emerson on the Glazov Gang (counterjihadreport.com)
Steven Emerson recounts his career as a journalist from its beginnings in 1978 through the beginning of his focus on radical Islamic groups in the US after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The accumulation of massive amounts of data which resulted from research for his first documentary “Jihad in America” led to the creation of the Investigative Project on Terrorism in 1995. His organization has become the world’s largest archival data center on radical Islam. As an investigative agency, Emerson says, “We are not a think tank, we are a “do tank”.
In this second video Emerson talks about CAIR and much more. He does not mince words and there are some explosive comments like “Eric Holder is a hit man and a thug and corrupt…and should be indicted. Information on his corruption will be coming out in the next few months and it will be pretty shocking”
You can follow Steve Emerson on twitter @TheIPT where he engages members of CAIR and others, lately using CAIR’s #LegislatingFear to rain on their parade.
August 28, 2013
A segment in the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s new award-winning documentary “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception” focuses on Islamists and how they try to control public perception. Part of it is by manipulating a lazy and gullible media. But another part is to shut down any criticism of Islamist ideology – the notion that society is best governed by Islamic law.
During a recent panel discussion on the film, panelists – including two anti-Islamist Muslims – discussed the way phony accusations of “Islamophobia,” or bigotry, are used to stigmatize critics.
To see the video click here
by Lauri B. Regan
July 2, 2013
Steve Emerson and The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s documentary Jihad in America: The Grand Deception is a powerful film that should be shown across America -in high schools, on college campuses, in our houses of worship, and most importantly, throughout the state and federal governments. It turns the concept of political correctness that has dominated our learning institutions, government bureaucracies, and media and entertainment organizations on its head as the viewer is left in wonderment at the self-induced and resulting indoctrination that has overwhelmed American culture.
Emerson’s documentary exposes the stealth war that the Muslim Brotherhood has been conducting behind the scenes in America as its influence has infected academia, Hollywood, journalism, law enforcement, and the highest echelons of government. Throughout the film, undercover video and audio clips are interspersed between interviews with law enforcement officials and MB experts to describe the evolution of an organization that was founded in Egypt in 1928 in order to bring Muslims back to their Islamic values and create an Islamic caliphate across the world. From founder Hassan al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and extend its power to the entire planet.”
With the MB’s migration across the globe, its presence in the U.S. should be no surprise. What is surprising is the film’s exposure of the extent to which the MB has infiltrated so many influential aspects of our society. Through the establishment of a complicated network of front groups seemingly legitimate on their face, the group has gained respectability without accountability and successfully camouflaged its true agenda of destroying Western civilization from within.
A disturbing lesson from the film is that the U.S. government — from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State to the F.B.I. — has full knowledge of the MB’s intricate network and agenda. In the face of that knowledge, the officials whom we have entrusted with national security and protection of our freedoms and values have either willfully turned a blind eye or been utterly complicit in furthering the nefarious goals of radical Islam.
The Grand Deception Excerpts:
- “Grand Deception” Wins Special NYC Film Festival Honor (counterjihadreport.com)
- Jihad in America (counterjihadreport.com)
- “Grand Deception” Documentary by Steven Emerson Racks Up Film Festival Honors (counterjihadreport.com)
Editor’s note: Frontpage is proud to announce that our Shillman Journalism Fellow, Mark Tapson, co-wrote this documentary.
On the bright, beautiful, and crisp fall day that was early morning, September 11, 2001, few Americans were familiar with stealth jihad, or considered Islamic terrorism a threat to America. Yet, there was a voice crying in the wilderness, warning of a danger that already existed here. That voice belonged to Steven Emerson, whose documentary film titled Jihad in America was aired by PBS on November 21, 1994. Islamic militant groups in America, including CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) began their protestations and intimidation even before the broadcast date. Since the airing, the use of intimidation has been ramped up and gone global, having a stifling impact on terrorism/jihad-related broadcasts in the mainstream media throughout the Western world. This oppressive atmosphere has affected the conduct of Western governments, including the Obama administration.
