Ahmed’s Dad Pushes 9/11 Conspiracy Posts, Videos on Arabic Facebook Page


Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, Oct. 6, 2015:

With the frenzy following his son Ahmed’s bringing a suspicious-looking modified clock to high school, Texas-based Islamic political activist Mohammed Elhassan Mohammed finally succeeded in creating something he’s sought for a long time: a national media event that can be used to shine the light on alleged crimes of the United States, from accusations of “Islamophobia” in Irving, Texas, to American complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda’s attack on September 11, 2001 is a recurring topic of discussion on Mohammed’s own Arabic-language National Reform Party Facebook page where—beside photos of his family enjoying their newfound fame—are posted articles, photos and videos featuring both implicit, and explicit claims that the 9/11 attacks were a US-sponsored hoax to launch a war against Islam and Muslims.

While still residing in his Dallas suburb, Mohammed has, nonetheless, repeatedly run for president of Sudan as a candidate identified with his own very small political party, “al-Islah al-Watani,” or National Reform. Until recently, the National Reform Facebook page displayed the same profile picture Mohammed Elhassan Mohammed’s used for his personal Facebook profile picture. Mohammed’s National Reform Party page continues to post the same pictures, videos and articles about Ahmed Mohammed, and the Clock saga, as does Mohammed ElHassan on his personal page.

On September 12th, 2015, his National Reform page shared a photo that featured the smoking World Trade Center towers above text in Arabic describing the events of September 11th as “an American media creation” and calls them, “terrorism American style.” It also blames the U.S. for the events of the Arab Spring, calling it a U.S. plan to “foment reprehensible chaos.”

The text describes the attack on 9/11 as a “miracle” for the United States, because it provided justification for an attack, “first an Islamic government, while the second was a mighty Arab state in the Middle East.” The reference is clearly to the U.S. attack on Afghanistan (under the Taliban) and Iraq.

While the text identified the author as one Asad al-Barari, it’s not immediately clearly why Mohammed Elhassan and his National Reform Party chose to share this image and the post on September 12th, but the posting contains no text attempting to rebut or criticize the post for its statements about America.

Nor is this the only questionable post. As recently as September 28th, the National Reform Party page shared an English language video, with Arabic subtitles, which presents conspiracy theory arguments about the September 2001 attack.

The fifteen-minute video—first posted in September 2013—claims to prove explosives were used in bringing down the World Trade Center, attacks Penn & Teller’s 2005 debunking of 9/11 ‘truther’ conspiracy theories and, finally, blames “US military officials, television executives and some Israeli and British government officials” for the attacks.

Below is the full translation of the September 12, 2015 post from Facebook:

The Events of September 11th:There is a saying, “The hater writes them; the fool publishes them; and the idiot believes them.” This applies to the rumors that people both spread and believe; it describes the creation of rumors in all their stages.

Yesterday [Friday, September 11, 2015] was the anniversary observed in the United States of America on what is called “September 11th.” This was the miracle that came to America in the form of terrorism—which offered her the invasion of Islamic countries (headed by Afghanistan and Iraq), which she saw as a great threat—on a golden plate. The first had an Islamic government, while the second was a mighty Arab state in the Middle East.

Without any doubt, the events of September 11th claimed thousands of innocent lives, and violated the basic belief of religions, that civilians should not be harmed in any war. Yet, for its sake, millions of blameless souls have perished—though one state has been spared. One state that exists only on the map.

The events of the Arab Spring, or the despicable chaos that is its true name, were a part of this “September [11th] Strategy,” that the U.S. pursued in sending her armies into Afghanistan and Iraq. The American army destroyed their regular armies, but found that it could not destroy their irregular forces. This is what drove her to foment that reprehensible chaos—an ancient plan to destroy states completely—which was carried out to the letter in all the lands of the Arab Spring. The result was not only thousands of refugees and deaths in every part of the world, but also the huge humiliations that have become the fundamental malaise of the Arabs in everything they do.

Thus [the events of September 11th] are but an American media creation, no matter how some may try to label them as “Islamic terrorism.” They were indeed terrorism, but terrorism American style—terrorism that sweeps away and annihilates whole countries, and not those few buildings in the midst of New York City.

Asad al-Barari

Also see:

The Islamic Threat Is Present in the U.S.

Lt. Gen. “Jerry” Boykin, Cathy Hinners, Clare Lopez and Sandy Rios discuss the threat of Islam in the United States. Photo credit: Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media

Lt. Gen. “Jerry” Boykin, Cathy Hinners, Clare Lopez and Sandy Rios discuss the threat of Islam in the United States.
Photo credit: Tyler O’Neil, PJ Mediana

PJ Media, by Tyler O’Neil, September 29, 2015:

WASHINGTON – Three American women who have been branded as “anti-Muslim” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) spoke out against the threat of Islamism in the United States at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit on Saturday. Contrary to the rhetoric SPLC and others, these women are not “Islamophobes.”

“Americans need to know the threat is here. So many people, when I say ‘the Muslim Brotherhood,’ they say ‘that’s an Egypt problem.’ It’s not — it’s in every state of this country,” declared Cathy Hinners, a law enforcement instructor and founder of the website Dailyrollcall.com.

Hinners was joined by Clare M. Lopez, an intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, and Sandy Rios, director of government affairs for the American Family Association and Fox News contributor. All three women were attacked in the SPLC’s “Women Against Islam” pamphlet, which has been described by many conservative outlets as a “hit list.”

“This is dangerous because there is a basic principle of Islam which can turn every Muslim into a potential vigilante,” Lopez declared, citing the doctrine that Muslims must “forbid the evil and enjoin the good.” She, Rios and Hinners see the SPLC “hit list” as marking a target on their backs. When Rios declared, “By the way, we all carry,” the crowd erupted in applause.

Islamism in the United States

“Tennessee is ground zero for Muslim activism in the United States,” Hinners declared. In a separate interview with PJ Media, she explained the impact of Islamist activism in the schools.

Hinners specifically mentioned one recent “explosive discovery” in this Bible Belt state. “In one of the counties in Tennessee, we learned that children in seventh grade are saying the Shahada — that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is the messenger — in class,” she explained. While the teacher led the students to say this “under the guise of social studies,” Hinners argued that “there is no historical value in saying a prayer or the Islamic profession of faith.”

This is a serious issue because the Shahada is considered the most important part of converting to Islam — it is a public declaration that the speaker embraces the faith, rejects the “polytheism” of Christianity and follows Mohammed as the prophet of Allah.

Hinners also mentioned textbooks with subversive themes and instruction materials provided by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization with alleged ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups. Tennessee’s pacing guide also gives a disproportionate weight to Islamic civilization — 17 days — as opposed to the Roman Empire, which is only given four days of teaching. “We’ve been told by some teachers that they had to skip that part because they don’t have enough time for social studies, so Islam took priority over the Roman Empire.”

Hinners also argued that there are many other groups with terrorist connections here in the U.S. She mentioned the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC), arguing that there are “little offshoots” carrying “the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, usually run by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Islam as a Threat — A Political Religion

“Islam is not like Buddhism or Judaism or Christianity — it is a political system with religious elements,” Rios declared. In a post-conference interview with PJ Media, she clarified her position by contrasting Islam with Christianity.

“Speaking theologically, there could not be more difference between the two faiths,” Rios said. “The God of Christians gave His life to redeem, while Mohammed’s Allah is a god who demands vengeance and blood.” The Fox News contributor added that “Christianity is based on the ability to choose,” while “with Allah, it’s like ‘believe or die.’”

Defending this characterization of Islam, Hinners argued that “Islam was peaceful at first — on page one and two it is — but Mohammed turned violent.” Lt. Gen. (Ret) William G. Boykin, executive vice president at the Family Research Council (FRC), agreed. Boykin explained that the doctrines of “progressive revelation” and “divine abrogation” mean the later, more militaristic passages in the Q’ran supersede the peaceful passages at the beginning.

