Don’t Blame the Charlie Hebdo Mass Murder on ‘Extremism’

pic_giant_010715_SM_Hebdo-Attack-MainNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy:

There are now at least twelve confirmed dead in the terrorist attack carried out by at least three jihadist gunmen against the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo. While it practices equal-opportunity satire, lampooning Islam has proved lethal for the magazine, just as it has for so many others who dare to exercise the bedrock Western liberty of free expression. Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 over a caricature of Mohammed that depicted him saying, “100 lashes if you don’t die from laughter.”

The cartoon was obviously referring to sharia, Islam’s legal code and totalitarian framework. Don’t take my word for it. Just flip through Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, the authoritative sharia manual. You will find a number of offenses for which flagellation is the prescribed penalty.

To take just a couple of examples, “the penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes,” although the caliph (the Islamic ruler) is authorized to increase this to 80 stripes — although he must pay an indemnity if death results. . . . Pretty moderate, right? (Reliance, p. 617, sec. o16.3.) For adultery “the penalty consists of being scourged one hundred stripes” — and that’s if the adulterer “is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste” (e.g., if she “is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse.” “If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death.” (Reliance, p. 610, sec. o12.2.)

What Charlie Hebdo has satirized is a savage reality. That reality was visited on the magazine again today. As night follows day, progressive governments in Europe and the United States are already straining to pretend that this latest atrocity is the wanton work of “violent extremists,” utterly unrelated to Islam. You are to believe, then, that François Hollande, Barack Obama, David Cameron, and their cohort of non-Muslim Islamophiles are better versed in sharia than the Muslim scholars who’ve dedicated their lives to its study and have endorsed such scholarly works as Reliance.

Let me repeat what I have detailed here before: Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State did not make up sharia law. Islam did. We can keep our heads tucked snug in the sand, or we can recognize the source of the problem.

As I detailed in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the literalist construction of sharia that Islamic supremacists seek to enforce is “literal” precisely because it comes from Islamic scripture, not from some purportedly “extremist” fabrication of Islam. Moreover, this “classical sharia” is enthusiastically endorsedin principle by several of the most influential institutions in the Islamic Middle East, which explains why it is routinely put into practice when Islamists are given — or seize — the opportunity to rule over a territory.

Reliance is not some al-Qaeda or Islamic State pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements, including one from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank begun in the early Eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”). Perhaps more significantly, there is also an endorsement from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West.

In their endorsement, the al-Azhar scholars wrote:

We certify that the . . . translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community. . . . There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. . . . May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.

There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.

Charlie Hebdo, of course, is in the business of cartoon caricature for satirical purposes. That is a time-honored method of expression, political and otherwise, in the West. That is in stark contrast to how such expression is viewed by Islam. Here, as I summarized in my book Spring Fever – quoted verbatim and supported by citations — is what Reliance has to say about such visual art forms:

It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)

Nor is visual depiction alone in drawing sharia’s wrath. “Musical instruments of all types are unlawful.” As Reliance elaborates, singing is generally prohibited (for “song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage”), and “on the Day of Resurrection Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” There is an exception, though: If unaccompanied by musical instruments, song and poetry drawn from Islamic scripture and encouraging obedience to Allah are permissible. Ironically, although music is generally forbidden, dancing is permissible “unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate.” (Reliance r40.0 &ff.)

Understand, the prohibitions just described apply to artistic expression in general; Islam need not be lampooned for caricatures to run afoul of sharia. With that hostile predisposition in mind, let’s now consider Islam’s draconian treatment of expression that renounces Islam, belittles it or, in the slightest way, casts it in an unfavorable light:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

It is worth pausing to mull these latter prohibitions against denying or reviling any aspect of Islam, Allah, or the prophet. The call to kill apostates for such offensesobviously applies with equal or greater force to non-Muslims, who are pervasively treated far worse than Muslims are by sharia. See, for example, the infamous verse 29 from Sura 9, the Koran’s most bellicose chapter:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the poll tax imposed on non-believers for the privilege of living in the Islamic state] and feel themselves subdued.

While insipid Western leaders cannot admonish us often enough that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” the French satirical magazine has offered a different take — one rooted in the cherished Western belief that examination in the light of day, rather than willful blindness, is the path to real understanding. In that tradition, a few other choice aspects of sharia, detailed by Muslim scholars in Reliance, are worth reviewing:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity”); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster. . . . They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1–17.)

As commanded in the aforementioned Sura 9:29, non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliance p50.0 & ff; p74.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may marry only a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. — Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliance p42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2–3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Reliance o14.0.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliance p7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Reliance o24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet . . . said, ‘Men are already destroyed when they obey women.’” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not “violent extremist” doctrine. This is Islamic doctrine — sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. Millions of Muslims, particularly in the West, do not abide by it and are working heroically — and at great risk to themselves — to marginalize or supersede it. Of course we should admire and help them. That, however, is not a reason to pretend that this doctrine does not exist. It is, furthermore, suicidal to ignore the fact that, because this doctrine is rooted in scripture and endorsed by influential scholars, some Muslims are going to act on it, and many millions more will support them.

