American Islamist Coalition Launches with Empty Rhetoric

CAIR Again Shows It Can’t Stand Other Muslim Viewpoints

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.

Islamist-Interfaith Alliance Battles Foreign Law Bans

IslamWillDominateWhiteHouseBy Ryan Mauro:

Shoulder-to-Shoulder, an interfaith coalition allied with the Islamic Society of North America, is mobilizing its supporters against state legislation that stops foreign law from superseding the Constitution. The Islamists’ non-Muslim allies are helping frame it as an unnecessary, bigoted initiative that threatens all people of faith.

The coalition is holding a webinar on February 27. The announcement correctly notes that current legislation does not mention Shariah, though it is covered under the terminology of “foreign law.” Seven states have passed such bills since 2010.

Shoulder-to-Shoulder’s description makes it sound like the legislation is a ban on foreign law influencing judges’ decision altogether. It states:

“Most religious laws that influence these contracts (like Jewish Halakha, Catholic Canon law, or Islamic Shariah law) were not developed within the United States and would be considered foreign law under such legislation. While anti-Muslim sentiment is still the motivating factor behind these laws, Americans of every faith should be concerned about their impact on religious freedom.”

This is an easily refutable misrepresentation of the bills, based on the American Laws for American Courts draft legislation. It does not ban religious contracts like those mentioned by Shoulder-to-Shoulder, nor is it a blanket ban on foreign law. It only applies when there is a conflict between the U.S. Constitution and foreign law in court and it victimizes no one, especially not Muslims because Muslim-Americans are benefactors of it.

2011 study found 50 cases where Shariah or foreign law based on Shariah influenced the court case. The American Public Policy Alliance has a list of 10 cases where a Muslim-American party objected to the role of Shariah. The summary is as follows:

“In cases 1-3, the Appellate Courts upheld Shariah law; in cases 4-7, the Trial Courts upheld Shariah, but the Appellate Courts reversed (protecting the litigant’s constitutional rights); in cases 8-10, both Trial and Appellate Courts rejected the attempts to enforce Shariah law.”

ALAC is sometimes criticized as unnecessary and driven by unsubstantiated paranoia. It is hard to imagine that an American judge would ever rule give foreign law precedence over American law. The American Public Policy Alliance explains that the bill fixes a troublesome loophole:

Most states merely state that foreign laws and judgments that violate the state’s “public policy” shall not be recognized. But the courts consistently rule that the state legislature has the responsibility to articulate clearly what the state’s public policy actually is.

The ALAC website points out the hypocrisy of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In response to business dress codes enforced on Muslim-American women in France, CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper unwittingly supported the rationale behind ALAC.

“A discriminatory dress code implemented in France does not supersede American laws protecting the religious rights of American citizens,” he said. He said CAIR is “defending American law from foreign intrusion.”

The American-Islamic Forum for Democracy supports ALAC-type bills because it has seen how Shariah has affected Muslims in Europe. The bills’ purpose is not to pre-empt a hypothetical situation. It’s a reaction to what is actually happening right now.

2010 study found that Shariah courts in the United Kingdom lack accountability, to say the least. There are not clear standards for appointing judges and monitoring proceedings and rulings often conflict with British law. For example, British courts’ first priority is the interest of the child. Shariah courts rule that children automatically go into the custody of the father after a certain age.

The British Justice Ministry investigated Shariah courts and had to end give up because of a lack of cooperation from the court staffs.

The misrepresentations by Shoulder-to-Shoulder stem from its relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. The Foundation was another Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas. This isn’t six degrees of separation: The Holy Land Foundation operated within ISNA, according to a 2009 ruling by a federal judge.

ISNA said on its website last month that it “founded” Shoulder-to-Shoulder to counter increasing bigotry against Muslims. Elsewhere on its website, ISNA saysit “helped convene” the coalition of 28 religious organizations. Whichever way it is worded, the point is that Shoulder-to-Shoulder is largely a product of ISNA.

And who is the ISNA official leading its interfaith campaign and, therefore, its work with Shoulder-to-Shoulder? Former Secretary-General Sayyid Syeed, who is seen in The Grand Deception documentary saying in 2006, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.” His current job title at ISNA is National Director of ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances.

Read more at Front Page

CAIR’s Islamophobia Meltdown

RNS-CAIR-REPORTBy :

Two days after the release of a CAIR report claiming to expose the network financing “Islamophobia”, Charles C. Johnson ran his own report documenting CAIR’s convoluted financing schemes.

While the CAIR report attempted to stigmatize terrorism research by reporting on the straightforward funding of organizations and individuals such as Robert Spencer; the Johnson report showed that CAIRdescribed by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in financing terrorism, had engaged in convoluted methods to conceal its financing sources while laundering money from abroad.

Unlike the groups it is targeting, whose language and ideas it criticizes, CAIR went well beyond words, doing everything from helping fund terrorists to obstructing government investigations of terrorism.

Despite its theatrics, CAIR’s Islamophobia report showed nothing except that American organizations researching Islamic terrorism were funded by other Americans. The Johnson report however showed that CAIR had received millions from foreign governments, including Qatar which is notorious for funding terrorist groups like Hamas, and used a shell game to hide the foreign sources of its financing.

CAIR’s attempt to smear terrorism researchers, many of whom have paid a great deal of attention to its terrorist ties, has an obvious motive. It is not reporting on bigotry as a national phenomenon. Instead its report is a clumsy attempt at silencing its critics by denouncing them as bigots.

The targets of the CAIR Islamophobia report include not only terrorism researchers, but also Muslim groups like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy that have been critical of CAIR and its Saudi backers in the past, as well as Voice of the Copts, an organization advocating for the rights of Coptic Christians persecuted by the Muslim Brotherhood.

CAIR, like Hamas, was created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Its attempt to silence liberal Muslim critics and the Coptic Christians whose churches it is burning down as “Islamophobes” is self-serving cynicism.

Read more at Front Page

 

CAIR Releases Islamophobia Propaganda Report “Legislating Fear”

Breitbart:

islamophobia-report-coverThe Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a report titled “Legislating Fear – Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States” on Thursday. The report profiles and accuses several individuals, websites, organizations of being anti-Islamic and spreading so called “Islamophobia” throughout the United States.