The military side of Islam explained why the building of a mosque at “ground zero” — the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City — proved so controversial. “In the days of Mohammed, mosques were military buildings, and it is considered a victory when one is built,” Hinners explained.

Lopez said mosques are still used as military buildings in Islamic countries today. “American troops in the Middle East were surprised to be shot at from the minarets of mosques,” Lopez explained, because the troops thought mosques were merely religious buildings like Christian churches. The gunfire and weapons often found stockpiled in the religious centers proved otherwise.

Islam and Patriotism

During a Q&A session, Boykin was asked why he supports religious freedom for Christians, but not for Muslims. He responded that he supports religious freedom for everyone, but “no religion that threatens our Constitution can be tolerated under that constitution.”

Many Muslims, in advocating for the application of Sharia law (the Islamic legal code) in the United States, are de facto opposing the American constitution, Boykin argued. Rios wholeheartedly agreed.

“Sharia law is the part of Islam that demands obedience, that is brutal to women, enjoins female circumcision, honor killings, and throwing homosexuals from high buildings,” Rios explained.

Practices like female circumcision (forcing a woman to have her clitoris mutilated or removed in order to make her less likely to sleep around) and honor killings (a family putting their daughter to death for various offenses like marrying outside Islam) are rightly condemned as misogynistic under American law. The horrific murder of homosexuals is obviously also illegal in the United States.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), is an outspoken Muslim patriot, and has supported statewide bans on Sharia law. Jasser and his group represent Muslims who “advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.”

AIFD’s website declares that the organization is dedicated to “directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic state (Islamism).”

While the panelists might be expected to disagree with Jasser, claiming that Islam is inescapably political, they had nothing but outspoken praise for the man. “He is a Muslim who has proven his loyalty to this country, and he is worthy of our respect. We need more like Zuhdi Jasser,” Rios declared. “He seems to be a really good man,” Hinners added.

“M. Zuhdi Jasser is a brave man, he is a patriot,” Boykin declared. “But how many M. Zuhdi Jassers do you know?” he asked, pointedly.

As illustrated by their praise for Jasser, the panelists do not consider all Muslims to be enemies of the United States, only those who advocate for what Jasser calls “political Islam” or “Islamism.” Lopez, Rios, Hinners and Boykin are not “anti-Muslim,” as SPLC claimed, but merely anti-Islamist.

In the Middle East, Support the Kurds

This support for American-friendly Muslims also extended to the Kurds, an ethnic group in northern Iraq and the surrounding area, which is currently fighting the Islamic State (ISIS).

“I would never advocate arming Muslim groups, but I would arm the Kurds,” Boykin declared. “I don’t understand why Obama refuses to do so.”

Hinners, who constantly warns about the Islamist influence in her area of Tennessee, called on Americans to reach out to Kurds living in the United States and offer assistance. “There are 1,100 Kurds in the Nashville area. Look for Kurds over here to help the Kurds in the Middle East,” the law enforcement instructor said.

Even so, the Kurds are a minority in the Middle East, and the panelists argued that the region is at war because of conflicting Islamist political ideologies.

“I see the conflict in the former Iraq and former Syria as an intra-Islamic conflict between Sunnis and Shi’ites,” Lopez added. Sunnis and Shi’ites, as the two largest denominations of Islam, have control in various parts of the Middle East. They are divided by the issue of the rightful caliph — the successor to the prophet Mohammed and head of the Islamic state — after Mohammed died.

While a vast majority of Muslims are Sunni, Iran is a Shi’ite state and has emerged in a very dominant position in the Middle East. While the majority of Iraqis are Shi’ite, Saddam Hussein was a Sunni and oppressed his own people. “When the U.S. attacked Iraq, we broke the balance between Sunni and Shi’ite,” allowing the Shi’ites to take the upper hand, Lopez explained.

These politico-religious divisions behind the warfare backed up the panelists’ claims that Islam is largely a political religion. But their support for Jasser and the Kurds also showed their belief that Islam does not necessarily have to be tied to a state ideology.

Contrary to the claims of SPLC and others, these panelists are not “Islamophobes” or “haters,” but Americans weary of a politico-religious ideology opposing their way of life. It’s high time others listened to their concerns and realize the dangers of Islamism.

A conservative fundraiser and commentator, Tyler O’Neil has written for numerous publications, including The Christian Post, National Review, The Washington Free Beacon, The Daily Signal, AEI’s Values & Capitalism, and the Colson Center’s Breakpoint. He enjoys Indian food, board games, and talking ceaselessly about politics, religion and culture.



Frontpage, by Marilyn Stern,Sep. 28, 2015:

American interfaith groups are being infiltrated and undermined by the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliate, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  In their eagerness to find Muslim faith partners whom they want to believe share their values of religious tolerance and mutual respect, Jewish interfaith leaders allow themselves to be exploited. Under the guise of interfaith dialogue, Islamist organizations like ISNA that have ties to extremism, insinuate themselves into faith organizations while advancing their hidden agendas.  Faith leaders who disregard ISNA’s ulterior motives place their congregations at risk.

In its June 2015 ruling in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was denied employment for wearing a headscarf, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the American judiciary’s prohibition on workplace discrimination based upon religious practice.  In the American melting pot, there are benefits to all faiths that successfully negotiate societal challenges between the secular and the religious, but these benefits are only guaranteed by a legal system that upholds a universal human rights standard.  Blind spots in the interfaith movement, however, undermine common cause when religious leaders pursue interfaith outreach at any cost.

One such example was described in an article in a Jewish community paper written by a participant in a Christian/Jewish interfaith partnership with the Muslim organization, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  The current head of ISNA’s interfaith relations, Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, a sociolinguist by training, is a founder and former executive of ISNA.  At the invitation of its rabbi, Nancy Fuchs Kreimer, Syeed met with faith leaders of various denominations, professors of religion, and “interested citizens” at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College (RRC) in suburban Philadelphia.  The rabbi presented Syeed “to guide our thinking about these issues.” Rabbi Kreimer is founding director of the Multifaith Studies Department of the RRC, the seminary of a branch of Judaism on the left side of the political spectrum and self-described as liberal progressive.

In Kreimer’s article, “Standing with American Muslims, Upholding American Values,” also the title of ISNA’s key interfaith program, the rabbi extolled the virtues of partnering with ISNA in its interfaith initiatives.  She stated that ISNA is the largest membership organization of Muslims in America to support the RRC’s plan to engage in “relationship-building” retreats.  Kreimer’s article was published in the March 10, 2015 issue of the Philadelphia Jewish Federation’s newspaper, the Jewish Exponent, under its editor at the time, Lisa Hostein, whose stated priority for the paper was “inclusiveness.”  Kreimer’s endorsement of ISNA was disseminated to the Exponent’s circulation of 30,000 households.

ISNA’s website page, “About ISNA,” states that it works with various religious organizations on a range of public policy issues to “provide…outreach programs…with religious communities and civic organizations.”  Touted among “ISNA Accomplishments,” is that it has “condemned and rejected the actions of terrorists and terrorism as being completely antithetical to the teachings of Islam.”

Among the “relationship building” ISNA initiatives Kreimer referenced are the program, Shoulder-to-Shoulder, part of an interfaith coalition “dedicated to ending anti-Muslim sentiment”; Walking the Walk, aimed at high school students as a project of the Interfaith Center of Philadelphia and Religions for Peace (USA); and ISNA’s online resource book, Sharing the Well: A Resource Guide for Jewish-Muslim Engagement.  Shoulder-to-Shoulder hosted a leadership seminar for Jewish and Christian “emerging religious leaders” who attended ISNA’s annual convention earlier this month.

What do all these initiatives share in common?  ISNA’s interfaith guide, Dr. Sayyid Syeed.

Who is Dr. Sayyid Syeed?