This anti-liberty, supremacist, repulsively discriminatory, and sadly mainstream interpretation of Islam must be acknowledged and confronted. In its way, that is what Charlie Hebdo had been attempting to do — while, to their lasting shame, governments in the United States and Europe have been working with Islamist statesto promote sharia blasphemy standards. That needs to end. The future must not belong to those who brutalize free expression in the name of Islam.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Largest U.S. Muslim Org.: Courted by Gov’t, Dominated by Isalmists

siddiqui2

ISNA shouldn’t be judged by its pleasant media interviews. Its documented history is where the truth can be found.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) always denies its Brotherhood connections and says it is “moderate.” Some ISNA officials downplay its origins, insisting that it has charted its own course independent of the Brotherhood. ISNA’s Fiqh Council, its body of scholars, says otherwise.

In 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported that ISNA officials say “Brotherhood members helped form those groups but that their overall influence has been limited.” When ISNA is unable to escape the facts, it downplays them.

The same Islamists that birthed ISNA as a Muslim Brotherhood front lead the organization. A 2009 Hudson Institute study concluded, “All but one of the individuals listed on the ISNA founding documents remain active either in ISNA or one of its affiliated organizations.” The Brotherhood lobby members “continue to exist in their original form.”

To understand ISNA, you must understand that its Islamist orientation requires it to adhere to sharia, or Islamic law. Another word interchangeable with sharia is fiqh. The website, OnIslam.netexplains that “fiqh is our understanding and knowledge of Allah‘s Shari`ah.”

When making decisions, ISNA and other groups look to authoritative scholars of fiqh or sharia. It is these scholars that stand behind the moderate “faces” of ISNA like President Mohamed Magid. If you want to know the true nature of ISNA, you must look at its Fiqh Council of North America.

Of the 17 Fiqh Council officials, 14 have strong Islamist records. That is all but one member of the Executive Council and all but two of the Council members. The remaining members are not necessarily moderate. In fact, their inclusion should be considered a strike against their credentials as “moderates.”

The Executive Council has seven officials. The one without an obviously Islamist track record is Vice Chairman Dr. Zainab Alwani. However, she still has been published by the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Association of Muslim Social Scientists, two U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities.

Read more at Clarion Project

Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar to Dominate Downtown D.C.

DC city centerBy Ryan Mauro:

An organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Qatari government is making a $1 billion real estate investment in the hope that the complex will “become the unequivocal centerpiece of Downtown D.C.” Among its features is a Qatari cultural center named Al-Bayt, or “Home.”

The 10-acre project, named CityCenterDC, is an initiative of Qatar Foundation International. According to its website, it is a “U.S.-based member of Qatar Foundation” in Doha. It is also its main financier.

In 2008, the chairperson of the Qatar Foundation and the Qatari Emir established the Al-Qaradawi Research Center. Qaradawi is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and vocal supporter of its Palestinian wing, Hamas. He advocates the doctrine of “gradualism;”an incremental and practical strategy to stealthily advance the sharia agenda around the world.

The Research Center’s stated objective is promoting the ideology of Qaradawi, who it describes as a “pioneer of Islamic thought and presently its main theorist.”  He teaches his followers to wage “jihadwith money.”

The Qatar Foundation is also connected to the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. Dr. Jasser Auda, the Deputy Director of the Qatar Foundation’s Center for Islamic Legislation, also teaches for IIIT.

Former U.S. Treasury Department terrorism-financing analyst Jonathan Schanzer explains, “Qatar is the ATM of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and its associated groups.” Qatar has drawn the ire of moderate Muslims for its generous subsidizing of Islamists.

Read more at Clarion Project

The Brotherhood on Campus: Your Tax Dollars at Work

va-shenandoah-450x337Front Page, By :

The National Endowment for the Humanities says it “strengthens our republic by promoting excellence in the humanities.” Apparently, the federal agency believes that funding student outreach by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, fits this description.

On October 24, IIIT held an outreach event at Shenandoah University in Winchester, VA with the school’s Muslim Students Association, another group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The IIIT summary states that the program “is offered in cooperation with the National Endowment for the Humanities” and the event is supported by Student Life’s Intercultural Programs, the College of Arts and Sciences and the Alson H. Smith Jr. Library.

The FBI had informants inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network that warned about IIIT’s plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States” as far back as 1988. A declassified FBI document shows that a spy recalled the leadership “stated that the Muslims in the United States have to be prepared for martyrdom.”

The spy said that IIIT was currently focused on “peacefully get[ting] inside the United States government and also American universities.” Therefore, in this case, IIIT is using a taxpayer-funded federal agency to pursue the objective it has pursued for decades.