The controversial organization, that was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the U.S. government’s 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial and reportedly built ties with the current administration is hitting back at its critics in this report.

Among the offenders in its report, CAIR names:  Fox News, The Washington Times, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Mark Levin Show, National Review, Eagle Forum, Christian Broadcasting Network, American Islamic Leadership Coalition, Family Security Matters, American Center for Law and Justice, Traditional Values Coalition, Donors Capital Fund.

CAIR describes the groups above as part of the “Islamophobia network’s outer core.” They list 32 in total:

Many of the listed foundations were identified by the Center for America Progress Action Fund in Fear, Inc. and are included because they funnel money to the network. Just as providing funds to white supremacist or anti-Semitic groups should be seen as anathema, these foundations must be held to socially responsible standards.Outer Core groups are noted throughout this report, but will be given a fuller examination in a subsequent document.

CAIR discusses 37 groups within “Islamophobia’s network’s inner core” :

CAIR identifies 37 groups in the Islamophobia network’s inner core. The  impact of eleven of these groups is local in nature. Five of the local groups are based in Florida: Americans Against Hate, Citizens for National Security, Counter Terrorism Operations Center, Florida Family Association and The United West. ACT! For America is headquartered in Florida as well. The influence of these groups spans a full spectrum from minimal, such as the Sheepshead Bay, New York’s Bay People, to significant, such as ACT! For America, the Center for Security Policy, Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs and the Investigative Project on Terrorism. The Inner Core is examined at length in the next section of this report.

CAIR also goes after individuals like American businessman Foster Friess for his 2012 PAC donation support of GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. CAIR says it is critical of Santorum for “endors[ing] profiling of Muslims during a presidential debate.”:

On his website, Friess lists among his key issues “helping peaceful Muslims … to transcend the 7th century ideology of violence, intimidation, and coercion that threatens them … and us.” 7 Leading the cause, according to Friess, are inner core groups such as Brigitte Gabriel and ACT! for America, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy, and Jihad Watch.

CAIR claims the key factors that increased “islamophobia” in the U.S. in 2011 and 2012 include the employment of anti-Muslim trainers and training materials at the FBI, military, and other government agencies and the use of “anti-Muslim rhetoric” by Republican presidential candidates.

The organization also does not appreciate that then House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY), whom CAIR calls “anti-Muslim” held “five hearings targeting the entire Muslim community.”

CAIR and other like-minded groups managed to convince top government law enforcement officials to purge training materials and books that were deemed offensive to Muslims as well as trainers accused of being “anti-Muslim.”

Bin Bayyah Statements Underscore Support for Terrorism

by John Rossomando
IPT News
July 12, 2013

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties

Terror suspects, fugitives and radical speakers have passed through the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited.

USA TODAY

By Oren Dorell:

BOSTON — The mosque attended by the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon double bombing has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism.

Several people who attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque’s first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince.

Its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terrorism suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques.

The head of the group is among critics who say the two mosques teach a brand of Islamic thought that encourages grievances against the West, distrust of law enforcement and opposition to Western forms of government, dress and social values.

“We don’t know where these boys were radicalized, but this mosque has a curriculum that radicalizes people. Other people have been radicalized there,” said the head of the group, Charles Jacobs.

Yusufi Vali, executive director at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, insists his mosque does not spread radical ideology and cannot be blamed for the acts of a few worshipers.

“If there were really any worry about us being extreme,” Vali said, U.S. law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would not partner with the Muslim American Society and the Boston mosque in conducting monthly meetings that have been ongoing for four years, he said, in an apparent reference to U.S. government outreach programs in the Muslim community.

The Cambridge and Boston mosques, separated by the Charles River, are owned by the same entity but managed individually. The imam of the Cambridge mosque, Sheik Basyouny Nehela, is on the board of directors of the Boston mosque.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, attended the Cambridge mosque for services and are accused of setting two bombs that killed three people and injured at least 264 others at the April 15 Boston Marathon.

The FBI has not indicated that either mosque was involved in any criminal activity, but mosque attendees and officials have been implicated in terrorist activity:

• Alamoudi, who signed the articles of incorporation as the Cambridge mosque’s president, was sentenced to 23 years in federal court in Alexandria, Va., in 2004 for his role as a facilitator in what federal prosecutors called a Libyan assassination plot against then-crown prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Abdullah is now the Saudi king.

Aafia Siddiqui is shown after her graduation from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.(Photo: AP)

Aafia Siddiqui is shown after her graduation from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.(Photo: AP)

• Aafia Siddiqui, who occasionally prayed at the Cambridge mosque, was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 while in possession of cyanide canisters and plans for a chemical attack in New York City. She tried to grab a rifle while in detention and shot at military officers and FBI agents, for which she was convicted in New York in 2010 and is serving an 86-year sentence.

The 2009 booking photo of Tarek Mehanna, of Sudbury, Mass.(Photo: Sudbury Police Department via AP)

The 2009 booking photo of Tarek Mehanna, of Sudbury, Mass.(Photo: Sudbury Police Department via AP)

• Tarek Mehanna, who worshiped at the Cambridge mosque, was sentenced in 2012 to 17 years in prison for conspiring to aid al-Qaeda. Mehanna had traveled to Yemen to seek terrorist training and plotted to use automatic weapons to shoot up a mall in the Boston suburbs, federal investigators in Boston alleged.

• Ahmad Abousamra, the son of a former vice president of the Muslim American Society Boston Abdul-Badi Abousamra, was identified by the FBI as Mehanna’s co-conspirator. He fled to Syria and is wanted by the FBI on charges of providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill Americans in a foreign country.

• Jamal Badawi of Canada, a former trustee of the Islamic Society of Boston Trust, which owns both mosques, was named as a non-indicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial in Texas over the funneling of money to Hamas, which is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

What both mosques have in common is an affiliation with the Muslim American Society, an organization founded in 1993 that describes itself as an American Islamic revival movement. It has also been described by federal prosecutors in court as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood, which calls for Islamic law and is the parent organization of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.