In 2003, prior to Syeed’s current role as ISNA’s interfaith guide, Syeed met with the editorial board of theDallas Morning News to discuss how reporters “needed to partner with ISNA to promote peace and tolerance.”  Rod Dreher, an editorial writer and columnist at the paper who had looked into ISNA’s board members, asked Syeed why, if ISNA claims to promote peace and tolerance, were so many of its board members directly connected to Islamic extremism.  Syeed’s mask of professorial demeanor abruptly dropped as he shook his fist at Dreher, comparing him to a Nazi inquisitor.  Rather than answering Dreher’s question, Syeed accused Dreher of bigotry and persecution with the veiled threat that Dreher should “repent.”

In Dreher’s words:

I told him mine was a fair question, and that I would appreciate an answer.  I didn’t get one.  But I had learned an important lesson about how groups like his operate: by evading legitimate queries, and browbeating journalists into retreat by calling them bigots and persecutors.

Soon after reporting his experience in the paper, Dreher found himself labeled “The New Face of Hate” on an Islamic blog because of his paper’s investigative articles uncovering “alleged connections between the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) charity and Hamas.”  HLF is a known affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, a supremacist Muslim organization with its origins in the Middle East, and Hamas, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department since 1997.

The term “Islamophobia” is invoked by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations to avoid scrutiny from journalists like Dreher, enforce Islamic sharia anti-blasphemy laws and restrict freedom of speech.  A mass media campaign to promote the use of the term was launched by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in 2005 as the Ten Year Programme of Action.    According to the OIC’s website, it is “the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 Member States spread over four continents.”  Since 1998, the OIC has pressed for a U.N. resolutionto counter what it calls discrimination against Islam.  The OIC’s public relations campaign adopted the term “Islamophobia” from a 1997 report by the Runnymede Trust, a British think tank, to muzzle critics of sharia anti-blasphemy law.

The OIC Secretary General endorsed ISNA’s interfaith programs and Syeed attended a June 2013 OIC-hosted meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, held to “determine how best to implement ‘measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.’”  As a result of the OIC’s successful “Islamophobia” propaganda campaign, First Amendment-protected free speech in America has suffered, primarily through self-censorship.  This censorship ranges from a largely complicit mainstream media to individuals intimidated by U.S. Islamist entities attempting to silence them through lawsuits, as part of an intimidation strategy that has come to be called lawfare.  The “Islamophobia” label is a handy tactic employed by Brotherhood groups to shield Islamists from exposure as the OIC inches closer to their goal of criminalizing any perceived slight to Islam.

Dreher’s 2008 Hudson Institute article, “Reporting the Muslim Brotherhood,” included ISNA as one of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s front group organizations.  Challenging Syeed’s disingenuousness, Dreher concluded that while ISNA and other U.S. Muslim Brotherhood-related groups have the right to their beliefs as long as they don’t engage in violence, these groups deserve “informed opposition” to expose their hidden agendas and make them, and their apologists, accountable.

Read more

Islamic Attack on Chattanooga: Why It Happened and What to Do


Published on Aug 29, 2015 by Tin Ship Productions

Islamic Attack on Chattanooga: Why It Happened and What to Do.

01:06 Prayer
01:52 The Pledge of Allegiance
02:19 Introduction by Mark West
07:54 Official Islam
09:52 Objective study of Islam
16:31 Jihad
19:40 Dualism
21:17 Conclusions
23:13 Losing Civilizational War
34:30 Winning Civilizational War
40:44 Voices for the Voiceless
48:53 The Law of Islamic Saturation
50:36 Tears of Jihad
55:12 Questions and Answers

To This Secular Muslim, Ben Carson Had a Point

Photo Illustration by Alex Williams/The Daily Beast

Photo Illustration by Alex Williams/The Daily Beast

Daily Beast, by Asra Q. Nomani, Sep. 24, 2015:

Take it from someone who’s been fighting it her whole adult life: The sad truth is that too many Muslims want to mix mosque and state.
Ben Carson’s blunt remarks about a Muslim president triggered much outrage, even after he partially walked them back. But secular Muslims like me, who reject political Islam, understood what he meant: He doesn’t want a Muslim as president who doesn’t believe in the strict secular separation of mosque and state, so that the laws of the state aren’t at all touched by sharia, or Islamic law derived from the Quran and hadith, the sayings and traditions of prophet Muhammad. Neither do we. We really don’t want a first lady—or a president—in a burka, or face veil.Carson’s comments underscore a political reality in which Muslim communities, not only in far-flung theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran, but also in the United States, still struggle with existential questions about whether Islam is compatible with democracy and secularism. This struggle results in the very real phenomenon of “creeping sharia,” as critics in the West call it (and which some Muslims like to mock as an “Islamophobic” allegation). While the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment states the United States “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the Quran states that Allah “takes account of every single thing (72:28),” which has led to the divine mandate by leading Muslim scholars to reject secularism, or alamaniya, or the way of the “world,” derived, from the Arabic root for world, alam.

In too many instances, we are seeing an erosion of those boundaries, in part led by some Muslims, increasingly using America’s spirit of religious accommodation and cultural pluralism to challenge rules that most of the rest of America accepts. Many of those incursions have been led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a controversial self-described advocacy group for Muslims that, not surprisingly, called for Carson to step down this week.

For example, when I was a girl in New Jersey in the early 1970s, we took our Muslim holidays off, if we wanted, but didn’t demand the rest of the school take the day off with us. Last week, however, four decades later, New Jersey Muslims stormed out of a Jersey City school board meeting after the school board refused to cancel school at the last minute for the Muslim holiday called “Eid al-Adha,” or “the Feast of Sacrifice,” being celebrated Thursday. CAIR has lobbied public school officials for the change for the sake of “diversity and inclusion.

At the meeting, the local NBC news segment showed an older woman yelling in Arabic that the holiday was her “right,” followed by a young Muslim woman, wearing a headscarf and smiling eerily as she said, “We’re no longer the minority. That’s clear from tonight. We’re going to be the majority soon.”

The thinly veiled threat was as disturbing to me as it might be to other Americans. Unspoken is the sharia ruling that Muslims engage in no work or school on the day of Eid-ul Adha, but, instead, as the prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying in a hadith, “O people of Islam, these are days of eating and drinking.”

 Yet it is unreasonable and, quite frankly, selfish for Muslim parents to demand an unplanned holiday, forcing other parents to scramble to find child care, as board member pointed out. But, sadly, on the eve of the “Festival of Sacrifice,” there is one issue that too many Muslims find difficult to sacrifice: Their belief that mosque and state must not be separated but must in fact be intermingled.

Tthis month, an ExpressJet flight attendant, Charee Stanley, a relatively new convert to Islam, demanded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reinstate her job after she was put on leave for refusing to serve alcohol. CAIR argued the flight attendant deserved “a religious accommodation.”

But Ali Genc, senior vice president of media relations at Turkish Airlines, said in an interview that his carrier, based in a Muslim country, doesn’t make such allowances, saying, “The service and consumption of alcoholic beverages onboard is regulated in the framework of the rules of Turkish Airlines. In this respect, a refusal of such service by our cabin crew is not possible as a matter of course.”

Some years ago, a Muslim woman, Ginnah Muhammad, demanded her right to enter a Michigan small claims courtroom with a face veil, a demand that was correctly refused. CAIR supported her petition, saying removing the veil meant denying the woman her “constitutional rights.”

Before that, another Muslim woman convert, Sultaana Freeman, sued the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to allow her to take her driver’s license photo with her veil. CAIR supported her demand, saying the woman “sincerely” believed it would “advance her piety.” These efforts at appealing to schools, courts, and other government structures to suit hyper-conservative interpretations of sharia reveal how some Muslims are going too far in demanding accommodations by U.S. authorities, blurring the mosque and state divide.

Corey P. Saylor, director of the “department to monitor and combat Islamophobia” at CAIR, disputed my argument that the organization has worked to erode secularism in the United States, saying, “CAIR’s legal and political advocacy aims to preserve our nation’s spirit of religious accommodation from efforts to erode it or restrict it to certain faiths.”

He added, “Americans of the Islamic faith have equal rights and responsibilities in civic life and may argue for policies they favor, and win or fail based on a well-established political and legal process to which everyone has, and should have, equal access.”

