New Palestinian Government Refuses to Renounce Violence

Mahmoud Abbas / AP

Mahmoud Abbas / AP

By Adam Kredo:

A top Hamas official said that the newly announced Palestinian unity government “will not recognize ‘Israel’ and will not give up the resistance,” throwing into jeopardy the new ruling government’s access to U.S. assistance and other measures.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to dissolve the long ruling Palestinian Authority and and has now surprised observers by forming a government with the terror group Hamas, which rules over the Gaza Strip.

Hamas and Fatah—Abbas’s political party that controls the West Bank—surprised Middle East observers on Wednesday morning by announcing that the rival groups would put aside differences to form a unity government with elections scheduled for later this year.

The move tossed another wrench into the fledgling peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians and prompted sharp responses from U.S. officials.

Events took another surprising turn this afternoon when top Hamas official Hassan Yousef announced that the terror group would not renounce its commitment to violence and the destruction of Israel, according to Palestinian groups monitoring the situation.

Hamas will not recognize Israel—a chief sticking point in peace talks with Abbas—and “will not give up the resistance,” which is widely interpreted to refer to Hamas’s ongoing terror attacks against Israeli civilians and military personnel.

The announcement of the unity government came just days after Abbas threatened to completely dissolve the PA should peace talks come to a complete halt.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the news with skepticism.

“The Palestinian Authority, which just yesterday spoke about its dissolution, is now talking about reconciling with Hamas,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying. “They should decide what they want—dissolution to reconciliation? They should let us know when they want peace, because we want a true peace.”

Netanyahu said on Wednesday following news of the unity government that Abbas is siding with terror over peace.

“Does he [Abbas] want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel?” he asked. “You can have one but not the other. I hope he chooses peace, so far he hasn’t done so.”

State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki warned that the move could demolish the peace talks as well as America’s relationship with the PA.

“A great deal of effort has gone into building Palestinian institutions by Palestinians as well as the international community, and it would certainly not be in the interests of the Palestinian people for all of that to be lost,” Psaki told reporters.

Such a move would jeopardize U.S. assistance to the Palestinians, which has topped $100 million in recent years.

Read more a Free Beacon

Great Idea, Ibrahim Hooper!

Chicago ABC Station, Financial Institutions Co-Sponsor CAIR Banquet

CAIR-Canada Directors Praise Muslim Brotherhood

CAIR-CanadaBY RYAN MAURO:

The Point de Bascule blog has discovered that three directors of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Canada (CAIR-Canada), have endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideology.

Current NCCM director Khadija Haffajee has held official positions with the Islamic Society of North America, which the U.S. Justice Department says is a Muslim Brotherhood entity. The Canadian chapter of ISNA lost its charitable status last year because of evidence that it is funding Pakistani terrorists and major accounting issues.

Haffajee joined ISNA’s board of directors in 1997 and won additional terms in 2001 and 2004. During that time, she was on the editorial advisory board of ISNA’s Islamic Horizons magazine. As Point de Bascule found out, a 1999 issue put Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna on the cover with the heading, “A Martyr of Our Times.”

The article, published under Haffajee’s supervision, described him as a “true guide” and “martyr of da’wah who offered the Eternal Message.” The author, Osman Abdel-Magid Ahmed, recalls meeting al-Banna when he was 13 years old and being “mesmerized” with his “describing the gallantry of the mujahideen in Palestine and their martyrdom.”

It portrays al-Banna as pro-democratic but, while he approved of elections, he wanted democracy to be within the limited confines ofsharia. The article says he “chided the government, the parliamentarians and the ulema [Muslim legal scholars] to implement Islamic laws in the country.”

He preached that “it was unjustified that laws governing the Muslim people should contradict the teachings of Islam and the rules enshrined in these two sources,” specifically sharia’s standards on penal, civil and commercial law.

The ISNA piece implied that it wants to assume al-Banna’s mantle, stating: “It is hard to imagine that we will easily find someone to fill al-Banna’s place, but at least a collective leadership should emerge to take on that task.”