Critics say the Muslim American Society promotes a fraught relationship with the United States, expressed in part by the pattern discussed by Americans for Progress and Tolerance in which adherents are made to feel cut off from their home country and to identify with a global Islamist political community rather than with America.

Zhudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said the radical teachings often follow a theme of recitation of grievances that Islam has with the West, advocacy against U.S. foreign policy and terrorism prosecutions, and efforts “to evangelize Islam in order to improve Western society that is secularized,” he says.

Jasser, a veteran of the U.S. Navy and author of the 2012 book A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot Fights to Save His Faith, says the teachings make some followers feel “like their national identity is completely absent and hollow, and that vacuum can be filled by (radical) Islamic ideology, which is supremacist and looks upon the West as evil.”

The Cambridge mosque was founded in 1982 by students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and several other Boston-area schools, according to a profile by the Pluralism Project at Harvard University. Its members founded the sister mosque in Boston in 2009.

The leadership of the two mosques is intertwined, and the ideology they teach is the same, Jacobs said. Ilya Feoktistov, director of research at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said much of the money to create the Boston mosque came not from local Muslims but from foreign sources.

More than half of the $15.5 million used to found the Boston mosque came from Saudi sources, Feoktistov said, who cites financial documents that Jacobs’ group obtained when the mosque sued it for defamation. The lawsuit was later dropped.

Vali said that the vast majority of total donors were in the United States and that “no donations were accepted if the donor wanted to have any decision-making influence (even if benign).”

Vali characterized Americans for Peace and Tolerance and its founder, Jacobs, as anti-Muslim activists who spread “lies and half-truths in order to attack and marginalize much of the local Muslim community and many of its institutions.”

“It’s the new McCarthyism in full swing,” he said.

Sheik Basyouny Nehela, the imam of the Cambridge mosque, which is located across the Charles River from Boston, is on the board of directors for the Muslim American Society of Boston, which runs the Boston mosque. The Tsarnaevs attended the Cambridge mosque.

A statement issued by the Cambridge mosque said the Tsarnaev brothers were “occasional visitors.” The mosque’s office manager, Nichole Mossalam, said neither brother expressed radical views. “They never exhibited any violent sentiments or behaviors. Otherwise, they would have been reported,” Mossalam said.

The Cambridge mosque said Tsarnaev, 26, who died Thursday night in a shootout with police, “disagreed with the moderate American-Islamic theology” of the mosque. Tsarnaev challenged an imam who said in his sermon that it was appropriate to celebrate U.S. national holidays and was told to stop such outbursts, the mosque said in a statement.

Talal Eid, a Muslim chaplain at Brandeis University, said focusing on individual radicals that prayed in a building is unfair.

“In 2011, the two brothers were right under the nose of the FBI and they didn’t find anything,” Eid said, who never met the Tsarnaevs. “How do you want me as an imam to know enough to tell them they are not welcome here? How can I figure out those people have that kind of criminal intent?”

The Muslim American Society says on its website that it is independent of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, early Brotherhood literature is considered “the foundational texts for the intellectual component for Islamic work in America,” the website states.

Jacobs says claims of moderate Islam do not square with the mosque’s classic jihadi texts in its library and its hosting of radical speakers.

Jacobs said Ahmed Mansour, his co-director at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, found writings by Syed Qutb, the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and other jihadi texts at the Cambridge mosque’s library when Mansour went there in 2003. Qutb pioneered the radical violent ideology espoused by al-Qaeda.

Yusuf al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader who espouses radical views in videos collected by Jacobs’ group, was listed as a trustee on the Cambridge mosque’s IRS filings until 2000, and on the mosque’s website until 2003, when he addressed congregants via recorded video message to raise money for the Boston mosque, according to a screenshot of the announcement that Feoktistov provided.

Vali said Qaradawi was listed as an honorary trustee years ago only because his scholarship and high esteem in Muslim circles would help with fundraising.

Yasir Qadhi, who lectured at the Boston mosque in April 2009, has advocated replacing U.S. democracy with Islamic rule and called Christians “filthy” polytheists whose “life and prosperity … holds no value in the state of Jihad,” according to a video obtained by Jacobs’ group.

Vali said Qadhi was a guest of a non-profit organization that was renting space at the Boston mosque and has changed his views since that video was made.

Jacobs and others say it is not only renters who express sympathetic views for terrorists. Leaders of the Boston and Cambridge mosques, and invited guests, have advocated on behalf of convicted terrorists, urging followers to seek their release or lenient sentences.

Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, sometimes a spokesman for the Boston mosque, used Siddiqui’s case to speak against the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed under the George W. Bush administration. “After they’re done with (Siddiqui), they are going to come to your door if they feel like it,” he said, according to a video obtained by Americans for Peace and Tolerance.

Anwar Kazmi, a member of the Cambridge mosque’s board of trustees, called for leniency for Mehanna and Siddiqui at a Boston rally in February 2012, in a video posted to YouTube. He characterized Siddiqui’s 86-year sentence as excessive.

In an interview with USA TODAY, Kazmi insisted that the Cambridge mosque is moderate and condemns the marathon bombings. On Monday, the mosque e-mailed members to caution them that the FBI may question them and that they may want to seek representation.

“This kind of violence, terrorism, it’s just completely contrary to the spirit of Islam,” Kasmi said. “The words in the Quran say if anybody kills even a single human being without just cause, it’s as if you’ve killed all of humanity.”

Contributing: Yamiche Alcindor

 

The Boston Mosque – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.23:

Former Muslims

muslims prayingby ED  ZIEGLER

In response to the violent  actions and  intense  hatred by  many  Muslims toward non-Muslims, my articles frequently attempt to  acquaint freedom loving people with the undeniable fact the goal of these  Muslims is to force the world to submit to Islam.

Fanatic Muslims consist of approximately 120 million followers of Islam  world-wide. Many of their religious leaders advocate killing apostates in  accordance with verses in the Quran such as vers 4-89   “Take not from  among them until they fly in Allah’s way. But if they turn back seize them and  KILL them wherever you find them.”