In the cases that I cited “the courts or relevant political entities make the final decision,” Saylor said, “not us.” Indeed, fortunately, CAIR has so far lost its Florida, New Jersey and Michigan efforts.

Carson wasn’t being hyperbolic in expressing concern. Globally, Muslims express deep problems with separation of mosque and state. In a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, an alarming percentage of Muslims worldwide, numbering 99 percent in Afghanistan and 45 percent in Russia, answered “favor” when asked whether they favor or oppose making sharia the law of the land. A disturbing percentage supported including sharia in family, marriage, and criminal law, including settling property disputes, deciding child custody arrangements, stoning people for adultery, and cutting off the hands of thieves. While to be sure the survey wasn’t conducted in the West, the results reveal cultural mindsets.

In the United States, I first confronted our Muslim community’s difficulty with the concept of secularism in late 2003 when I walked through the front door of my mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, citing Islamic rights as well as civil rights granted me as a woman in this country. Soon after, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette wrote an article that included this passage: “Dalía Mogahed, outreach coordinator for the Pittsburgh mosque, agrees on Muhammad’s respect for women but says Nomani is viewing the issues through the eyes of a secular feminist rather than the eyes of a Muslim.”

Secular feminist?

I read the passage twice because to me, being a secular Muslim feminist wasn’t a contradiction in terms. To me, though they are few and far between, we have Islamic theologians who advocate for equal rights for women and secularism in governance. But the criticism was a wakeup call to me of the challenges we face advocating for secular values among Muslims. (Mogahed later led survey research at Pew and was a member of an Obama administration advisory council. She didn’t return a request for comment.)

It’s not “time to pull the plug” on Carson’s campaign for his indelicate comments on Islam, as columnist P.J. O’Rourke argues. But it is time to continue the politically incorrect but critical conversation that he started.

The presidential candidate is talking against a backdrop of 9/11 and a reality in which political Islam expresses itself violently in the West and in Muslim countries from Iraq to Indonesia. To me, not acknowledging this real issue among Muslims amounts to another Carson allegation, of Muslims practicing taqiyya, or deception.

Much of the modern-day debate dates back to 1977 when Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a theological brain trust of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood political party, fighting secularism, wrote, “Al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa Kayfa Janat `alaa Ummatina,” or “How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah,” casting secularism and Islam in a cosmic battle, with a section entitled, “Secularism vs. Islam.”

He wrote: “Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” Today, even ordinary Muslims ask questions like, “Is it permissible to pray behind imams who…promote democracy and secularism?” The answer from too many in Muslim leadership is no.

Carson dared to address an explosive issue that Muslims are still struggling to resolve on issues of sharia and fiqh, a related concept, referring to Islamic jurisprudence. Not long ago, Ayad Jamal Deen, a former Iraqi parliament member and courageous intellectual and religious cleric, admitted, “In my opinion, the fiqh is more dangerous than nuclear technology.” He acknowledged that “Islam has been politicized and is used as a sword.” We would be wise to listen to advocates of secularism who have battled the forces of political Islam.

In his Fox walk-back interview, Carson said, “Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.”

To me, Carson’s words aren’t “anti-Muslim” either, as a Guardian headline described them. They are a realistic mirror on the challenges Muslims today face with the notion of strict secularism.

Even John Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, funded by a rich member of the theocratic Saudi ruling family and criticized for publishing “apologist” explanations of Islam, wrote not long ago:

“Many Muslims, in particular Islamists, cast secularism as a completely foreign doctrine imposed on the Islamic world by colonial powers.” Even “secular reformers” who appreciate Western secular democracies “opt for a state that reflects the importance and force of Islamic principles and values as they proceed to engage in wide ranging reformist thinking.”

Interestingly, for secularists, like Iraqi-born Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement, raised by a liberal Muslim family and now living in New York City, it’s actually strict secular Muslims who could truly understand the critical need for a separation of mosque and state. He said in an interview that he doesn’t agree with Carson’s edict and noted, “I would also argue that secular Muslims would make the best presidents on the topic of the First Amendment because they understand the most [that] the marriage between religion and politics is very poisonous.”

One of his Facebook friends responded: “Faisal Saeed Al Mutar for President.” Meanwhile, some of his Muslim critics have also called him a “heretic” and an “infidel,” not to mention “Uncle Tom” and “sellout.”


For a reality check on whether a Muslim, absent sweeping reform of Islamic doctrine, can truly be secular see Dr. Stephen M. Kirby’s series on Fantasy Islam:





Also see:

Irving Mayor: Ahmed Mohamed’s Family Blocking Release of Records; Obama Tweeted Support Even Before “Clock” Pic Released

2015-09-16T191047Z_1_LYNXNPEB8F158_RTROPTP_3_USA-TEXAS-STUDENTTown Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Sep. 22, 2015:

Last night, Irving Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne revealed that the family of Ahmed Mohammed has repeatedly refused to meet with city officials, refused to released records exonerating police conduct, and that President Obama had tweeted about the case even before pictures of the so-called “clock” were publicly available.

Appearing on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze TV, Van Duyne noted how reporting on the interaction between Mohammed and police had been remarkably one-sided, in part because the Mohammed family refused to release records noting:

“As a juvenile, they can not release those records. The school district, a number of times, has asked the family, to release the records, so that you can have the balanced story out there. The family is ignoring the request from the ISD.”

Van Duyne told Beck it would “help to describe why it progressed as it did” if the records were available. “Nobody is going to walk in and say, ‘oh you’re a 14-year old child, you’re totally cooperating, we have all the answers we need, let’s arrest you,’” Van Duyne added.

A spokesperson for the Irving Police Department has said there have been multiple open records requests for the full police reporting, but that those requests remained in the hands of the city’s legal advisor. The available police report describes the event only as, “…Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School.”

Van Duyne said that according to the information she had seen, Mohammed had been “non-responsive” and “passive aggressive” in response to questions from police officers.

The refusal to amiably resolve the situation continued as the family rushed to bring Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) representatives into the case, and repeatedly cancelled meetings with the school district and city officials before finally speaking to the media.

“We had tried to reach out to the family a number of times; this was before it ever even hit the papers on Wednesday,” Van Duyne said pointing out that the family repeatedly canceled attempts to discuss the matter.

“At the exact same time they were supposed to be meeting with us, they were on their front lawn with a press conference,“ she said.

Van Duyne also pointed out that President Obama, like many others, had rushed to judgment before the facts in the case had become available.

“We never even got a call from anybody at the White House asking to verify any of that information. I don’t think the picture of the hoax bomb was even released before he tweeted ‘cool clock kid.’” Van Duyne said.
Van Duyne said she was “shocked” when she saw the President’s tweet to Ahmed Mohammed. “It seems to be an underlying habit that [President Obama] is going to second guess police officers without any kind of information.”

Van Duyne said that the Irving police chief, whom she called “a wonderful man”, was receiving death threats as a result of the case, as were other police officers, teachers and school administrators, in response to the controversy.

Van Duyne was joined on the Glenn Beck program by Jim Hanson, a former Special Forces Sergeant and Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, who pointed out CAIR’s documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist group Hamas, and that the Mohammed family were members of a mosque tied to an Irving Sharia Tribunal which Mayor Van Duyne had publicly opposed.
“I don’t think there’s any question that this latest event was a PR stunt, it was a staged event,” Hanson said, saying the device did look like an explosive. “I’ve built briefcase bombs and blown them up, that’s what they look like,” Hanson pointed out referring to his time with Special Forces.

“They basically took a situation that the police handled properly, the school handled properly and all of a sudden everyone involved is a hater,” Hanson added.

Van Duyne also pointed out that the “teacher was reacting to the device not the student” stressing, “If something had happened, and nobody had spoken up, people would be livid. Can you imagine if you were a parent, at [Irving School District] and no one said anything?”


Judge Napolitano Argues Potential Fraud Case If Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock Was A ‘Purposeful Hoax’ (dailycaller.com)

Judge Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly the saga of Ahmed Mohamed’s clock “now appears as though that this was a purposeful hoax.”