Read more at Clarion Project

NY Arab Advocacy Group Funding Linked to Qatar

AAANY

The group’s executive directive, Linda Sarsour, consistently depicts the U.S. government as an oppressor of Muslims.

By Ryan Mauro:

Linda Sarsour

Linda Sarsour

The Arab American Association of New York and its Executive Director, Linda Sarsour, lists the Qatar Foundation International second on its website’s list of supporters.The Foundation is linked to theMuslim Brotherhood, including the Hamas-supporting SheikhYousef al-Qaradawi and the Islamist-allied Qatari government.

Qatar Foundation International says it is “a U.S.-based member of Qatar Foundation (QF).” It maintains its independence but states that QF is its  “major donor.”

Qatar Foundation is closely linked to the Qatari government, which former U.S. Treasury Department terrorism-finance analyst Jonathan Schanzer describes as “the ATM of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and its associated groups.” It hosts Al-Jazeera, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi and finances Hamas and Syrian extremists. Qatar’s Arab neighbors are fed up with its backing of the Brotherhood.

In 2008, the Qatar Foundation and Qatari Emir created the Al-Qaradawi Research Center, in honor of one of the most prominent Islamists, anti-Semites and Hamas-supporters on earth. The declared purpose of the Center is to promote Qaradawi’s preaching as “a pioneer of Islamic moderate thought, and presently its main theorist.”

In January 2012, QF opened its Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics. Its Research Director is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and son of senior Brotherhood operative Said Ramadan.

Qatar Foundation also has a relationship with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity that came under a terrorism-financing investigation after 9/11. The Deputy Director of Qatar Foundation’s Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics, Dr. Jasser Auda, is a teacher for IIIT programs. His bioalso says he is “affiliated” with IIIT.

IIIT is listed by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends” in a secret 1991 memo. The document articulates the objective of its American network as a “kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…” Clarion’s full report on IIIT leaves no doubt that the group is Islamist in nature.

Sarsour also has questionable personal ties. In 2004, she told a reporter that the American authorities had also questioned her and that her Palestinian husband, Maher Judh, was threatened with deportation after living in the U.S. for seven years.

Read more at Clarion Project

The Roots of CAIR’s Intimidation Campaign

pic_giant_041214_SM_The-Roots-of-CAIRs-Intimidation-Campaignby ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

Author’s Note: This week, capitulating to Islamic-supremacist agitation led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Brandeis University reneged on its announced plan to present an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the heroic human-rights activist. In my 2010 book, The Grand Jihad, I devoted a chapter to the origins and purposes of CAIR, its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, and its aim to silence critics of Islamic supremacism. In light of the continuing success of this campaign – despite a federal terrorism-financing prosecution that exposed CAIR’s unsavory background – it is worth revisiting that history. What follows is an adapted excerpt from that chapter.

In January 1993, a new, left-leaning U.S. administration, inclined to be more sympathetic to the Islamist clause, came to power. But before he could bat an eye, President Bill Clinton was confronted by the murder and depraved mutilation of American soldiers in Somalia. A few weeks later, on February 26, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. The public was angry and appeasing Islamists would have to wait.

Yasser Arafat, however, sensed opportunity. The terrorist intifada launched at the end of 1987 had been a successful gambit for the Palestine Liberation Organization chief. Within a year, even as the body count mounted, the weak-kneed “international community” was granting the PLO the right to participate (though not to vote) in U.N. General Assembly sessions. And when Arafat made the usual show of “renouncing” terrorism – even as he was orchestrating terrorist attacks in conjunction with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Islamist factions – the United States recognized him as the Palestinians’ legitimate leader, just as the Europeans had done. Arafat blundered in 1991, throwing in his lot with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and that seemed to bury him with the Bush 41 administration. But Clinton’s election was a new lease on life.