There is a small but growing number of ex-Muslims who realized that Islam is  not a peace loving religion as proclaimed. “Mohammed is God’s apostle.   Those who follow him are harsh to the unbelievers but merciful to one  another.”  Quran 48:29.  By denouncing their Islamic faith, these  apostates have put their lives on the line.

Also there are Muslims such as Dr. Zudhi Jasser, founder of  The  American Islamic Forum for Democracy, whose mission is to advocate for the  preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution.

There is another group, “Former Muslims United” (FMU), which seeks to protect  former Muslims from persecution by those who believe in Islamic dogma which  requires punishment of apostates. FMU is outspoken against honor killings and  rejects punishment for leaving the Islamic faith.

A former Egyptian Muslim, Nonie Darwish, is the Director of FMU, a human  rights activist and founder of Arabs For Israel. She also authored books: “Now  They Call Me Infidel; Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on  Terror” and “Cruel and Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of  Islamic Law.”

Nonie said she converted because she experienced love, peace and compassion  while attending a Christian school. She compared this with the harsh teaching in  Islamic text books and preached in Mosques. In Mosques you hear the holy man  preach “May God destroy all the infidel and Jews the enemy of God.” Nonie stated  that terrorism is violent jihad and the duty of every Muslim. She explained that  the sword is a symbol for conquering the world.

Interview with Nonie Darwish:

 

Wafa Sultan, an apostate, was born into a large, traditional Alawite Muslim  family in Baniyas, Syria. Wafa is a medical doctor, an American author and  critic of Muslim society and Islam.   I challenge everyone to listen  to Wafa’s plea (Former  Muslims United: Wafa Sultan – YouTube). Her short eye opening narrative will  dispel any idea that you may have that Islam is a religion of peace.

Sabatina James, a convert to Christianity, came from a strict Pakistani  family. She claims that after she refused to marry a man her parents had chosen.  Her father told her, “The honor of this family is more important than my life or  your life” and her mother wanted her dead.” James has lived in fear of being  murdered for leaving the Islamic faith. Since 2001 she has moved at least 16  times.

The Quran and the hadith call for the death of those who turn away from  Islam. Even though, throughout the centuries, individuals around the world have  openly risked their lives denouncing Islam. Go to http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html  for a list of such brave people. To listen to a number of former Muslims being  interviewed by the Chief Counsel of The American Center for Law and Justice go  to  http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/index.html.

It is very important to remember the danger we are in with over 100 million  fanatic Muslins who are willing to kill non-Muslims to force the world to adhere  to Islam. Afshin Ellian a former Iranian Muslim fled the Middle East to the  Netherlands. There he became a professor of Law, philosopher, poet and out  spoken critic of Islam. One of Afshin’s quotes is “Radical Islamists are so  determined to prove Islam is the religion of peace that they are willing to kill  for it.”

For six years Ed Ziegler has been researching and writing articles on the War  Against Terrorism and anti-Semitism. Ed is an activist who believes freedom is  worth fighting for and that everyone should be involved.

Source: Family Security Matters

 

A Nasty Neologism – The term Islamophobia treats political ideology as akin to race.

OB-VX147_bkrvph_DV_20130107195332By JONATHAN SCHANZER

“The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends,” President George W. Bush declared soon after the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Bush’s statement set the tone for the tumultuous decade to come, one in which the nation prosecuted a war on terrorism in two Muslim lands while taking great pains to protect the rights of Muslim Americans.

Yet if the author Nathan Lean is to be believed, Americans today are caught in the grip of an irrational fear of Islam and its adherents. In his short book on the subject, Mr. Lean, a journalist and editor at the website Aslan Media, identifies this condition using the vaguely medical sounding term “Islamophobia.” It is by now a familiar diagnosis, and an ever widening range of symptoms—from daring to criticize theocratic tyrannies in the Middle East to drawing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad—are attributed to it.

In reality, Islamophobia is simply a pejorative neologism designed to warn people away from criticizing any aspect of Islam. Those who deploy it see no difference between Islamism—political Islam and its extremist offshoots—and the religion encompassing some 1.6 billion believers world-wide. Thanks to this feat of conflation, Islamophobia transforms religious doctrines and political ideologies into something akin to race; to be an “Islamophobe” is in some circles today tantamount to being a racist.

American Islamophobia, Mr. Lean claims, is fomented by a “small cabal of xenophobes.” “The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims” is less a book than a series of vignettes about some of these antagonists, who are “bent on scaring the public about Islam.” His Islamophobic figures and institutions range from political leaders like Mr. Bush, Sen. John McCain and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who, Mr. Lean says, have “harnessed Muslims and Islam to terrorism”; to the pro-Israel community, which is alleged to be animated by a “violent faith narrative” and funded by magnates who inject “eye-popping cash flows into the accounts of various fear campaigns”; to pretty much everyone who campaigned in 2010 against the construction of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks in lower Manhattan.

Mr. Lean tars with the same brush the likes of the scholar Daniel Pipes and the Muslim activist, physician and U.S. Navy veteran Zuhdi Jasser. Mr. Pipes, the author writes, is “deeply entrenched in the business of selling fear.” He
portrays Dr. Jasser as a puppetlike figure, “a ‘good Muslim,’ one that openly and forcefully denounced various tenets of his faith.”

These are crude and uncharitable caricatures of these men. Mr. Pipes was one of the first Western commentators to raise the alarm about the subterranean spread of extremist attitudes in both the Middle East and among some Muslim communities in the West. Dr. Jasser, a devout Muslim, is the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, an organization that advances the notion that “the purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.” Both men argue that the real contest is the serious war of ideas raging within Islam itself, between the forces of liberalism and pluralism and those of obscurantism.

To Mr. Lean, though, any such distinction is simply a false perception manufactured by Islamophobes. Thus the author fails to grapple with the fact that, unlike average Muslims, Islamist terror groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah do commit unspeakable acts of violence in the name of Islam—actions that surely help account for why many Americans (49%, according to a 2010 poll) hold an unfavorable view of Islam, even when they view favorably Muslims that they personally know.