Emerson’s newly released Jihad in America: The Grand Deception is a must-watch documentary — an educational tool for Americans to learn about the network of stealth Islamist jihadists in the U.S. that has grown in the aftermath of 9/11. The fact that evil lurks just under the surface in America (brought to life last month at the Boston Marathon) seems to be difficult to acknowledge, yet ignoring it is at our peril. Unfortunately, Americans have a short memory span, and most prefer to turn away from unpleasant realities, especially in the Obama Age. Hence, all the more reason to circulate information about this essential documentary.
The 70-minute documentary by Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) deals with the covert structure and growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimun) and other such radical Muslim groups, masquerading under the deceitful moniker of apolitical religious groups, as well as civil rights groups in the U.S. This IPT documentary reveals how the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has infiltrated the highest institutions of the land, including the Obama White House, the U.S. Congress, U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security, Hollywood, the mainstream media, law enforcement in various states, the publishing industry and American museums. The film not only presents examples of MB infiltration, but reveals how the MB and its affiliates intimidate policymakers to submit to their demands by their use of our open democracy to undermine our institutions, all of which is done to further their quest for global rule under Sharia law.
This film includes previously unseen interviews with articulate and most courageous Muslim individuals, former FBI agents and federal prosecutors, a prominent Hollywood director, journalists, as well as a top official of the Muslim Brotherhood. This documentary features secretly recorded audio and video speeches of radical Islamists, including individual preachers and groups, original MB documents, and unsealed federal documents.
In an interview Steven Emerson had with Lou Dobbs of Fox News on January 21, 2013, the host introduced The Grand Deception as follows: “Our guest [Steven Emerson] says that the ‘Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist off shoots are hiding in plain sight right here in the U.S.’” What followed is Emerson’s explanation of the documentary title. “A group of Muslim Brotherhood activists secretly got together in Philadelphia in 1993 in a meeting that was actually wiretapped [the wiretaps have since been declassified] by the FBI. They [the MB activists] openly talked about deception as the primary campaign tactic that they would use to change the image of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. by creating new front groups, by changing the terminology, and by claiming they were against terrorism publicly, but in fact raising funds for Hamas privately. The word deception is the word that I used in the title because that is exactly what is going on throughout the country with these radical Islamic groups.”
One of the radical Islamists the documentary presents is a Brooklyn, NY-based Imam named Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, who, according to Emerson, had been invited in 1991 to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress (the first Muslim to so) and would subsequently be recorded saying about the U.S., “You know what this country is? It is a garbage can, it is filthy and sick.” The film also points out that this anti-American, hate-spewing Imam, was invited to appear at anti-terrorism conferences and was paid by the U.S. government.
Muslim Brotherhood victories in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya have provided encouragement for the hundreds of MB cells worldwide, including those in the U.S.
The film shows Attorney General Eric Holder undergoing congressional drilling in 2010 from Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on how he refused to acknowledge the role of radical Muslims in terrorism on American soil and refused to use the words “radical Muslim” or “Muslim.”
In another frame of the film, Dr. Mamoun Fandy, an Egyptian-born American scholar, President of the Fandy Associates think tank and a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, declared that the MB is the “mother” of all radical Muslim groups. He pointed out that “instead of isolating the MB, the West and the U.S. [especially under President Obama] have engaged them and regarded them as “moderate.” According to Fandy, the West was tremendously naïveabout the nature and intentions of the MB. According to Emerson (in conversation with this writer), Fandy was let go by Georgetown University because of his views on the MB.
The film records the spiritual leader of the MB, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, speaking to a Muslim audience in Toledo, OH and revealing the goals of the MB. “We will conquer Europe and we will conquer America for Islam through religious proselytization” (dawa in Arabic). MB documents captured by the FBI in 1991 further reveal this insidious plan by the MB to conquer America for Islam. It includes increased immigration and settlement as part of the MB’s plot of stealth Jihad, just as they have done in Europe. Their aim is to destroy Western civilization from within by destabilizing “their miserable house,” and replacing it with God’s religion — Islam.