1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo, later seized by the authorities, substantiated the FBI informant’s reporting. The secret document listed IIIT as one of the Brotherhood’s secret fronts as part of its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

Skeptics will point out that 1988 and 1991 were a long time ago, but 2002 isn’t. That’s the year when IIIT’s offices were raided as part of a terrorism-financing investigation. The probe continued until at least 2007 when the U.S. government was pressuring Sami al-Arian, a convicted terrorist, to testify about his strong links to IIIT.

In 1992, the President of IIIT wrote a letter to Sami al-Arian that said, “For us, we deem all of your institutions our own…” The letter discussed IIIT’s financial support of al-Arian’s group.

As recently as 2011, an IIIT official in London was writing articles characterizing the U.S. government and military as terrorists. He accused the U.S. of “killing literally millions of people and setting a dozen of countries on fire” since 2001. That IIIT official, Dr. Jasser Auda, also has links to Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the terrorism-supporting spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The IIIT website proudly hosts a photo of two of its leaders meeting with then-President Morsi on September 27, 2012 in New York. At that time, Morsi was moving the Brotherhood’s Sharia agenda in Egypt full speed ahead. And, according to the caption beneath the photo, he “welcomed the participation of IIIT in the rerform [sic] of higher education in Egypt.”

To sum it up: The same organization that the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to “reform” education in Egypt is now educating American students with the help of a taxpayer-supported federal agency.

Despite IIIT’s record, it has relationships with American schools around the country. Politicians and professors attend IIIT Iftar dinners and some teachers took part in a recent IIIT summer education program for selected students. One even teaches at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Shenandoah University is just a case study in what IIIT is accomplishing. Dr. Calvin Allen, Dean of its College of Arts and Sciences, signed a Memorandum of Agreement with IIIT so the Brotherhood front could “designate an instructor to co-teach with Dr. Allen a course on Islamic civilization.”

Allen signed the agreement with Jamal Barzinji, IIIT’s Vice President and one of the founding fathers of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network. In 2003, the authorities searched Barzinji’s residence because he “is not only closely associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]…but also with Hamas.” Allen also spoke at a IIIT fundraiser on August 24, 2011.

IIIT is just one Islamist group that is building relationships with academia. The Alavi Foundation in New York is a front for the Iranian regime and it has donated to 30 schools in the U.S. and Canada. In addition, it financed over 60 Islamic sites in America and many other non-profit organizations. The Blaze is the only television program to cover the Alavi Foundation’s donations (watch my segment here).

Readers are encouraged to send this article and the Clarion Project’s full profile of IIIT to Shenandoah University. The listed contact for the event is Dean Cal Allen (callen@su.edu). The school can also be contacted at shenuniv@su.edu and 540-665-4500.

The National Endowment for the Humanities can be contacted at info@neh.gov and 202-606-8400. You can also write the agency at 1100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, D.C., 20506.

Every cent given to a Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization is a cent wasted. American taxpayers need to make their voices heard.

 

US National Endowment for the Humanities Supporting US Muslim Brotherhood Organization

By :

The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) has announced that it was scheduled to hold an outreach program at Shenandoah University in Virginia. According to the IIIT announcement, the program was to be held in cooperation with the National Endowment for the Humanities, an arm of the US government:

International Institute of Islamic Thought

International Institute of Islamic Thought

Thursday, October 24, 2013 The International Institute of Islamic Thought and The Fairfax Institute will conduct an outreach program at Shenandoah University on Thursday October 24, 2013. The program -which starts from 2 to 5 p.m. in the Brandt Student Center (703 University Dr., Winchester, VA, 22601)- includes an information booth featuring Abbas Baghdadi, an Arabic calligrapher and book exhibit in the main lobby. Dr. Daoud Nassimi, who will teach ‘Introduction to Islam’ during the spring 2014 semester, will introduce a documentary film, ‘The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain,’ at 2 p.m. in the BSC, Room 118. This program is offered in cooperation with the National Endowment for the Humanities and presented by Shenandoah’s Muslim Student Association, Student Life’s Intercultural Programs, the College of Arts & Sciences and the Alson H. Smith Jr. Library. The program is open to the university and Winchester communities.