Read more at WSJ

 

Also see: The Monstrous Moral Inversion of the “Islamophobia” Industry
by Robert Spencer

DNC Announces 2-Hour Islamic ‘Jumah’ Prayers After Rejecting Cardinal’s Blessing (And You Won‘t Believe Who’s Invited)

By :

The Democratic National Committee is raising a number of eyebrows after announcing that it will be hosting Islamic “Jumah” prayers for two hours on the Friday of its convention, soon after denying a Catholic cardinal’s request to say a prayer at the same event.

Watch the promotional video, via the Bureau of Muslim Affairs, which is partnering with the DNC for the event.

The first two minutes are rather dry, but around 2:04 a muezzin sings the call to prayer with an American flag background, and the video “picks up” considerably:

Up to 20,000 people are expected to attend the Friday prayers and Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), said the purpose of the event is to hold political parties accountable for the issues faced by Muslim-Americans.

In particular, the event will target the Patriot Act, the NYPD, the National Defense Authorization Act, and anti-Shariah sentiment.

And while Muslim-Americans undeniably face distinct challenges, those who are well-informed on the dangers of radical Islam are expressing their doubts about the event.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, wrote:

The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj [are not] moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

A quick Google search by the DNC would have shown them that Hough and Wahhaj are leaders in the separatist American Islamist movement. While they may be able to get a few thousand Muslims to attend the event, they are NOT going to be mainstream Muslims.  Most will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement.

Their jummah (group) prayer is…about empowering their Islamist and MB sympathetic groups into the very fabric of the political system so that Americans become anesthetized. We need American Muslims to speak up and marginalize these radicals. The DNC needs to understand and reject them because of their radical history and ideas.

 

(Photo: Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs)

The mosque of Jibril Hough, mentioned by Dr. Jasser, is owned by the North American Islamic Trust, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial as one of the entities “who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

Siraj Wahhaj, the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC, is often considered a “moderate” because he was the first Muslim to give an invocation in the U.S. Congress, but as Robert Spencer notes, he has a number of troubling ties to dangerous radicals.  In the early 1990′s the man reportedly sponsored talks by “the Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and New Jersey mosques, and told his followers that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.”

Read more at The Blaze

Radical Islam Joins the DNC

by Breeanne Howe

Starting at the end of this month the Democratic National Convention will open with a focus on Islam.  20,000 Muslims are expected to attend according to the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the national Muslim American non-profit coordinating the two days of events they claim are non-political.  ”Jumah at the DNC” begins August 29 and will start with a Friday afternoon jummah prayer followed by other unnamed programs and events, leading up to the Islamic Regal Banquet. The following day will be an all day Islamic Cultural and Fun Fest which will include discussions on the topics of Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act and more.  The purpose, according to BIMA, is to attract national and international attention to the plight of American Muslims and to hold political parties accountable for issues that affect them.  However, not all Muslims feel that BIMA represents them and M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D., Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has expressed serious concerns.

It is troubling that the Democratic National Convention has decided to promote and lend its name and national political platform to the organizers of the “Jummah at the DNC”. The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

A quick Google search by the DNC would have shown them that Hough and Wahhaj are leaders in the separatist American Islamist movement. While they may be able to get a few thousand Muslims to attend the event, they are NOT going to be mainstream Muslims.  Most will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement.

This is not about their right of assembly; this group under a different name pulled the same stunt at the US capitol in 2009 claiming 20k and getting 2-3k. THIS IS ABOUT the DNC calling this an “official function” listing these radicals as typical of the DNC community and more importantly about this organization speaking out AS representing supposedly typical American Muslims (or “Mainstream”).

If that is who the DNC is consorting with then all Americans, Democrats should be concerned. There are many patriotic Muslims who are part of both parties, and when radical ideologues like this do a demonstration of “solidarity” in the name of our faith and choose an imam like Siraj Wahhaj who I saw with my own eyes in 1995 seditiously say it his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran- then we need to speak up!

Their jummah (group) prayer is supposedly against the Patriot Act, the NYPD, and Islamophobia and is actually NOT about our democracy but about empowering their Islamist and MB (Muslim Brotherhood) sympathetic groups into the very fabric of the political system so that Americans become anesthetized. We need American Muslims to speak up and marginalize these radicals. The DNC needs to understand and reject them because of their radical history and ideas.

They use our American Muslim identity to speak as “one community” as a political unit or as a “bloc vote” – a political Islamist party when in fact most us Muslims don’t want that political unity and seek reform against their ideology that seeks to hijack our community. They do not represent us. (emphasis mine)

In fact, Zuhdi Jasser is correct, Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj have said and done radical things in their past.  Which means either the Democrats failed to utilize due diligence or they simply didn’t care.  In addition to the Muslims being misrepresented, Democrats and Charlotteans also have a right to know how the DNC has failed them before they even arrive in Charlotte.

Read more at Redstate

BENADOR: Islam, Ambushing America

 

By ELIANA BENADOR:

Ever since Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and Representatives Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney, launched their initiative to alert America from Muslim infiltration at the highest levels of the Obama Administration, all hell has broken loose.

As a result, we find ourselves thrust in the middle of an unspoken battle between the defense of the spirit of America and the overwhelming liberal complicity with an increasingly growing Muslim population whose goal is world domination, with America as the most coveted prize.

The current national discussion has been taken over by defenders and detractors, alike, of the rights of Muslims in our country.

Mosques in the USA: New York City, Dearborn, Fresno, Los Angeles, and almost 2,000 mosques nationwide varied in size and impact.

 

 

 

 

The famous letter Bachmann et al sent requesting an inquiry on Huma Abedin, has been at the origin of hundreds of articles written within only a few days about Ms Abedin both, stating the truth and giving evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile some events must be taken in consideration. They concern the following Muslim characters: Zuhdi Jasser, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, Keith Ellison, James Zogby and, last but not least, Nidal Malik Hasan.

This cast of characters demonstrates with clarity how far this visible, observant Muslims are slowly infiltrating our society -and the extent of it.