Anxious to chase the holy grail of Middle East peace and suddenly in need of demonstrating toughness against jihadist terror, the new “progressive” president was made to order for the wily Marxist terror master. If Arafat could resell his “I renounce terrorism” carpet yet again, chances were he could cash in. And so he did, purporting to commit the Palestinians to the 1993 Oslo Accords – an empty promise of peaceful coexistence exchanged for hundreds of millions in aid (much of which he pocketed), an open invitation to the Clinton White House (where he became a regular visitor), international recognition (as a statesman, no less!), and a ludicrous Nobel Peace Prize (forever degrading a once prestigious honor into a punch line).

The Muslim Brotherhood, for one, was not amused. Islamists had murdered Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 for striking a peace pact with Israel. Sure, they knew Arafat and understood what chicanery he was up to. But acceptance of the Zionist entity’s right to exist was utterly unacceptable, even if done as a ploy.

Israel, the Brotherhood also realized, would not be the only thing squeezed by Clinton at Arafat’s urging. After a shaky start, the new president was winning global plaudits for his Orwellian “peace process.” Clinton must have known that Arafat was stringing him along, but with the theater of negotiation and ostensible progress drawing rave reviews, that was a problem for another day. The immediate concern was that Hamas jihadists could spoil the show with their implacable jihad, their blunt insistence that nothing less than Israel’s obliteration would satisfy them. That gave the fledgling administration a powerful incentive to crack down on them. Arafat would be the beneficiary as the Americans squeezed his rivals for power.

A ‘Media Twinkle’ in Philadelphia
Though the United States had been a cash cow for Hamas, it was thus a perilous time for the organization when 25 of its members and supporters gathered at a Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia on October 27, 1993. They were unaware that the FBI was monitoring their deliberations. The confab was a brainstorming exercise: How best to back Hamas and derail Oslo while concealing these activities from the American government?

A little more background to the Philadelphia meeting: For nearly two decades until his extradition in 1997, Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook was the most consequential Muslim Brotherhood operative in the United States. Now living in Egypt, he remains to this day deputy chairman of Hamas’s political bureau. In the early Nineties, he actually ran the terrorist organization from his home in Virginia.

During his time in the U.S., Marzook formed several organizations to promote the Palestinian jihad against Israel. In 1981, for public-relations purposes, he established the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) in conjunction with two other jihadists: future Hamas chief Khalid al-Mishal and Sami al-Arian (the latter was eventually convicted of conspiring to support Palestinian Islamic Jihad).

In December 1987, the intifada was launched and Hamas was born. Marzook immediately formed the “Palestine Committee” to serve as an umbrella organization, directing the various pro-Hamas initiatives that were developing. He brought under its wing both the IAP (which concentrated on “the political and media fronts”) and a fundraising entity he had established. That entity would eventually be called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) – though it was then known as the “Occupied Land Committee.” The reorganization would better enable the Palestine Committee to comply with the Muslim Brotherhood’s instructions to “increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas,” to “fight surrendering solutions” (like Oslo), and to publicize “the savagery of the Jews.”

It was under the auspices of the Palestine Committee that the 1993 Philadelphia meeting was convened. It was clear even then that Marzook’s Hamas network was anticipating the birth of yet another organization. The Palestine Committee’s amended by-laws declared that an as-yet-unnamed entity was already in the larval stage, “operat[ing] through” the IAP, and soon to “become an official organization for political work, and its headquarters will be in Washington, insha Allah.”

In the United States, the “political work” was crucial. The overarching mission, of course, was quite clear. As the IAP had explained in a December 1988 edition of its Arabic magazine, Ila Filastin, “The call for jihad in the name of Allah is the only path for liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim lands. We promise Allah, continuing the jihad way and the martyrdom’s way.” But while blatant summonses to jihad might stir the faithful in Islamic countries openly hostile to Jews, they were not going to fly in America – and even less so in an America whose financial heart had just been shaken by the jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center. The Brotherhood’s approach in the U.S. would have to be more subtle.