Napolitano, appearing on Fox News’s “The Kelly File” Monday, suggested that “if the parents were involved in the hoax, now you now have a fraud going on” because money has been collected on false pretenses. (WATCH: Professor Calls Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock A ‘Fraud’)

Napolitano continued, “if this was part of a purposeful stunt and if the parents were involved in this, and everybody from Mark Zuckerberg to President Obama fell for this, this is not good. This is people overreacting because of his last name, or his skin color, or the atmosphere of fear. We saw a clock, we assume it’s dangerous. The kid who made the clock, or brought it in, has a Muslim ancestry.  I wish race could be out of this but all of that goes aside if this was some sort of a purposeful stunt.”

Also see:

It Is CAIR’s History of Falsehood That Raises Clock Questions

d455913e-196d-4a67-9033-7e65be8d909cTown Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Sep. 18, 2015:

As the initial hubbub surrounding the story of Ahmed Mohammed and his “clock” is beginning to die down to a dull roar, it’s worth looking at where exactly the skepticism of his story arrives from.

Obviously, the young man, in his NASA T-Shirt and glasses cuts a sympathetic image. But the swift appearance on the scene of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), raises questions. If this was a misunderstanding and overzealous “Zero tolerance” police work, perhaps it has since been manipulated into something more.

In the case of Ahmed Mohammed, the introduction of CAIR into the equation suddenly pivoted the discussion from whether police exercised decent judgment, to accusations that all of the city of Irving, it’s school system, police, and government were islamophobes, and it was their Islamophobia, and not a beeping box filled with strange wires and circuits, that led police to Ahmed Mohammed.

It’s no surprise that an organization like CAIR would target Irving, since its Mayor, Beth Van Duyne, brought attention to an attempt by Muslim Brotherhood (MB) linked Imams to form a Shariah law tribunal in North Texas, and raised a ruckus by supporting the Constitution over the introduction of foreign law. One of the organizations linked to the tribunal runs the mosque attended by the Mohammed family.

Is it possible CAIR is attempting to use this controversy in order to target one of its political opponents? Judging from history, it seems likely.

The Council on American Islamic Relations was formed in response to a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia held by members of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and took place under the watchful eye of the FBI.

CAIR has always been far more than the civil rights organization it purports to be. Indeed at that very meeting, the members of Hamas, including those who would found CAIR, discussed how they could manipulate civil rights in order to further their interests.

From the testimony of FBI agent Lara Burns discussing the propaganda effort to oppose the 1993 Peace Accord:

Q. Were there additional discussions making presentations to America on human rights?

A. Yes.

MR. JONAS: If we can go to Philly Meeting No. 10,

Segment G. That is on page 5 of the excerpted portion. If we can put that on the screen, please, the bottom segment.

Q. (BY MR. JONAS) What does this unidentified male say, please?

A. He says, “The first is to make the agreement fail, and this is a public policy and all of us are opposing it. It is the just the media which exaggerated the issue. Second, finding the alternatives. The first step should be taken advantage of by the brothers in — how to make the agreement fail. The national rights, human rights, stuff which will be exploited in order to make you look legitimate while you call on the annulment of the agreement. (Emphasis added)

Thusly CAIR and its antecedents in the Muslim Brotherhood are on record as feigning concerns about civil and human rights in order to achieve their ends.

Skepticism of CAIR and it’s feigned civil rights posture also appeared when federal prosecutors responded to a CAIR and Muslim American Society (MAS) Amici brief in the case United States V. Sabri Benkahla. In that case the prosecutors noted:

In describing themselves in Amici Brief at 1, CAIR and MAS omit reference to a shared background that limits their membership to those of a particular political bent, and undercuts their credibility. (Emphasis added)

The prosecutors go on to describe CAIR and MAS as Muslim Brotherhood entities which the federal government has shown engages in deception in order to further the interest of terrorist organizations.

Since CAIR was first outted by the Federal government for its role in deception operations on behalf of terrorism, CAIR has been caught up in numerous false hate crimes. As Professor Daniel Pipes noted in a 2005 article, CAIR has routinely, and knowingly, claimed as hate crimes events that either did not occur, or where the victim was in fact the perpetrator, such as claims of racist arson when the motive was in fact insurance fraud.

Perhaps most notorious was CAIR’s involvement in the 2006 “Flying Imams” case, where six imams returning from a conference of the North American Imam Federation (a group whose website publicly praises a MB leader Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who issued a 2004 fatwa calling for the death of Americans in Iraq), claimed they were unfairly ejected from a U.S. Airways flight for loudly praying.

As it turned out, those men were ejected from the flight not for prayers, but after passengers and airline employees reported that they had engaged in a number of suspicious behaviors involving swapping seats to take up those known to be favored by hijackers, seeking heavy metal seatbelt extenders which their size did not require, and other activities which even a Federal Air Marshal agreed were telltale signs of alarm.

CAIR intervened with a press conference and a lawsuit against the airline, the employees and even “John Doe passengers.” In that case the public rallied around the passengers, and congress passed a law protecting private travelers from lawsuits, when their good faith suspicions of terrorist activity led to security officials taking action.

Like the situation with the Flying Imams, CAIRs interjection into this case suggests that it is about much more than the intentions of a young man bringing an odd electronic device to school. One’s positions on zero tolerance policies in school are not the issue of debate.

The issue is CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, and their efforts to keep those who “see something” that seems suspicious from “saying something.” That goes for teachers, airline passengers and mayors.


Video: A Closer Look at Ahmed’s Clock


Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves 

For one last bit of confirmation, I located the pencil box Ahmed used for his project. During this video interview he again claims it was his “invention” and that he “made” the device – but the important thing at the moment, at 1:13, we see him showing the pencil box on his computer screen. Here it is on Amazon, where it’s clearly labeled as being 8.25 inches wide. Our eBay seller also conveniently took a photo of the clock next to a ruler to show it’s scale – about 8 inches wide. The dimensions all line up perfectly.

So there you have it folks, Ahmed Mohamad did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me.

If we accept the story about “inventing” an alarm clock is made up, as I think I’ve made a pretty good case for, it’s fair to wonder what other parts of the story might be made up, not reported factually by the media, or at least, exaggerated.

I refer back again to this YouTube video interview with Ahmed. He explains that he closed up the box with a piece of cord because he didn’t want it to look suspicious. I’m curious, why would “looking suspicious” have even crossed his mind before this whole event unfolded, if he was truly showing off a hobby project, something so innocuous as an alarm clock. Why did he choose a pencil box, one that looks like a miniature briefcase no less, as an enclosure for a clock? It’s awful hard to see the clock with the case closed. On the other hand, with the case open, it’s awful dangerous to have an exposed power transformer sitting near the snooze button (unless, perhaps his invention was to stop serial-snooze-button pressers by giving them a dangerous electrical shock!)

So again, I’m pointing all this out – about the specifics of the clock – not to pick on the poor kid. I’m picking on us, our culture, and our media. I don’t even care about the clock itself at this point.

If we stop and think – was it really such a ridiculous reaction from the teacher and the police in the first place? How many school shootings and incidents of violence have we had, where we hear afterwards “this could have been prevented, if only we paid more attention to the signs!” Teachers are taught to be suspicious and vigilant. Ahmed wasn’t accused of making a bomb – he was accused of making a look-alike, a hoax. And be honest with yourself, a big red digital display with a bunch of loose wires in a brief-case looking box is awful like a Hollywood-style representation of a bomb. Everyone jumped to play the race and religion cards and try and paint the teachers and police as idiots and bigots, but in my mind, they were probably acting responsibly and erring on the side of caution to protect the rest of their students, just in case. “This wouldn’t have happened if Ahmed were white,” they say. We’re supposed to be sensitive to school violence, but apparently religious and racial sensitivity trumps that. At least we have another clue about how the sensitivity and moral outrage pecking order lies.