Very shrewd, very subtle, very effective. ·And very powerful.

Zuhdi Jasser

Jasser is a medical doctor, specialist in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology, and he is also aformer Lieutenant commander in the United States Navy, where he has served as staff internist in, of all places, the Office of the Attending Physician of the United States Congress.

In 2003, Jasser and some like minded Muslim friends, founded his organization, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. This begs the question if the notion of “democracy” per se, [from the Greek demos, which means 'people' and kratos, which means "power"] is ever mentioned, let alone accepted, by the prophet Mohammed in the Koran, or if it would ever be accepted by the absolute totalitarian Allah.

Some of Jasser’s fallacies are:  (1)  What he calls “separation” of mosque and state, even though there is no Muslim country in the world that can proof such fantasy   (2)  He fabricates another “separation”, namely, Islam from so-called political Islam   (3) And, last but not least, Jasser insists in the division of Muslims in “moderates” and “Islamists”.

Zuhdi Jasser would do well to substantiate his assertions with quotes from the Koran and quote exactly where his prophet Mohammed indicates that in Islam there is a “separation of mosque and state,” that the prophet mentions also the existence of both, Islam AND political Islam.  Last but not least, Jasser should make sure to quote Mohammed accepting that Muslims are “moderate” and “Islamists.”

This man, who is a pious Muslim, has had key positions within America society, where besides being the president and founder of his organization, American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), is also the current Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.  He is a member of various groups:  the Maricopa County Board of Health, the Area Agency on Aging and the chairman of the board of directors of ElderFriends, the  Transitional Housing Program for Elder Victims of Domestic Violence.   And he also sits, as Muslim representative, on the board of the Arizona Interfaith Movement.

Jasser, a television personality, is the sweetheart of Fox News Channel, where Saudi Prince Alwaleed is among the largest shareholders besides Rupert Murdoch.

Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal

The prince makes no secret that he promotes the study of Islam, and he has funded the following centers throughout the world:

(1) Harvard University: The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Islamic Studies Program;

(2)  Georgetown University: The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, whose director is the well-known American Islamic apologist, John Esposito;

(3) Cambridge University:  The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies;

(4) Edinburgh University: The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre for the Study of Islam in the Contemporary World;

(5) American University in Cairo:  The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Abdulaziz Alsaud Center for American Studies;

(6) American University in Beirut: The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud Center for American Studies and Research.

Besides, the prince is known for funding terror through donations to families of suicide bombers.

In 2007, the prince received at his office in Riyadh, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and his accompanying delegation from the Palestinian Authority.  Abbas was treated as “president”.

Keith Ellison

Robert Spencer recent and detailed article describes Ellison’s allegiances and activities:

“…as for the Muslim Brotherhood itself, in 2008 Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. What is the Muslim American Society? The Muslim Brotherhood. “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” So reported the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb. The Muslim American Society, according to Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, “is the de facto arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. The agenda of the MAS is to … impose Islamic law in the U.S., to undermine U.S. counterterrorism policy.”

James Zogby

Founder and president of the Arab American Institute, he is also the author of “Arab Voices.”  His organization, AAI, serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community.

It is thanks to Zogby’s efforts that Muslim-Arab Americans have been able to secure their political empowerment in the U.S.

Using means such as: registration, education and mobilization, Zogby’s AAI has been successful bringing Muslim Arab Americans into the political mainstream.

Zogby, has been a co-founder and chairman of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign in the late 1970s, he later co-founded and served as the Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and, in 1982, he co-founded Save Lebanon, Inc., a private non-profit, humanitarian and non-sectarian relief organization which funds health care for Palestinian and Lebanese victims of war.   His entire bio can be read here.

In his most recent article on Bachmann vs Huma Abedin, he explains:  “Having been by Mrs. Clinton’s side since her days as First Lady, Huma Abedin is known and deeply respected in Washington and beyond.”

A few paragraphs later:  “In the end, the loony Members of Congress who co-signed the Bachmann letters were left stripped of supporters -save for crackpot fringe groups and real haters of Arabs and Muslims.”

And, writes that, bottom line:  “We must commit to changing the way we talk about Islam and the Arab World, and our nation’s Muslim and Arab communities and join Senator Scott Brown in making it clear that hate-filled personal attacks “have no place in our national discourse.”

As such, James Zogby finds nothing wrong with his correligionaries.  It’s rather patriotic Americans who are wrong.

Instead of performing some introspection to find out why Islam and Muslims are, after all, not innocent, especially when their prophet Mohammed instructs in their daily book, the Koran, that they have to perpetrate jihad to reach their goal of world domination, and it is, therefore, with a valid reason that a large part of Americans worry of the Muslim presence within the highest ranks of the Administration.

Read more at Right Side News

Goodwill Ambassador Eliana Benador is a national and international global strategist and founder of Benador Associates.

Visit Eliana’s blog at www.elianaschoice.blogspot.com Follow her on twitterwww.twitter.com/ElianaBenador

 

Support ACT! for America

There has been a recent skirmish (see here, here, here and here) between Christopher Logan of Logan’s Warning and Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! for America over her support for Zuhdi Jasser. The point of contention is whether there can really be a truly moderate practicing Muslim and whether Islam can be reformed. This has been a matter of intense debate among counter jihadi circles. In the camp that believes there can be no reform and no true moderate Muslim are Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and of course Christopher Logan among many others. In the camp that believes reform is possible, although unlikely, and moderate muslims are a legitimate group that we must reach out to are Andrew McCarthy, Frank Gaffney, Clare Lopez and of course, Brigitte Gabriel.

The Spencer/Geller camp believes that to hold out false hope of a moderate Muslim or a reformed Islam does more harm than good for the counterjihad movement because it disarms us with confusion over who to trust and who the enemy really is. Pamella Geller lays out her position and the history of her conflict with Jasser here.

The McCarthy camp believes that it is wrong to say Islam can never be reformed because there is always room for interpretation of written doctrine (as any good lawyer would agree) McCarthy also believes that there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim who wishes for reform of Islam and we must reach out to them rather than alienate them thereby making them more susceptible to radicalization. McCarthy also likes the use of the term “Islamist” to refer to Muslims who practice fundamentalist Islam with its attendant Sharia and goal of a global caliphate.