That was where the new organization would come in, as those gathered in Philadelphia – including Marzook’s brother-in-law and HLF co-founder Ghassan Elashi – explained. Although the Brotherhood had ideological depth and impressive fundraising mechanisms, Marzook had long been concerned that his network lacked the media and political savvy needed to advance an agenda in modern America. Now more than ever, they needed what HLF’s Shukri Abu Baker called “a media twinkle.”

In the U.S., Hamas was now perceived as the principal enemy of the popular “peace process.” After all, its charter explicitly called (and continues to call) for Israel’s annihilation by violent jihad. Therefore, its known supporters – the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, the IAP, and the others – were tainted in the American mind as terror-abettors, hostile to U.S. interests. As one attendee urged in Philadelphia, “We must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral, because we are placed in a corner. . . . It is known who we are. We are marked.” The new entity, by contrast, would have a clean slate. Maybe it could steal a page out of Arafat’s “hear what I say, don’t watch what I do” playbook. The new entity’s Islamism and Hamas promotion would have to be less “conspicuous.” It would need to couch its rhetoric in sweet nothings like “social justice,” “due process,” and “resistance.” If it did those things, though, it might be more attractive . . . and effective. A Muslim organization posing as a civil-rights activist while soft-pedaling its jihadist sympathies might be able to snow the American political class, the courts, the media, and the academy. It might make real inroads with the transnational progressives who dominated the Clinton administration.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Why Have American Taxpayers Supported Hamas Trainers?

Youth training at the Al-Futuwa program. Photo: Paldf.net.

Youth training at the Al-Futuwa program. Photo: Paldf.net.

 Algemeiner, By Dexter Van Zile:

Should American taxpayers be funding an organization that has provided activist training to an illegal terrorist group?

This is not an abstract question. It has happened.

In a recent report, NGO Monitor revealed that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a non-profit funded largely by the U.S. Congress (i.e. American taxpayers), gave approximately $232,000 to the Holy Land Trust (HLT) between 2006 and 2012.  A search of NED’s website confirms that it has given multiple grants to the organization.

HLT is a Bethlehem-based “peacemaking” organization whose leader, Sami Awad, has stated publicly that his organization has given training in non-violence to Hamas and other militant groups in Palestinian society.

He did it in a speech he gave at the National Leadership Conference for the Vinyard Church in Galveston, Texas in 2009. “[W]e’ve actually done training in non-violence for Hamas leaders and other militant groups as well,” he told the audience.

At the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference held in Bethlehem in 2012, Colin Chapman, an expert on Islam praised Awad for his willingness to speak with Islamists and to form genuine “face-to-face” relationships with them.

“Sami Awad has, for several years, been working with people in Hamas exploring with them a genuinely Islamic basis for non-violence, peacemaking and reconciliation,” Chapman said.

While some people might praise Awad for speaking words of peace to Hamas, there is little, if any evidence that his words have had much of an impact on the organization, which was designated a “foreign terrorist organization” in 1997. It still remains committed to Israel’s destruction and has engaged in numerous attacks against Israel.

Clearly, Awad’s activism has a strong ecumenical component. In the 2009 speech to Vineyard Church leaders he said, “Any community that asks us, we’re there to serve.” Still, Hamas is a bit much.

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Hamas is on the other side of that line.

It’s pretty irresponsible and naïve for Awad to teach the language of peacemaking to totalitarian fascist organizations such as Hamas. Such training can easily be repurposed by Hamas leaders so as to make its messaging more effective to Westerners. Awad himself seems to understand this. In 2008 he told Michael Lerner, “Hamas is not denouncing nonviolence. There are Hamas people who see nonviolence as a useful tool.”

Why would Hamas see nonviolence as a useful tool?

Simple.

It’s not just acts of terror that makes groups like Hamas effective, but the story they tell to justify and frame this violence. And Awad’s Holy Land Trust, has given Hamas and other militant groups expertise in framing their acts of terror for Western audiences.