In 2007, IIIT entered into a partnership with Shenandoah University described as follows:

IIIT vice president Dr. Jamal Bazrinji and dean of Shenandoah University’s College of Arts and Sciences Dr. Calvin Allen, Jr. signed a Memorandum of Agreement on June 13 to initiate and promote academic cooperation between the two institutions. The signing took place at IIIT’s office in Herndon, Virginia. The agreement calls for cooperation in “course development, educational programs, and research with a goal of promoting an understanding of Islam and Muslims in America, and Islamic civilization and culture, “based on “the principles of equality and reciprocal benefit.” Also agreed upon was the first cooperative venture under this agreement. IIIT’s instructional division, The Fairfax Institute, will designate an instructor to co-teach with Dr. Allen a course on Islamic civilization. Shenandoah University is a growing liberal Arts academic institution aiming at extending its program beyond its campus and establishing partnerships to do so. Through its research affiliates in the U.S. and in many parts of the world, IIIT will contribute to the University’s efforts to build relationships and programs in line with its objective to train “global citizens”. These could include study abroad programs as well as additional courses on Shenandoah’s campuses in Winchester and Leesburg as well as on The Fairfax Institute’s campus in Herndon.

In August 2011, the Shenandoah Dean of Arts and Sciences spoke at an IIIT Iftar event that also included Governor John Sununu, former Chief of Staff at the White House for President George Bush, Sr.

The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) describes itself as “a private, non-profit, academic, cultural and educational institution, concerned with general issues of Islamic thought and education” and using the slogan “Towards Islamization of Knowledge and Reform of Islamic Thought.”  The concept for IIIT was developed at a meeting held in Lugano, Switzerland that was attended by many luminaries of the Global Muslim Brotherhood including Youssef Qaradawi. IIIIT was founded in the U.S. in 1980 by U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders including Iraqi-born Jamal Barzinji and Hisham Altalib who wished to promote the Islamization of Knowledge as conceived by Ismail Al-Faruqi and who were also early leaders of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). A1991 internal document of the US Muslim Brotherhood, introduced as evidence in the holy Land Foundation trial, included IIIT in “a list of our organizations and organizations of our friends.” IIIT was associated with the now defunct SAAR Foundation, a network of Islamic organizations located in Northern Virginia that was raided by the Federal government in March 2002 in connection with the financing of terrorism and both organizations had been under investigation at that time by the U.S. Justice Department until at least mid 2007. The organization appeared to have withdrawn from public view following the 2002 raids but seems to be enjoying a renaissance of late. The IIIT Council of Scholars includes a number of important individuals from the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood such as Ingrid Mattson, the former President of ISNA. IIIT has a network of affiliates located in Europe, Africa, the MIddle East, and Asia and is heavily involved with publishing and promoting publications by Global Muslim Brotherhood leaders including Youssef Qaradawi who, according to one source, serves as an IIIT trustee.

Read more

US Naval Academy Instructor Now Serving As Research Director For US Muslim Brotherhood Organization

By :

Promotional material issued by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) indicates that US Naval Academy instructor Ermin Sinanovic is now serving as the IIIT Research Director. According to an IIIT announcement:

Ermin Sinanovic  at IIIT

Ermin Sinanovic at IIIT (2nd from right)

September 12, 2013 The 2nd MACCPAC – TFI Youth Leadership Program was held at the IIIT headquarters during the week of August 12-16, 2013. MACCPAC’s mission is to promote mutual understanding and engagement in national security, human rights, justice, peace and democracy in the public squares all across the United States, and in other Muslim countries around the world. The purpose of the Youth Leadership Program is to create opportunities for Muslim American college and high school senior students interested in civic engagement and quality career development to meet Muslims who are leaders in those fields. Students represented colleges from Yale to George Mason, as well as metro area high schools.

The program began with orientation session that was led by Aktar Hossain, MACCPAC National Director; Dr. Sulayman Nyang; Dr. Ermin Sinanovic, Research Director for IIIT; and Abrar Omeish, MACCPAC Fellow.

Students heard from many speakers on a broad range of topics. These sessions included:  ‘Responsibility of Muslim Youth in America,’ ‘Political Education in America,’ ‘Information about the Media,’ ‘College education and career development,’ and many others.

As the week went on, student feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Nouran Ghanem, an aspiring doctor, said she walked away with a firm belief on the values of mentorship, ‘If I can reach an exceptional level in my career, then it’s my obligation to help those younger than me, and especially young Muslims just as this program has done for me’.

The program also included visits to local Muslim communities at Dar al-Hijrah, ADAMS, as well as a day trip to Washington, DC, and visits to Capitol Hill, the State Department, and the White House. The program successfully concluded on August 16 with a graduation ceremony which included a graduation speech by Dr. Yaqub Mirza, and certificates award to participating students.

Both Aktar Hossein and Sulayman Nyang are both close to the US Muslim Brotherhood and Abrar Omeish is the daughter of Esam Omeish, a former leader of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a US Muslim Brotherhood organization close to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In 2007, he resigned from the Virginia State Commission on Immigration following the pubic release of videos showing him condemning Israel and advocating “the jihad way.” In October 2012, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton presented Abrar Omeish with a Girl Scout “100th Anniversary” pin during the State Department’s observance of the first International Day of the Girl Child.