I must confess that I vacillate on this issue. But I am a pragmatist. Whether Islam can be reformed or not is mainly a question for Muslims to deal with. I support anyone who has the courage to risk their life in attempting it. I believe that a Muslim who is not practicing sharia and believes in our constitution is not a true Muslim as it stands now. But I also believe in a class of Muslims, however small their numbers may be, that can be called reformers.  Why would we want to discourage their efforts?

In any case, we must deal with the nature of the threat we face right now. And that threat is from the Global Islamic Movement which has risen up due to the influence of Saudi petrodollars and the “unholy alliance” between Islam and Progressives.

ACT for America is the largest grassroots lobbying and educational organization working to defeat radical Islam. The political process requires compromise and incrementalism in order to effect change. We must work with groups that we don’t trust completely because that’s the nature of democracy. Ideological purity is not always possible. But debate must continue and we must listen to each other. I am a big fan of Rep.Allen West. He lost a lot of support when he voted for the balanced budget amendment which amounted to voting for something he didn’t agree with ideologically in order to get “75%” of what he wanted in the bill. He did not lose my support because I understand that compromise is necessary if we are to get anything accomplished. We must work with and encourage the “reformers” If we are to win the support of all those Muslims out there who are on the fence and could either move towards radicalization or moderation.

I support ACT for America, Brigitte Gabriel and Zuhdi Jasser. They have done so much to further the cause of liberty, human rights and religious freedom that to disavow them because of this disagreement would be a travesty. We can only judge people by their actions and Brigitte and Zuhdi are doing a heck of a job in speaking out against political Islam.

 
Our Significant Accomplishments in 2011


Last year ACT! for America continued its growth and record of accomplishment as the largest grassroots national security organization in America.

  • Our number of members grew from 155,000 to 185,000.
  • Our number of chapters grew from 535 to 650.
  • We were instrumental in getting “Arizona Laws for Arizona Courts” passed. This legislation prohibits state courts from applying foreign law, including sharia law, in cases where doing so would violate the constitutional rights of any parties to the case. This followed up our successful effort in 2010 to get this legislation passed in Tennessee.
  • ACT! for America chapter leaders in Tennessee, working closely with Tennessee Eagle Forum, spearheaded legislative efforts that resulted in the passage of two important bills:
    • Material Support for Terrorism. This provides additional tools to the state of Tennessee to designate material support for terrorism, and, significantly, it prohibits the use of religious doctrine as a justification for terrorism.
    • Refugee resettlement legislation. A growing national security problem is the increasing number of terrorists arising out of refugee populations in America, notably the Somali refugee population. This legislation empowers the Tennessee state and local governments to have more say in the resettlement of refugees within the state.
  • One of ACT! for America’s high priority bills, the Iran Threat Reduction Act, passed the House and has been sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  • A second ACT! for America high priority bill, the 9/11 Commission Review Act, was included in the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill that passed the House and is now pending in the Senate.
  • A third ACT! for America high priority bill, a modified version of the Team B Act, was included in the Intelligence authorization bill that passed both houses. This provision is a good start in requiring a competitive analysis on the issue of radicalization.
  • We sponsored briefings on Capitol Hill in Washington for Members of Congress and staff on topics including the Muslim Brotherhood and the ideology driving Islamic terrorism.
  • We increased our number of Facebook “fans” from 20,000 to 45,000. Using Facebook metrics our Facebook posts are now reaching over one million people per month. Our Facebook presence was demonstrated when our Facebook followers bombarded Everett Community College in Washington state regarding its decision to have a representative from CAIR speak on campus. The college responded by distancing itself from CAIR and scheduling a presentation with a speaker from another point of view from CAIR. This was social media grassroots power in action!
  • We released a new book targeted for young people titled “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam.” If you would like to obtain a copy, click here and choose the “Contributing Member” option. A single copy is available for a contribution of $26, and orders of six or more copies are available for a contribution of $20 each.
  • We held our second annual National Conference and Legislative Briefing. Nearly a dozen key Members of Congress provided legislative briefings and updates to our attendees at this sold-out event.
  • We collected over 50,000 signatures on behalf of Tulsa police captain Paul Fields and held a rally in Tulsa which received extensive media coverage. As you may recall, Captain Fields was suspended for refusing to attend and order his officers to attend what amounted to an Islamic proselytizing event. In response to this effort an Oklahoma state legislator declared he intended to introduce legislation holding government officials liable if they order their employees to engage in such religious events.
  • We held an event the weekend of October 28 – 30 titled “The Doctrine of Abrogation: Open the Koran Day.” The purpose was to educate people about how the Islamic doctrine of abrogation, which is the annulling of contradictory passages in the Koran, has annulled up to 124 peaceful verses in the Koran and superseded them with violent and jihadist verses aimed at non-Muslims. The event was hosted by ACT! for America chapter leaders and members at over 325 venues across America and in 20 in foreign countries.

You have helped make all of this possible! Thank you!

 

Rep. Peter King, Muslim Leaders to Show Support for NYPD

 

Jim Koury at the Examiner:

“As American Muslim leaders, we come together to defend the US Constitution, uphold religious pluralism, protect American security and cherish genuine diversity in the practice of our faith of Islam.” – American Muslim Leadership Coalition  
 
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, will join a group of American Muslim leaders to show their support for the New York Police Department’s highly successful counterterrorism efforts, a NYC police officer told the Law Enforcement Examiner early this morning.
 
In a telephone conversation,  Detective Iris Aquino said the demonstration/press conference, organized by the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) will begin Monday, March 5 at 10 a.m. at the NYPD’s headquarters at 1 Police Plaza in lower Manhattan.
 

Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security; Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Tarek Fatah, Founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress ; Manda Zand Ervin, Founder of the Alliance for Iranian Women; and C. Holland Taylor, Chairman and CEO of the LibforAll Foundation  will all gather to show their gratitude to the New York City Police Department for continuing to give homeland security top priority.
 