As I have written elsewhere, “Awad’s group, the Holy Land Trust, has taught Hamas and other militant groups that seek Israel’s destruction how to speak the language of peace activists in the West and appeal to the conscience of human rights activists in the U.S. and Europe.”

In addition to being irresponsible, it may also be illegal. Federal law prohibits providing terrorist organizations with material support, which according to the statute includes “training” and “expert advice.” That seems to describe what HLT has, by Awad’s admission, provided to Hamas and other militant groups.

Why has the National Endowment for Democracy given money provided by American Taxpayers to the Holy Land Trust, an organization whose leader has admitted to and been praised for interacting with – and giving training to – Hamas?

Just what type of oversight has the National Endowment for Democracy exercised over the Holy Land Trust?

And what type of oversight has Congress exercised over the NED?

What is going on here?

Dexter Van Zile is Christian Media Analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).

Longtime U.S. ‘Allies’ Qatar, Kuwait Prime Terror Financiers

al-Thani and Haniyeh

The message the West is delivering is that once you’re an ally, you’re always an ally — even if you help our enemies.

BY RYAN MAURO:

David Cohen, the Treasury Department Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, has stated for the record what no other U.S. official would: Qatar and Kuwait, two supposed “allies” of the U.S., are facilitating Islamist terrorism and extremism.

Last month, Cohen spoke at a think tank and immediately turned to Qatar after discussing Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism.

“Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability. Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria,” he said.

Qatar’s staunch backing of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas hasalienated its Arab neighbors that view them as terrorist organizations. The leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad traveled to Qatar to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Qatar appears to have helped heal the relationship between Iran and Hamas.

In August, 24 members of Congress confronted Qatar over its relationship with Hamas. The Qatari government subsidizes the spread of Islamism around the world, even in downtown Washington D.C.

The Qatari government is also guilty of helping Al Qaeda’s regional affiliates. Cohen pointed out that the Treasury Department sanctioned a terrorist in December named Abd al-Rahman bin Umayr al-Nu’aymi, who raises money in Qatar and channels it to Al Qaeda elements in Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Iraq.

He managed the movement of over $2 million every single month to Al Qaeda in Iraq at one point and delivered the terrorists’ messages to media outlets from 2003-2004. This means that Qatar, a U.S. “ally,” has the blood of American soldiers in Iraq on its hands.

Read more at Clarion Project

Hamas Celebrates AKP Win; Relies on Turkish Support

CAIR’s Jihad against Honor Diaries

20120418_CAIR_FSMby ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

Honor Diaries is an important film that explores the brutality and systematic inequality faced by women in Muslim-majority societies. It features both believing Muslim women, like Dr. Qanta Ahmed (whose compelling essay about the film was published here at National Review Online yesterday), and former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the renowned author and human-rights activist.

The purpose of Honor Diaries is to empower women by shining a light on the hardships they endure – including “honor” killings (i.e., murders over the perception of having brought shame to the family by violating Islamic norms), beatings, genital mutilation, forced marriage – particularly of young girls - and restrictions on movement, education, and economic opportunity. The film highlights authentic Muslim moderates struggling against the dead-end of Islamic supremacism.

So naturally, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) does not want you to see it.

At Fox News, Megyn Kelly has been covering the film anyway, despite CAIR’s howling. The segments that aired on Monday and Tuesday are available on Megyn’s website, here and here.

CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood creation, conceived as the primo American public-relations firm for Islamic supremacists, particularly Hamas – a task CAIR pulls off by masquerading as a “civil rights” organization.

Hamas, as I recounted in The Grand Jihad, is a formally designated terrorist organization under federal law. It is also the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. In the early Nineties, the Brotherhood established a “Palestine Committee” to promote Hamas in the United States, an agenda topped by fundraising and efforts to derail the 1993 Oslo accords – the futile, Clinton administration-brokered attempt to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. CAIR’s founders, Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed, attended a three-day summit in support of Hamas in Philadelphia in 1993, much of which was wiretapped by the FBI. CAIR was established shortly afterwards. By summer 1994, the Palestine Committee was listing CAIR in internal memoranda as one of its “working organizations.”