According to his IIIT bio, Ermin Sinanovic is:

…an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, USA. He studied for an MA and a PhD in Political Science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. Prof. Sinanovic obtained two BAs (one in Qur’an and Sunnah Studies, the other in Political Science) and an MA (Islamic Civilization) from the International Islamic University Malaysia. His research interests include transnational Islamic revival, Southeast Asian politics, Islamic movements, Middle East politics, Islamic political thought, and Islam and politics in general. At the Naval Academy, Prof. Sinanovic teaches courses on Southeast Asian politics, Middle East politics, and Islam and politics. He speaks Bosnian, English, Arabic, and Malay. “

Dr. Sinanovic is also one of the founding members of the Bosniak Academy of Sciences and Arts, closely associated with Mustafa Ceric, the former Grand Mufti of Bosnia and an associate of  Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi. In September 2008, IIIT met with Dr. Ceric to discuss a proposal to a new University in Bosnia with IIIT acting as a consultant.

Dr.  Sinanovic has also been featured at other IIIT events and as reported by the GMBDW in May, the  IIITannounced that he would be teaching at a summer school from 24 August – 7 September 2013 in Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina.  A flyer about the program indicated that the major speaker at the IIIT Bosnian summer school would be Global Muslim Brotherhood figure Tariq Ramadan. Our report also noted that one of the other instructors at the IIIT summer program would be US Muslim Brotherhood leader Louay Safi who was the subject of a pending criminal inquiry following the shooting at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas on November 5, 2009 in the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base. The inquiry followed revelations  that the US Defense Department had brought Dr. Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor and that he had been lecturing on Islam to troops in Fort Hood who were about to deploy to Afghanistan. Another instructor at the summer program was to be Jasser Aouda (aka Jasser Auda), a member of the IIIT Academic Council and a close associate of Youssef Qaradawi as well as Tariq Ramadan.

Read more

 

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

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

Juicy Ecumenism:

The Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series

DEBATING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA

An Interview with DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary

Ryan Mauro,  The Clarion Project

Made possible through the Institute for Religion & Democracy

Part IV: “Islamophobia”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part I: The Holy Land Foundation

Part II: Elibiary & the Muslim Brotherhood

Part III: Elibiary’s Relationship with American Islamists

Part IV: “Islamophobia”

Part V: US Policy (To be published tomorrow)

CAIR’s Court Jew

Jacob_BenderBy Joe Kaufman:

For the past decade or so, a strange phenomenon has taken place whereby a small group of extreme leftist Jews have willingly aligned themselves with Islamists, mainly out of a common animosity towards the foreign policies of America, Israel and other Western Capitalist societies. These Jews generally function as political pawns and stooges acting against their own best interests, but none of them have gone on to head the Islamist organizations they have teamed with. That is, until now.

On October 15th, the Philadelphia office of the radical Muslim group CAIR put out a press release announcing that it had hired Jacob Bender, a left-wing Jewish activist and filmmaker, as its new Executive Director.

Hiring Bender was a public relations win for CAIR. For Bender, he joins a group that, in his estimation, appears to be like-minded, especially on the issue of Israel.

CAIR or the Council on American-Islamic Relations was founded in June 1994 as a part of an umbrella organization led by then-global leader of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. In 2007 and 2008, CAIR was named a co-conspirator by the U.S. Justice Department for two federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. The three original founders of CAIR, one of which is still the national Executive Director, were coming from the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), the then-American propaganda wing of Hamas. CAIR had used its website to raise funds for the then-American financing arm of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).

Jacob Bender, for his part, has spent a good portion of his life denouncing the Jewish state. He blames all problems regarding Palestinians on Israel. In one letter to a newspaper, he writes, “The vast settlement project… is only the most visible manifestation of Israel’s four-decade long rule over Palestinian territory, an occupation that has included torture, political assassination, home demolitions and economic strangulation.”

And what does Bender think about “the growth of terrorism and Islamist extremism” from Israel’s enemies? He blames that on Israel, as well. He writes, in another letter, that they are “a direct result of its oppression of the Palestinians.”

One thing he does acknowledge, though, is that there is widespread “antipathy” for Jews throughout the Muslim world. He quotes a Pew survey reporting on its findings and saying as such. But that does not give him pause from his blame-Jew-first mentality.

Indeed, the organization he now joins, along with a number of its representatives, has long been associated with anti-Semitism. Even today, CAIR continues to propagate hatred against Jews. On its ‘Explore the Quran’ website, the group features versions of the Quran that spread the worst of bigotry. In English, the site labels Muslims, who take Jews or Christians as allies, “evildoers.” It refers to Jews as “men who will listen to any lie.” Of Jews and Christians, the site states, “Allah’s curse be on them.”

Previously, CAIR had distributed to libraries across America an English language Quran that had been banned by the Los Angeles public school system for containing numerous anti-Jewish commentaries. The initiative had been funded by Alwaleed bin Talal, a wealthy Saudi who, in April 2002, donated $27 million to a telethon raising money for Palestinian suicide bombers.