Because, is it possible, that maybe, just maybe, this was actually a hoax bomb? A silly prank that was taken the wrong way? That the media then ran with, and everyone else got carried away? Maybe there wasn’t even any racial or religious bias on the parts of the teachers and police.


Also see:

Alice Linahan and Frank Gaffney on Civilization Jihad and the Common Core

Alice Linahan is preparing to launch her book,”A Community’s Journey from #CANiSEE to I Can See”; a lecture series providing a comprehensive study of the 21st Century/Workforce Development/Common Core Take Over of Education. fundrazr.com/campaigns/0zsc8


In this video Alice Linahan and Frank Gaffney share critical facts about Civilization Jihad and the Common Core.

As defined in the book “Sharia, a Threat to America”- “Civilization jihad is a form of political and psychological warfare that includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda and other means of insinuating shariah gradually into Western societies.”

In the West a fundamental shift is beginning to be felt, as the American idea of individual freedom clashes with the political purpose of control and submission. The outcome will depend on if individuals refuse to submit.


ALICE LINAHAN, Vice President of Women on the Wall speaks with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio November 24, 2014:

  • Effects of Obama’s Common Core curriculum on the U.S. education system
  • Controversy regarding Islamists penetrating the U.S. educational system and advancing Sharia ideology through Common Core
  • Looking at Arabic-immersion schools in Texas and around the U.S.

Also see:

Mississippi Jihadists Arrested, Tied to Muslim Brotherhood

3539211070Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, August 14, 2015:

Earlier this week, the media reported on the arrest of Jaelyn Delshaun Young, 20, and Muhammad Oda Dakhlalla, 22, a couple who was arrested by the FBI attempting to travel to Syria in support of the Islamic State. Media reports note that Dakhlalla’s father Oda Dakhlalla is the Imam of the Islamic Center of Mississippi, in Starksville. The Islamic Center of Mississippi (ICM) is connected to the Muslim Students Association (MSA) of Mississippi State University (MSU); the same university which Dakhlalla and Young attended. Funds for the building of the mosque were provided by the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood group listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator or joint ventrurer” in the Holy Land Foundation terror finance trial. The Federal judge in the case, Jorge Solis, wrote in his memorandum opinion that the government provided “ample evidence” for associating ISNA with the terrorist group Hamas.

ICM was established in 1977, and their property resides just off the MSU campus. Interestingly, it appears that the MSA at MSU may be run by another of Dakhlalla’s relatives. The MSU MSA’s website lists its Secretary as Abdullah Dakhlalla, who appears to be the arrested suspect’s brother, and a Janna Watson Dakhlalla, the MSA President, who appears to be Abdullah’s wife, and thus Mohammed Dakhlalla’s sister-in-law.

The Muslim Students Association is the oldest organization of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. The establishment of ICM took place in absolutely textbook Muslim Brotherhood fashion, as described in an audiotape lecture by the General Masul of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Executive Office Zaid Noman, which was submitted into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation case. Noman said:

The first change was moving the Ikhwans (Muslim Brothers) from working at the branches of the MSA and the [Arab Youth Muslim] Association as branches whose activities are based on universities where they go a university to hold their activity, to what is called at that time “The Muslim House”. The Muslim House was based on them purchasing a house near the university with Ikhwans living in a part of it and the rest of it becomes a mosque and it would also be a nucleus for the activity. This was the first move the Ikhwans did. After that, the other move came where this Muslim House was not a goal by itself or it was no longer able to satisfy work as they started to move to somewhere else which are the Islamic centers. We notice that during the past two or three years that many of the students’ gathering started to establish Islamic centers. This was also another healthy move for settling the Dawa’a as the presence of an Islamic center means the presence of residents, means the existence of contacts between students and the residents, means recruitment of the residents and winning them to the ranks of the dawa’a, means forming permanent foundations in these cities.

Later in the same lecture Noman discusses how the Muslim Brothers should engage in firearms training, and obliquely references the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement in “military work.”

Additionally the role of MSAs in the indoctrination of individuals to engage in jihad has already been noted by law enforcement. The NYPD intelligence report “Radicalization in the West” described MSAs as potential “incubators” for terrorism:

Among the social networks of the local university population, there appears to be a growing trend of Salafi-based radicalization that has permeated some Muslim student associations (MSA’s). Extremists have used these university-based organizations as forums for the development and recruitment of likeminded individuals – providing a receptive platform for younger, American-born imams, to present a radical message in a way that resonates with the students.

Connections to Muslim Brotherhood-linked mosques were also been identified in the Chattanooga Shooting. In that incident, the shooter was closely associated with the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga (ISGC), whose deed is held by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT is a subsidiary of ISNA, the same organization which helped fund the Starksville, MI, mosque.

NAIT also holds the deed to the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP), attended by the perpetrators of the the Garland, Texas attack. In the Garland case, the FBI has indicted Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem (AKA Decarus Thomas), who was also an ICCP attendee, for procuring and helping train the Garland shooters with firearms. In the Chattanooga case, investigators are looking into reports that the shooter conducted firearms training with other Muslim men, before committing the attack.

Establishing “Islamic Centers,” indoctrinating youth, training for jihad. Exactly as described in the Brotherhood’s own words.

Yet despite this growing pattern, media outlets are already preparing to “see no evil” when it comes to the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in indoctrinating young Muslims to engage in jihad. The Clarion-Ledger’s editorial warned “Terror Suspect Arrests Invite Ignorant Views,” which not only doubled down on the connection between ICM and the Muslim Students of MSU (the editorial describes Imam Dakhalla working closely  with the MSU’s Muslim Students Association), but preemptively accuses those who would raise the issue of bigotry even before anyone has publicly made the connection between the recently arrested Islamic State suspects and ICM and the Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations.

The identification of such patterns based on evidence used to be called investigation.

Director James Comey has already expressed that the FBI is being overwhelmed by literally hundreds of cases of potential jihadists in the United States, and they will continue to be overwhelmed if they continue to only seek to interdict jihadists before they travel to Syria or conduct an attack, instead of targeting the underlying network of indoctrination, established by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s and ’70s and which has been developing and expanding to the present day.

Also see:

Georgetown’s Bridge Initiative Partners with Think Tank linked to Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Hamas

1111091100Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, July 24, 2015:

Georgetown University’s “Bridge Initiative” will now be holding weekly classes to those interested in learning how to identify dreaded Islamophobes:

Students will learn about the history of the term “Islamophobia” and its earliest manifestations; its parallels with similar prejudices that have affected other groups through time; and creative ways to counter it. Classes will include a lecture that introduces basic concepts and expands on the recommended readings. The presentation will be followed by an opportunity to ask questions, engage with one another in small group conversations, and participate in group discussions to not only learn about Islamophobia, but offer ways about how to respond to and counter it. Upon completing this course, students will have a foundational understanding of Islamophobia that extends beyond daily headlines, and should feel empowered to address issues of prejudice and discrimination in their own communities and beyond.

The course will be held weekly at “The Fairfax Institute” in Northern Virginia. Despite the rather innocuous sounding name, The Fairfax Institute is in fact a school operated by a well known Muslim Brotherhood front, The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

As the we wrote in the Center for Security Policy’s white paper entitled, “IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank,”

“The organization was founded following an international conference of major Muslim Brotherhood figures, including Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Al Qaradawi, in Lugano, Switzerland in 1977. The conference was held under the auspices of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), which was its self an outgrowth of the Muslim Student’s Association, the first Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States.”

IIIT was founded to promote an ideology of “civilizational battle” against the West, particularly in regards to western educational practice. From IIIT’s 1989 publication, “Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan,” written by IIIT founder, Abdulhamid AbuSulyman:

Unlike the past, the civilizational forces contending in this century can reach and overtake anyone without invasion or military occupation of his land. They can subvert his mind, convert him to their world view, neutralize and contain him as a puppet whether he is aware of it or not. Certainly these forces are contending with one another to dominate the world. And it is the decision of Muslims today whether Islam will be the victor tomorrow, whether Muslims will be the makers of history or merely the objects. Indeed, a civilizational battle now in progress in the world scene will not leave anyone unscathed.
Far from disowning AbuSulyman, IIIT continues to honor their Muslim Brotherhood founder, granting him the title President Emeritus in 2014.