We’ve discussed CAIR here many times, including in my 2009 column about the FBI’s long-overdue severing of “outreach” ties with the organization. It is infuriating that the Feebs and the wider government thought it was worth canoodling with CAIR in the first place, but the Bureau officially ended the affair after the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted. CAIR, though unindicted, was shown by the Justice Department to be a co-conspirator. In sum, prosecutors established that the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) was the primary Hamas fundraising arm in the United States. Like CAIR, HLF was identified by the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee as one of its “working organizations.” As terrorism researcher Steve Emerson has shown, CAIR got $5,000 in seed money at its inception from HLF, and thereafter helped raise money for HLF. The federal government shut HLF down in 2001 because of its promotion of terrorism.

Although Honor Diaries has been widely acclaimed and screened internationally, CAIR has been agitating against it. As reliably happens when CAIR plays its tired “Islamophobia” card, universities across the nation cower – especially universities with active Muslim Students Association chapters. (As we’ve observed before, the MSA is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States.) Starting with the University of Michigan at Dearborn, several schools have now decided not to screen the film after all.

Why it is “Islamophobic” to condemn violence and abuse against Muslim women is not entirely clear to me. It is, however, clear to Linda Sarsour, a “community organizer” and “immigrants’ rights activist” who is celebrated on President Obama’s website, WhiteHouse.gov, as a “Champion of Change.” As reported on The Kelly File, this particular “champion” reacted to Honor Diaries by tweeting:

How many times do we have to tell White women that we do not need to be saved by them? Is there code language I need to use to get thru?

Thoughts like Ms. Sarsour’s make for depressing reading, but clearly she is referring to some of the filmmakers, who happen to be white women (the others include white men and a black woman, Ms. Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born executive producer who was raised as a Muslim). The film has also been promoted by yet another highly accomplished woman, Brooke Goldstein, the human-rights attorney and filmmaker who directsThe Lawfare Project; and by the Clarion Project, a New York-based organization that promotes moderate Islam and publicly challenges “extremist” Islam.

The community organizers at CAIR have obviously read a bit farther along in Rules for Radicals than Ms. Sarsour. Rather than racist tweets, they couch their character assassination of the film’s backers in the poll-tested sensitivities of everyday Americans, pretending to endorse the film’s message while telling you not to watch it. They issued a statement on Monday that Megyn Kelly aired:

American Muslims join people of conscience of all faiths in condemning female genital mutilation, forced marriages, ‘honor killings,’ and any other form of domestic violence or gender inequality as violations of Islamic beliefs. If anyone mistreats women, they should not seek refuge in Islam. The real concern in this case is that the producers of the film, who have a track record of promoting anti-Muslim bigotry, are hijacking a legitimate issue to push their hate-filled agenda.

Right. Women are being brutalized but our “real concern” should be the “track record” of some film producers. Beyond CAIR’s say-so that it is “hate-filled,” this purportedly dark track record is not described. But, after all, who would know more about what counts as “hate-filled” than a PR flack for a terrorist organization whose charter vows to annihilate Israel by violent jihad?

On Tuesday night, CAIR’s Chicago branch dispatched Agnieszka Karoluk, one of its “senior communications coordinators,” to Fox in order to regurgitate CAIR’s statement. Questioned by Megyn Kelly, Ms. Karoluk gave a dizzying explanation: CAIR, we’re told, agrees that Honor Diaries raises vital issues, opposes the abuse of women just like the film does, and is not really happy that colleges are canceling screenings (even though CAIR put out a smiley-face tweet when the first cancellation was announced). But CAIR is “disgusted” by the Clarion Project because it is - all together now - “Islamophobic.” Ms. Karoluk declined to say what makes it so (of course, to get into that would bring attention to episodes of Islamic extremism Clarion has exposed). So because Clarion likes the film, you shouldn’t watch it even though its content is accurate and significant – got it? Confronted by Brooke Goldstein about CAIR’s own record, Ms. Karoluk predictably replied, “I’m not here to talk about CAIR, I’m here to talk about the film” . . . and then continued to avoid talking about the film.