“The news media and commentators have been unfair and unreasonable in their criticism of the NYPD following a series of news reports regarding surveillance and intelligence gathering operations,” Det. Aquino told the Law Enforcement Examiner.  
 
“The press conference by a diverse, broad-based group of American Muslim leaders who have come together to address recent criticism of the counterterrorism programs of the NYPD [is important at this time],” said Rep. King in a statement.
 
“The public discourse concerning Muslims and NYPD has been dominated by a perception that American Muslims feel targeted. This press conference will give voice to a large coalition of American Muslims who feel otherwise and reject Islamist representation of their voices,” stated King.
 
“A campaign of vilification waged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its allies against the NYPD has reached new heights over the past six weeks, with no less than eight separate stories having appeared in the New York Times from January 24 – February 15, 2012, including an editorial from its editorial board and a page one feature, which concern the screening of a film entitled The Third Jihad to some 1,400 NYPD officers while they waited for a training program,” said the American Islamic Leadership Coalition in a press statement. 

In March 2011, Chairman King had convened a series of four hearings focusing on radicalization within the Muslim-American community.  At the first hearing, on March 10, Chairman King called Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser as his first witness. 

While Rep. King and members of his committee withstood name calling and accusations of racism and intolerance, his hearings proved to be “right on the money,” former intelligence officer and police detective Mike Snopes, who served in the NYPD’s Intelligence Division, said during a phone conversation with the Law Enforcement Examiner.

“It’s like the old adage: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you’ve got yourself a duck,” Snopes quipped.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) routinely attacks anyone who questions the motives or actions of Muslims in the United States, according to several law enforcement sources. They have been demanding an investigation by the Obama Justice Department.

 
According to a report from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland  Security: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam.” 
 
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy, said the Senate report
 
This is a very valuable report and I encourage you to download it and read the whole thing.
although it is from 2003, it is still very relevant today. The following is an excerpt from the report:
 

Testimony of Matthew Epstein Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security

“Saudi Support for Islamic Extremism in the United States”

September 10, 2003 Matthew Epstein Assistant Director The Investigative Project

Executive Summary

Nearly two years to the day from the horrifying terrorist attacks of September 11,

2001, we must take a closer look at the organizations that claim to speak for the Muslim

community in America, and how they came to such positions of influence. Despite Bush

Administration outreach, large sections of the institutional Islamic leadership in America

do not support U.S. counterterrorism policy, denouncing virtually every terrorism

indictment, detention, deportation and investigation as religiously motivated attacks on

Islam.

To be clear, I would like to state that militant Islamic fundamentalism is not

synonymous with Islam the religion. The overwhelming majority of the world’s more

than one billion Muslims do not support violence or militancy.

The radicalization of the Islamic political leadership in the United States has

developed parallel to the radicalization of the Islamic leadership worldwide, sharing a

conspiratorial view that Muslims in the United States are being persecuted on the basis of

their religion and an acceptance that violence in the name of Islam is justified. While

such leaders protest that they have condemned terrorism, and they have in the abstract,

they refuse to specifically condemn Islamist terrorist groups and leaders by name, or

acknowledge responsibility for their acts of terror.

Although the high visibility of such individuals and organizations suggests broad

leadership and significant followings in the United States, by many accounts, they draw

support from far fewer American Muslims than they claim fall under their leadership.

Unfortunately, however, militant Islamists command a disproportionate share of media

and political attention as a result of substantial funding received from wealthy

benefactors, led by the Saudis and their Wahhabi brand of Islam.

With deep pocketbooks and religious conviction, the Saudi Wahhabists have

bankrolled a series of Islamic institutions in the United States that actively seek to

undermine U.S. counterterrorism policy at home and abroad. In the United States, the

Saudi Wahhabis regularly subsidize the organizations and individuals adhering to the

militant ideology espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood and its murderous offshoots

Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda, all three of which are designated terrorist

2

organizations. Several of these U.S. based organizations drawing Saudi support have

recently been shuttered and many of their leaders indicted, including, the Holy Land

Foundation, Benevolence International Foundation and the Islamic Concern Project.

Saudi largess has similarly been bestowed upon the Council on American-Islamic

Relations (CAIR), a U.S. based organization purporting to “promote a positive image of

Islam and Muslims in America” and “empower the Muslim community in America

through political and social activism.”

1 However, in supporting claims of religious

discrimination, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its leadership has

managed to disguise its true agenda of supporting militant Islam and protecting the

operations of radical groups supporting terrorism.

A careful review reveals that CAIR was a creation of the Hamas group in the

United States. CAIR leaders have been heard expressing their support for Hamas both in

public and on FBI surveillance tapes. CAIR has received support from, and lent support

to, Hamas financial conduits in the United States. Several CAIR officers and employees

have been recently indicted on terrorism-related charges. CAIR routinely questions the

motives behind U.S. counterterrorism policy and law enforcement.

The rise of militant Islamic leadership in the United States requires particular

attention if we are to succeed in the War on Terror. While the attacks of September 11,

2001 were executed by al-Qaeda, it is the bastions of militant Islam that provide the

recruits for tomorrow’s Mohammed Attas and the political cover to conceal their

operations. In this battle, we must distinguish between militant Islamic leaders, and the

vast majority of Muslims in the United States and around the world who do not support

their violent agenda. In preventing future attacks on American soil, we must actively

drain the pools from which Islamist terrorist organizations recruit and confront the

financial sponsors that create them.

Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

By Abigail R. Esman:

While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier,  your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of  UN resolution 16/18.  An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

Whatever that means.

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will.  It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

The Good, The Bad…

Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for “speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and “[fostering] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society.”

What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”

(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that’s another matter.)

Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on “blasphemous speech,” is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:

Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech.  Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of “racism”) or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries.   And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for “cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia.”

Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, “Anyone who believes that Resolution 16’18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse.  The shift from ‘defamation’ to ‘incitement’ does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offense, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense.” Rather, said Jasser, “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities  — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one.  Beginning to categorize speech as ‘incitement’ is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence.”

Read the rest at Forbes