In addition to promoting Muslim versus non-Muslim “civilizational battle”, IIIT has also been linked to supporting actual violence. In a sworn affidavit in support of search warrants on the IIIT property located on Grove Street (where students of the Bridge Initiative will be attending their Islamophobia course),  Special Agent David Kane noted:

“Based on the evidence in this affidavit, I know that they [IIIT’s founders] are ardent supporters of PIJ and HAMAS. They have repeatedly voiced their ideological support. I have seen repeated instances of their financial support, and believe that they have acted to conceal many other instances of their financial support.”

In addition to support Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, IIIT also hosted an employee with ties to Al Qaeda.  IIIT:

“counted Tarik Abdulmalik Hamdi as one of its employees–entering the UnitedStates with the assistance of [convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizer Sami] Al-Arian–who also provided assistance to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaida and Osama Bin-Laden, and used his house to hold property for Bin-Laden and other designated terrorists. He personally provided Bin Laden with the battery for the satellite phone that prosecutors at the New York trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers described as, “the phone bin Laden and others will use to carry out their war against the United States.”

The Bridge Initiative’s work to portray as islamophobic those who raise national security issues about the Muslim Brotherhood and its subversive efforts to support terrorism and wage “civilizational jihad”, would perhaps be better served if they did not themselves associate with organizations which supported terrorism, and promoted “civilizational jihad.”


Deceitful Islamic signs scattered across an English city and the truth about Islam:

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Cherson and Molschky, by Paul Wilkinson, July 13, 2015:

For some time there have been numerous Islamic signs popping up on the sides of Muslim-owned businesses and mosques in the neighbourhood in which I live.

I previously wrote a personal account of ‘How Nottingham Has Changed in the Last 15 Years’ regarding Islamisation due to a large population of Pakistani Muslims, but because these signs seem to almost sink into the subconscious, I decided to examine their messages further.

Firstly, these signs strike me as something from an authoritative state, for example George Orwell’s 1984. Daniel Greenfield highlighted in his article: ‘The Islamic Hijacking of George Orwell: Islam is peace, freedom is slavery.

“Islam is a religion of Peace. That is as certain as the three slogans of the Ministry of Truth; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength. These three slogans of the Party in George Orwell’s 1984 are especially applicable to Islam; a religion of war that claims to be a religion of peace, whose political parties (such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party) use “Freedom” in their name but stand for slavery, and ignorance of its true nature creates an illusion of strength for industrialized nations that imagine that they are only battling a tiny handful of outmatched extremists.”

Unsurprisingly, the opposite of what is portrayed in the signs is true. Muslims rely on decades of empowering political correctness and the ignorance of Islam that most of the general public possess, for a variety of reasons, to spread Islam further. Those possessing an understanding of Islam are usually unable to challenge the signs’ presence or wording due to obstacles of political correctness, stigma and even lawfare from Muslim groups.

‘Fruit of Islam’
Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

This sign apparently informs us that the following attributes are all components of Islam: Generosity, Kindness, Forgiveness, Justice, Gentleness, Patience, Courage, Gratitude, Humility and Honesty.

How does this fare with reality?

Indeed Muhammad’s ‘virtues’ included being a thief, waging war, having concubines, encouraging rape, having sex with a child, murder, etc. Muhammad was a brutal, unforgiving warlord and painting him in a different light is plain deception.

‘Read it! The Most Positive Book in the World’
Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

This is utterly bizarre, the sign actually challenges people to receive a free Qur’an, and see the imaginary ‘positivity’ for themselves! Most Muslims spend their time playing on nonbeliever’s ignorance to further Islam but this project should open people’s eyes to what the Qur’an actually contains!

image005Source: Twitter @mattpope123

The Qur’an could be classified as hate speech, as ‘The Religion of Peace’ site illustrates:

  • The Qur’an draws a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it.
  • Moral comparison based on this distinction.
  • Devaluation or dehumanisation of other groups and the personal superiority of one’s own.
  • The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership.
  • A call to violence against members of other groups.

“The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims (the best of people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst of creatures, 98:6).  Praise is lavished on the former while the latter is condemned with scorching generalization.  Far from teaching universal love, the Qur’an incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture.  Naturally, the harsh treatment of non-believers by Muslims is encouraged as well.”

How this book can remotely be described as being ‘positive’ is anyone’s guess. Only if the reader believes in Muhammad and Allah I suppose, whereas for nonbelievers there is a feeling of inferiority due to its supremacist nature.

When the Qur’an is laid out in chronological order, Muhammad’s last commands were open-ended war against nonbelievers and to spread Islam by any means possible. Chapter 9 is a huge inspiration to jihadists. What better way to be a good Muslim by following in Muhammad’s footsteps and waging holy war for Allah? Why the Qur’an is not banned in civilised countries is a mystery.

Read more

Liars and Lunatics

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 28, 2015:

In the wake of the jihadi attacks last week in France, Kuwait, and Tunisia, the reality of the Islamic threat is as clear as it could possibly be, yet our enemies continue to use the same tactics and the leadership in the West regurgitates the obvious lies fed to them.  Western leaders continue to delude themselves and their nations about the darkness sweeping over the planet leaving bodies, human decency, liberty, and reasonable thought in its wake.

After the two jihadis were killed a few weeks ago in Garland, Texas, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organization where they were trained/radicalized – the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix – claimed neither the two shooters, nor the man who trained them were bad guys when he knew them.  The Phoenix media gave them all a pass, as have many of the religious leaders in Arizona.  The Boston Marathon bombers and the man FBI agents shot to death in Boston a few weeks ago, as well as quite a number of other jihadis (“terrorists” if you wish) have all been trained and supported by the ISB (Islamic Society of Boston) which was  founded by Al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, and is an MB/Hamas organization.  Yet, the FBI is still outreaching to the ISB for “help.”  The leaders of the ISB claim they reject violence, and media, government, and law enforcement officials believe them because they said it.

The mother of the jihadi in Grenoble, France said on French radio, “My sister-in-law said ‘put on the TV’. And then she began to cry. My heart stopped…We have a normal family life. He goes to work, he comes back. We are normal Muslims.  We do Ramadan. We have three children and a normal family. Who do I call who can give me more information because I don’t understand.”

Any police officer with more than ten minutes of experience can watch any of these folks on TV and tell you they are lying.  Where is the hungry media asking the tough questions?  Where are the law enforcement organizations turning these places inside and out using facts already in evidence to get search and arrest warrants?  Where are national leaders in Europe, Canada, and the United States calling for the boot to once again come down on the Islamic Movement before its power becomes so great, we will lose nations and millions of people fighting it?

cameron chamberlain

David Cameron, the leader of the United Kingdom, in response to the killing of dozens of Britons in Tunisia said the UK and others must do all they can to combat the threat.  This “means dealing with the threat, at source, whether that is ISIL in Syria and Iraq or whether it is other extremist groups around the world.  And we also have to deal, perhaps more important than anything, is with this poisonous radical narrative that is turning so many young minds, and we have to combat it with everything we have.  The people who do these things, they sometimes claim they do it in the name of Islam.  They don’t.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology that we have to confront with everything we have.”

Where is that peaceful “other” version of Islam taught Mr. Cameron?  Not in any of the Islamic schools in the UK.  They teach jihad is a permanent command on the Muslim world until Sharia is the law of the land.  How do you combat this Mr. Cameron?  I propose Britain begin with electing leaders who speak the truth.

It appears there is no amount of reason, evidence, facts or world events that is going to break Mr. Cameron from the narrative handed to him by the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis in the UK, like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain.  Mr. Cameron appears to be fully surrendered to the bidding of the enemies of the West and, like Neville Chamberlain, is willing to bring Britain to the brink of destruction without even a whisper of courage to do otherwise.

The problem is there does not appear to be a Winston Churchill anywhere in England.