It is no doubt true, as CAIR’s statement asserts, that American Muslims substantially join the rest of us in condemning the abuse of women. CAIR, however, is in no position to speak for American Muslims – and in fact speaks for very few of them. Even if one were inclined to accept CAIR’s statements at face value, Honor Diaries is about the abuse of Muslim women; it is not about the filmmakers. If CAIR truly condemned these misogynistic practices it would be encouraging people to see the film. Instead, as Dr. Ahmed told Megyn, “They claim to be defending the vulnerable whereas they’re actually silencing exposure about the vulnerable.”

But there is no reason to take CAIR’s statements at face value. Under the old adage that actions speak louder than words, the inescapable fact is that CAIR does not condemn the horrific abuse of women in Muslim-majority countries. It is feigning condemnation in hopes of rendering people more receptive to CAIR’s actual message, which is: Avoid Honor Diaries because anyone who exposes atrocities committed by Muslims is unworthy of consideration, no matter how valid the exposition.

And I can prove it.

CAIR has a very close relationship with another Muslim Brotherhood creation, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) – an Islamic-supremacist think-tank we’ve also discussed in these pages (see, e.g., here). As Steve Emerson points out, disclosure forms IIIT filed with the IRS show thousands of dollars in contributions to CAIR. IIIT was also a major financial backer of Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami al-Arian, whom CAIR continued to champion even after his guilty plea to a terrorism charge.

As I’ve previously recounted, IIIT is one of the influential Islamic academic outfits that have endorsed Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of the classic sharia manual, `Umdat al-Salik. Indeed, the endorsement, written by IIIT’s then-president, Taha Jabir al-`Alwani, is included in the introduction section of the published manual. Dr. Alwani, a revered figure in Muslim Brotherhood circles, highly recommended Reliance as both a “textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English-speakers” and a legal reference for sharia scholars.

Here are just some of the things Reliance teaches about the treatment of women under Islamic law (with supporting citations to sections of the manual):

Read more: Family Security Matters

Hamas Plans New Satellite Channel

Human Rights Attorney appears on Kelly File for second night in a row, Dismantles CAIR Representative

Goldstein: Dismantled CAIR during Fox appearance.

Goldstein: Dismantled CAIR during Fox appearance.

By Walid Shoebat:

Human rights attorney Brooke Goldstein appeared on the Kelly File for the second night in a row, this time, opposite a representative from CAIR-Chicago. During her appearance, Goldstein spoke more truth about who and what CAIR is than has been vocalized on Fox News in a long time, if at all.

One night after Kelly did a segment on the documentary film, ‘Honor Diaries’, and the controversy surrounding it, which now includes CAIR because of the group’s objection to the film, she did a follow-up segment. In it, Kelly told viewers that CAIR demanded a retraction of the previous night’s segment. She looked into the camera and said, ‘Guess what? You’re not getting it’.

In her second appearance on the show in two nights, Goldstein appeared opposite Agnieszka Karoluk, the senior communications coordinator for CAIR-Chicago.

Bizarrely, the position expressed by Karoluk was that the reason CAIR objected to the film had nothing to do with its content, which she didn’t deny was legitimate. Her objection was with the ‘Islamophobic’ group – the Clarion Project – that made the film.

Goldstein explained that CAIR is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Karoluk could say nothing except ‘that’s not true’, which is a lie by itself. Further damning to Karoluk is the CAIR branch she works for in Chicago. Its Executive Director is Ahmed Rehab, who once referred to Imam Jamal Said as a ‘great American faith leader’.

Jamal Said (Far left) and Ahmed Rehab (Far right).