Read more at Front Page
May 17, 2013
“Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” a new film by Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson, was honored this week as the best documentary at the 2013 International Beverly Hills Film Festival.
The 70-minute film focuses on the Muslim Brotherhood and its penetration in the United States. It features documents and recordings from federal investigations, undercover recordings and interviews with FBI agents, federal prosecutors and Muslim experts on radical Islam.
“I am honored by the recognition the judges in Beverly Hills and Myrtle Beach have given ‘The Grand Deception,'” Emerson said. “This shows what happens when people break through the noise which often dominates discussion on this issue, actually watch the film and judge for themselves. The problem of covert Muslim Brotherhood activity in America is a serious one, and my film explores it with original source documents and a list of sources with first-hand experience combating it.”
The film also placed third at the Sunset International Film Festival in Los Angeles and is an official selection for upcoming festivals in New York and Madrid.
“As much of an honor as it is to be recognized for this work, Grand Deception co-director Rachel Milton told the Beverly Hills gala attendees upon accepting event’s crystal plaque, “it is more important that the subject matter of our film be recognized and discussed. And that is the subject of radical Islam, something that touches everyone’s life whether they realize it or not.”
Audience members from a screening in Myrtle Beach called the film “very powerful” and “a smack in the face.” “People really need to see this,” said another.
The Grand Deception is a follow-up to Emerson’s 1994 documentary “Jihad in America,” which won the George Polk Award for outstanding documentary and the Investigative Reporters and Editors’ Tom Renner Award for investigative reporting.
The documentary has impressed other viewers, with Orange County Register editorial writer Rory Cohen calling it a “must see” for showing “how far the Muslim Brotherhood has reached within our own political fabric in less than three decades.”
“‘The Grand Deception’ exposes radical Islamists in their own words,” wrote Muslim physician Qanta Ahmed, calling that something “shattering to any Muslim in America – and is exactly why our communities invite unwanted scrutiny. In their own voices, American Islamists demand violent jihad against the United States.”
Producers say they want the film to start a debate about the political application of Islam – or Islamism – as anti-Islamist Muslim activist Zuhdi Jasser explains in this outtake:
Additional clips from can be seen here.
Watch this video. Abdul al-Harbi, who was first questioned in the Boston bombing, is going to be deported on “national security grounds.” Watch this interview on Hannity with terrorism expert, Steve Emerosn confirming the stunning news. A devout Muslim from Medina, anti-Jihad activist and blogger Walid Shoebat reports that he is a scion of a very powerful Saudi familywith terrorist ties.
The well-connected Saudi person of interest in the Boston bombing visited by Saudi Consul General in New York Azam Al-Qain. Al-Harabi had multiple national security violations:
Saudi Consul General in New York was in the Hospital with Saudi National “Person of Interest” in Boston Bombing MEMRI
Saudi media outlets – Alarabiya.net, Al-Watan, ‘Okaz, and Sabq.org – reported on Saudi nationals who were wounded in the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, and on their situations.
The following is a review of the reports:
Saudi Consul General in New York Azam Al-Qain with Al
Harbi. Source: twitpic.com/cjvpo7, April 17, 2013.
To view this report, you must be a paying member of the Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor Project (JTTM). For membership information, send an email to email@example.com with “Membership” in the subject line.
- SAUDI NATIONAL DEPORTATION: AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST DEMAND THE FULL STORY (Breitbart.com)
- Video: Steve Emerson reports Saudi national ‘person of interest’ is being deported on Tuesday (counterjihadreport.com)
- “Innocent” Saudi has ties to several Al-Qaeda Terrorists (counterjihadreport.com)
- Saudi National in Boston Bombing being deported on “National Security Grounds” (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Big Sis: Question About Saudi National Being Deported ‘Not Worthy Of An Answer’ (Video) (breitbart.com)
Steven Emerson talked about the latest developments in the Boston Marathon Bombing. He responded to telephone calls and electronic communications. (20 min. video)