Jacob Bender, himself, is no stranger to bin Talal. The Alwaleed bin Talal Foundation was the top donor to Bender’s anti-Israel “documentary” film, ‘Out of Cordoba.’

Another large donor of the film was the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). In March 2002, IIIT had its Virginia offices raided by the FBI in a probe that targeted over a dozen businesses accused of financing terrorism. One of the groups IIIT was said to have financed was the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), a now-defunct Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) front run by PIJ leader Sami al-Arian. The raids led to the convictions of two individuals.

Read more at Front Page

U.S. Professors Participate in Brotherhood-Linked Program

khan

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

BY RYAN MAURO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at The Clarion Project

CAIR Honors Islamist for ‘Lifetime Achievement’

ssBY RYAN MAURO:

The rest of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network is admiring the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for its success in forging interfaith partnerships. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has announced that its 19th annual banquet will honor the Islamist that has become the face of that success: Sayyid Syeed of ISNA.

CAIR blasted out an email announcing Syeed as the winner of the 2013 Lifetime Achievement Award. The biography provided by CAIR in the email shows how Syeed has dedicated his life to the Islamist cause, moving from one U.S. Brotherhood entity to the next.

Today, he is the Director of ISNA’s Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances. Prior to that, he served for 12 years as the Secretary-General of ISNA. In 2006, he was videotapedsaying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

In his capacity as ISNA’s main interfaith liaison, Syeed has established relationships with a long list of churches, synagogues, other faith groups and the Obama Administration. President Obama sent a videotaped address to ISNA for its 50th annual convention, singling out its interfaith campaign for praise.

ISNA is part of two major interfaith coalitions, Shoulder-to-Shoulder and Religions for Peace USA.  ISNA and its allies fight together against the NYPDhold events with mega-churches, and support each other politically.

ISNA chose Syeed for this role because is one of their most seasoned officials.

He was president of the Muslim Students Association from 1980 to 1983, the first Muslim Brotherhood front set up in the U.S. He has also been the general secretary of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. From 1984 to 1994, he was the director the director of academic outreach for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

In 1988, right in the middle of Syeed’s tenure at IIIT, an FBI informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network said that IIIT’s leaders had a six-phase plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The current task was to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.”

Read more at The Clarion Project

CAIR Honors Leading Interfaith Islamist

1002260-295331-1-450x309By :

The rest of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network is admiring the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for its success in forging interfaith partnerships. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has announced that its 19th annual banquet will honor the Islamist that has become the face of that success: Sayyid Syeed of ISNA.

CAIR blasted out an email announcing Syeed as the winner of the 2013 Lifetime Achievement Award. The biography provided by CAIR in the email shows how Syeed has dedicated his life to the Islamist cause, moving from one U.S. Brotherhood entity to the next.

Today, he is the Director of ISNA’s Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances. Prior to that, he served for 12 years as the Secretary-General of ISNA. In 2006, he was videotaped saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

In his capacity as ISNA’s main interfaith liaison, Syeed has established relationships with a long list of churches, synagogues, other faith groups and the Obama Administration. President Obama sent a videotaped address to ISNA for its 50th annual convention, singling out its interfaith campaign for praise.

ISNA is part of two major interfaith coalitions, Shoulder-to-Shoulder and Religions for Peace USA.  ISNA and its allies fight together against the NYPDhold events with mega-churches, and support each other politically.

ISNA chose Syeed for this role because is one of their most seasoned officials.

He was president of the Muslim Students Association from 1980 to 1983, the first Muslim Brotherhood front set up in the U.S. He has also been the general secretary of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. From 1984 to 1994, he was the director the director of academic outreach for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

In 1988, right in the middle of Syeed’s tenure at IIIT, an FBI informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network said that IIIT’s leaders had a six-phase plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The current task was to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.”

As IIIT’s director of academic outreach, Syeed was the point man in achieving that objective. He then went on to lead ISNA from 1994 to 2006. Brotherhood documents identify all four groups he led as its fronts.

His wife also co-founded the Kashmiri-American Council, a Pakistani government front, in 1990. She did this with a now-convicted agent of Pakistani intelligence named Ghulam Nabi Fai. He oversaw massive Pakistani influence operations in the U.S.

The other speakers at CAIR’s “Faith in Freedom” 14th annual banquet are Ebrahim Rasool, Ambassador of South Africa and, revealingly, Imam Siraj Wahhaj.

In 2011, Wahhaj offered the following advice to a large Muslim audience, as reported by the Clarion Project: “The trap we fall into is having a premature discussion about Sharia when we are not there yet.”

Wahhaj should follow his own advice, as it is his words that are among the most damning evidence.