Is there a Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, or Winston Churchill anywhere in the West?

Also see:

A Counterjihad Survey From a British University

oxfordummahGates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey (Ned May) June 25, 2015:

A few weeks ago a PhD candidate at a British university sent us the following email.

I am a PhD student at [a major British institution of higher learning]. I am researching groups set up to oppose radical Islam in Europe and North America, including anti-Jihad, anti-Sharia and anti-halal organisations.

I would like to interview activists within these organisations, to help me understand how they became involved, what their concerns are about radical Islam, and how they are going about countering them.

I would welcome the opportunity to interview someone from Gates of Vienna as part of my research, given that it is one of the most prominent counter-jihad websites.

Depending on the questions, I’m not averse to answering such surveys, even though I know the all but universal multicultural agenda of the institutions that sponsor them. I wrote him back and told him that if he wanted to use my answers to compile statistical results, that was fine. But if he quoted me, I required that he include the entire questionnaire — all his questions and my answers in full — somewhere in his published material, even if only as an appendix. In the past, various Counterjihad people (including several of my friends) have had the unfortunate experience of being quoted out of context. This method at least makes the entire context available for anyone who is interested. Plus, of course, I am posting it here — I told him that I reserved the right to publish the entire interview myself.

When the questionnaire arrived, it was prefixed with an option to choose between two waivers:

Delete as appropriate: EITHER: I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials; OR: I would prefer to remain anonymous in published materials.

Please note: There is no compulsion to answer any question. If you prefer not to answer a question, just leave the box blank.

I chose the second option, but appended a proviso:

I agree that these answers may be attributed to me in published materials provided that they are made available to readers in their entirety, including the complete wording of each question.

The questions and my responses are reproduced below in their entirety:

Part A: Personal details

Name: Ned May
Organisation: Gates of Vienna
Position within organisation: Editor
Age: 60+
Gender: M
Ethnicity: Human Race

Part B: Questionnaire

1. When and how was Gates of Vienna set up?

We put up our first post on October 9, 2004. For the first eight and a half years we were hosted for free at blogspot.com, under the aegis of Blogger (i.e. Google). Then, after a series of incidents in which our blog was closed or locked by Blogger, in January 2013 we moved to our own domain gatesofvienna.net hosted by a commercial service.

For the first couple of years most of the blogging was done by my wife Dymphna. After I was laid off in 2006, I started blogging more regularly. As Dymphna’s chronic illness worsened, I took on more tasks, and now perform most of them.

2. What is your role in Gates of Vienna?

I am the principal editor. We have a number of translators and contributors, and it is my job to edit their prose where appropriate, find and prepare images to use as illustrations, and do the general formatting for each post. This is in addition to writing an occasional post myself.

I also maintain the database used to create each day’s news feed, and write the programming code that makes it possible.

3. Were you involved in political activism before Gates of Vienna? If so, please indicate which organisations.

No, I was never politically active. My wife and I made modest campaign contributions to our congressman from time to time, but that was all.

4. How would you describe the purpose or aims of Gates of Vienna?

Our principal aim is to resist the Islamization of Western societies. More specifically, we want to prevent the imposition of Islamic law (sharia), which is encroaching on our legal system piecemeal at an increasing rate, by a process that is commonly known as the “stealth jihad”.

Examples of the new sharia-based rules include the “religiously-aggravated Section 5 public order offences” in the U.K., the “hate crime” prosecutions by the various Human Rights Commissions in Canada, and the prosecutions for the “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion” in Austria. Numerous other examples may be found in almost all Western countries.

Sharia-based norms violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the constitutions of the countries in which they are implemented. In that sense they are illegal or extra-legal, and not in conformance with the law of the land.

Islamization is only making headway in the West because the existing cultural matrix has been damaged. For that reason, Gates of Vienna frequently examines other issues that pertain to our ongoing social and political breakdown.

5. What are the main challenges or obstacles you face in achieving these aims?

(a) Lack of funding. Everything must by financed by small individual donations from readers.
(b) The unwillingness of the legacy media to cover these issues in depth and without bias. Counterjihad people are routinely characterized as “racists” and “far-right”, while at the same time the issues we raise are virtually never examined on their merits.
(c) The toxic smog of political correctness that shrouds all public discourse and prevents an honest discussion of Islam as a totalitarian political ideology, and not just as a religion.

6. What is Gates of Vienna’s relationship to the wider counterjihad movement?

As envisioned by the original participants in the 910 Group (later CVF and then ICLA), we function as a “network of networks”. That is, we help expedite contact and communication between and among individuals and groups that share the same broad Counterjihad goals.

When I say “we”, I mean the very loosely associated groups under the ICLA umbrella. Gates of Vienna serves as a clearinghouse and bulletin board for those groups and their leaders.

7. What is your assessment of the counterjihad at this point in time?

The Counterjihad is fairly fragmented and often at odds with itself. Cooperation across a broad spectrum of groups is relatively rare. Like the rest of the culture, the members of the loose constellation of groups and people who oppose Islamization are afraid of being called “racists”. That fear causes people to shy away each other if there is even a faint perception of “racism” on one side or another. For this reason broad, sustained coordination among groups is very difficult to achieve.

However, due to the rise of the Islamic State and the increasing incidence of atrocities committed by jihad groups, more and more people are becoming aware of the nature of the crisis that faces us. As a result, I can see our work becoming less difficult in the not-so-distant future — we will not be required to overcome as much initial resistance as has been true in the past.

“Racism” will eventually seem less important, given the immediacy of violent jihad and the illiberal cultural regimen imposed in areas that have accepted sharia rules.

8. If the counterjihad were to be successful, how would the world be different in twenty years’ time?

Your question doesn’t make any sense, because the Counterjihad can’t possibly achieve success within twenty years, or even forty. This is the “Long War”. I expect it to last at least two more generations. I will be long dead before there is any final resolution, so I’m reluctant to predict the shape of things to come.

Let’s just say that I expect that we will experience an undetermined number of grim and bloody decades before this is over.

9. If someone wanted to learn more about the issues discussed on Gates of Vienna, where would you direct them? For example, are there particular books, websites, or other resources that you would recommend?

As a starter, I recommend the book Among the Believers by V.S. Naipaul. After that, anything written by Robert Spencer in his books, or at JihadWatch.org, would help the reader become fully informed. To stay abreast of the violence and brutality of Islamic terrorists worldwide, people should read TheReligionOfPeace.com every day.

For comprehensive, in-depth analysis of sharia law and jihad, the book
Catastrophic Failure by Maj. Stephen Coughlin is highly recommended.

10. Are there any issues not covered in your previous responses that you think should also be considered as part of this research?

I would like to emphasize the importance of studying Islamic law. Until non-Muslims in the West grasp the essentials of sharia, they will remain confused and perplexed by current events involving Islam.

Sharia is based directly on core Islamic scriptures — the Koran, the hadith, and the sunna — and has not changed in any meaningful way in more than a thousand years. When one has acquired a basic understanding of how it all works, such disparate phenomena as Boko Haram, the Islamic State, Louis Farrakhan, the Taliban, Hamas, and Anjem Choudary begin to make sense. The interconnectedness of events concerning Islam — whether “moderate” or “radical” — will start to become clear.

After reading some of the books and websites mentioned earlier, interested citizens should acquire a copy of ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper. It is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English.

English-speakers should read the Revised Edition (published 1991, revised 1994), “The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices”, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The publisher is listed as amana publications in Beltsville, Maryland.

This is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Q&A part 1

red pill brief 2

Published on Jun 25, 2015 by Vlad Tepes

This is the first part of the question and answer session after Stephen Coughlin’s Red Pill brief given in Austria in May 2015


For the rest of the briefing go HERE

Brigitte Gabriel Speaks at 2015 Watchmen on the Wall Conference


Brigitte Gabriel recently addressed the gathering of pastors attending the annual Family Research Council “Watchmen on the Wall” event. She gave a fantastic speech about the dangers facing our country from radical Islam, and what we must do as a nation to confront this very real threat.