Jamal Said (Far left) and Ahmed Rehab (Far right).

As Shoebat.com has reported in the past, Said, who used to be Walid’s mentor in Chicago, has extensive connections to Hamas and was himself a colleague of Osama bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam.

 

*************

ryan mauro tweet

Hamas Imposes Radical New Law: Lashings, Amputations, and Massive Executions

Extremist Chaplains, Literature Flooding U.S. Prisons

Prison inmate

The high number of former prison inmates involved in Islamic terrorism shows inroads the Saudi ‘Wahhabi machine’ in the U.S.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Virginia-based Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, an extremist mosque attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers with extensive links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, is fundraising for its outreach to inmates. The fundraising pitch quotes an extremist cleric and says the mosque has been working with the Washington, D.C. jail for 10 years.

“For over a decade Dar Al-Hijrah has been supporting the spiritual growth of Muslim inmates in the
DC jail, CTF [Correctional Treatment Facility] and youth offenders,” the announcement states.

The request is specifically for donations to send 100 Qurans to the inmates.

There’s a sign of danger even in the announcement itself. It uses a quote from the Islamist theologian Ibn Taymiyya, “Let my imprisonment be a spiritual retreat.”

Dar al-Hijra dawahThe choice of this particular Islamic cleric gives us insight into the ideology of the mosque’s leadership.

Atta Barkindo, a respected researcher on political Islamwrites, “some scholars suggest there is probably no other Islamic theologian, medieval or otherwise, who has had as much influence on radical political ideology of Islam as Ibn Taymiyya.” This includes the leaders of Al-Qaeda.

In fact, Osama Bin Laden quoted Taymiyya in 2003, pointing to when he said, “to drive off the enemy aggressor who destroys both religion and the world—there is no religious duty more important than this, apart from belief itself. This is an unconditional rule.”

The basis of Taymiyya’s preaching is that sharia must be the form of governance, a premise that “runs contrary to the demands of the fundamental principles of democracy.” He argued that the failure to do this is responsible for the descent of the Muslim world, and it would continue until Muslims overthrew their leaders that did not implement sharia governance.

Much more at Clarion Project

Iran Lashes Out at Canadian Court Decision to Award $7 Million in Seized Assets to Terror Victims

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham. Photo: Screenshot.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham. Photo: Screenshot.

By Joshua Levitt:

Iran lashed out at a decision by a Canadian court to award $7 million in seized Iranian assets to victims of Iran-backed terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah ,according to Canada’sNational Post on Monday.

“Given the approach of the Canadian government, it is crystal clear that the verdict is politically motivated and such rulings have no legal value,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said on Press TV, cited by the National Post.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency claimed the ruling was based on “the fabricated allegation” that Iran supported terrorist groups, while semi-official state broadcaster FARS said Tehran had reminded “the Ottawa government of its international commitment” to protect diplomatic properties, the newspaper reported.

National Post said that following years of deteriorating relations, Canada severed diplomatic ties with Iran in 2012, expelling all of the Islamic Republic’s diplomats. At the same time, the Canadian government designated Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism, ending their state immunity from lawsuits.

The 2012 Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act permitted victims of terror to seek damages from the state sponsors of their attackers, while the government also amended the State Immunity Act to allow the lawsuits.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled last week that Iranian funds in Canadian bank accounts and two properties in Toronto and Ottawa should be seized and split among terror victims. The newspaper said the judgement came after Iran failed to defend itself in court and sheriffs were ordered to take the Iranian assets. The groundbreaking court decision finalized four lawsuits filed in Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia by terror victims seeking damages from Iran for training, arming and financing Hamas, in Gaza, and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, the National Post said.

Only one of the plaintiffs is a Canadian, Vancouver dentist Sherri Wise, who was severely injured by a Hamas suicide bomber, it said. The others are American terror victims who came to Canada to collect on judgments awarded by U.S. courts.

Read more at The Algemeiner