Read more at Front Page

 

Obama Addresses American Islamist Convention

obama isnaBY RYAN MAURO:

President Obama addressed the 50th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America via videotape, praising the U.S.Muslim Brotherhood entity for its partnership with his administration. A Clarion Project report showed that the convention’s roster of speakers includes many extremists.

“Over the last half-century, you’ve upheld the proud legacy of American-Muslims’ contributions to our national fabric and this gathering is a testament to that tradition,” Obama says to ISNA.

The gathering is anything but a testament to American tradition. The speaker with the most sessions (eight), Zaid Shakir, preached earlier this year that the U.S. Constitution is flawed because it grants equality to Muslims and non-Muslims.

Siraj Wahhaj, who is teaching five sessions, has a history of anti-American preaching and now advises Muslims to avoid discussion ofSharia because “we are not there yet.”

ISNA’s 50-year history is nothing to be exalted. In 1991, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo placed ISNA at the top of a secret list of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The document said the organization’s “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”

In 2007, federal prosecutors named ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity housed within ISNA. The U.S. government identified ISNA as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The designation was upheld in 2009 due to “ample” evidence linking ISNA to Hamas.

An FBI informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network identified ISNA as a Brotherhood front as early as 1987. The source was documented as being “convinced” that the Brotherhood fronts have “a secret agenda which includes the spread of the Islamic Revolution to all non-Islamic governments in the world which does include the United States.”

President Obama complimented ISNA’s engagement of non-Muslims:

“I’m especially grateful to the work that ISNA has done to advance interfaith understanding and cooperation here at home and around the world,” Obama said.

ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances is led by Sayyid Syeed, previously the Secretary-General of ISNA. In 2006, he was recorded saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

Syeed was also the Director of Academic Outreach for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, from 1984 to 1994.

The aforementioned FBI source specifically warned in 1988 that IIIT’s leadership talked about a six-phase plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The current objective was to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.”

Syeed, whose interfaith work is praised by President Obama, was one of IIIT’s leaders at the time that warning was written.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

 

How Close Is the U.S. to the Muslim Brotherhood?

r (1)By :

There is no question that the US and the Muslim Brotherhood have been engaged in a dialogue during the course of the so-called Arab Spring, in regards to the form and structure of government in Egypt and perhaps in the Middle East as a whole. But the real question, which is frequently asked, is what kind of a role did the US exactly play in the Muslim Brotherhood’s arrival to power in Egypt? Is the US actually working alongside the Muslim Brotherhood to shape the future of the Middle East?

As we tackle this thorny topic, we will have to examine two theories or interpretations of events; the first claims that everything that happened, and will happen, is the outcome of a US plan, years in the making, and designed to hand the region over to Islamists for disruptive purposes. It claims that the Arab Spring uprisings are scenarios planned meticulously by Intelligence bodies in Washington. This assumption is a typical conspiracy theory taken to an extreme, where the world is supposedly a malleable putty that the US is shaping at its will. Though there may be some truth to this assumption, it is extremely exaggerated, and is far removed from reality. The second theory, which I have heard repeatedly from D.C. politicians, claims that the US did not support the Muslim Brotherhood, but rather coped with the new reality in the Middle East to protect its interests. This theory is not realistic either, as it assumes that the US, which is a major Power, is content to sit meekly and watch from the sidelines as events unfold.

However, there is a third hypothesis that falls in the middle between these two unlikely theories, and which offers a sensible interpretation of concrete evidence and facts, some of which are known to the public.

First, it must be said that the US is not unacquainted with the Muslim Brotherhood, since the movement has had US-based activities, organizations and financial investments for more than five decades, particularly through its relationship with and presence in Saudi Arabia, which became its refuge after it fled from Egypt during Nasser’s rule. The Muslim Brotherhood sought to establish its presence in the American continent, starting with “The Muslim Students’ Association,” which was a small organization established in 1963. Later, they went on to establish bigger organizations such as the North American Islamic Trust in 1971; the International Institute of Islamic Thought in 1980; the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood in America in 1980; the Islamic Society of North America in 1981; the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1981, which in turn established the Occupied Land Fund that later became the Holy Land Foundation; the American Islamic Council in 1990, and the American Islamic Society in1992. Furthermore, the international Muslim Brotherhood movement held its meetings several times in the US, specifically in the years 1977, 1978 and 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood had well known leaders in the US, such as Zaid Noman, Ahmed El Kady, Mohammed Ikram Elwani, as well as senior investors such as Youssef Nada.

Looking back, we can see that the starting point for the attempts to contain Islamist movements around the world, including the Muslim Brotherhood, was right after the events of September 11. As the first shot was fired in Afghanistan, the US began also to formulate a plan to deal with the Islamist dilemma from a political angle. An endless war was not a viable solution, and a political alternative was required in order to control the emerging phenomenon. The Bush Administration primarily thought that the lack of democratic political participation was behind the phenomenon of international terrorism, believing that these individuals were hunted in their countries, and after being forced to flee, they had directed their excessive hatred and violence at the Western World. The solution seemed clear enough then: to find a way to redirect and assimilate that excessive energy through a local political process that would both embrace and contain said individuals. Bush chose Iraq as a starting point for the democratization of the region and the creation of a new Middle East, where he had expected democracy to spread in a domino-like effect.

However, democracy failed in Iraq. On one side, it was thwarted by the unleashed sectarian strife monster, and on the other it met with stubborn and unanimous resistance from neighbouring countries, including Iran, which worked together to defeat Bush’s plan and stop the tide of American democracy from reaching its shores.

This plan’s failure was promptly followed by a hunt for a second alternative, and the idea to assimilate Islamists into their own countries through an Islamist rule of the region was born. In 2005, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, then the Secretary of State, made a speech in Cairo which suggested that the US did not mind if Islamists assumed power. This notion soon gained popularity, and dozens of seminars, conferences and meetings that took place in Washington, London, Madrid and Brussels started to promote in earnest the participation of Islamists in government. Many of these gatherings were funded through Qatar, with evident “green light” from the US. With the support of Qatari funds, Al-Jazeera Channel started to back the Islamist project, i.e., an Islamist rule via elections, until the Channel became the official media platform of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic movements in the region. The role played by both Qatar and Al-Jazeera expanded throughout the Arab Spring uprisings, seeking to speed up a “brotherhoodization” process that would reshape the entire region to reflect Muslim Brotherhood beliefs and practices. Later, they worked to engage the US in extensive dialogues about government requirements and structure, the conditions of Western cooperation, and particularly US-Muslim Brotherhood cooperation.

Since the collapse of Mubarak’s regime, Washington and Cairo had maintained contact as attested by frequent Washington-Cairo trips and intense phone consultations between the White House and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance office in Al-Mokattam. It had reached a point where the almost nonstop contact became the subject of a widespread political joke among foreign diplomats in Egypt, who said that you can measure the time that passes between President Mursi issuing a decision and reversing it by the time difference existing between the Office of Guidance and the White House–the joke clearly speaks for itself.

In the beginning, the US terms were as follows: 1) to take into consideration American interests in the region; 2) to stay away from Iran; 3) to maintain the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty; 4) to resort to the ballots in political issues; 5) to take into consideration the rights of women and minorities. The Muslim Brotherhood agreed to all conditions, even if it was merely a form of dissimulation.

Read more at Front Page

 

Professors, Politicians Join IIT for Iftar Dinner

IIIT-FBIDocumentHPBY RYAN MAURO:

Nothing has changed since the Clarion Project’s report on the partnerships between U.S. universities and a Muslim Brotherhood entity. On July 17, over 100 people including elected officials and professors attended an Iftar dinner at the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Herndon, Virginia.

The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) was identified by FBI sources as a Muslim Brotherhood front as early as 1988. One source inside the Brotherhood network in America said the IIIT leadership talked about a six-phase plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States,” beginning with influencing the U.S. government and universities.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood mentioned IIIT as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends” in a 1991 secret memo about its goal of a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” IIIT’s offices were raided by the FBI in 2002 as part of a terrorism-financing investigation.

The Iftar dinner began with remarks from Jamal Barzinji, IIIT Vice President and one of the group’s founders.

declassified FBI memo from 1988 states that Barzinji is one of those “previously characterized as … members and leaders of the IKHWAN[Muslim Brotherhood].” His home was raided in 2003 because, according to the affidavit of U.S. Customs Service Special Agent David Kane, he “is not only closely associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]… but also with Hamas.” The Justice Department reportedly cancelled a planned indictment of Barzinji in 2011.

Read more at The Clarion Project

See also:

Obama Justice Department Saves Brotherhood Fronts (frontpagemag.com)

Iran’s Secret ‘Interfaith’ Outreach in America

alaviBy :

The Clarion Project recently exposed how an Iranian regime front based in New York donated to over 30 colleges and over 60 Islamic centers and organizations in North America. Like Sunni Islamists, the Shiite Iranian regime also finds interfaith engagement to be a worthwhile investment.

The data was found by combing the website and published financial reports of the Alavi Foundation, an alleged Iranian regime front. The Foundation’s offices were searched after evidence surfaced that it was sending money to a bank that is sanctioned by the U.S. because of its role in Iran’s nuclear program. U.S. government investigator said “the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation.”

One of the Alavi Foundation’s primary functions is to influence public opinion. U.S. officials said that it “promotes Tehran’s views on world affairs” and a prominent Iranian in California bluntly accuses it of being part of the regime’s “propaganda machine.” This should put the foundation’s donations in new light, especially when the money went to major power players like the William J. Clinton Foundation, which received $30,000 in 2005.

The Alavi Foundation is not a small operation. Its 2010 financial report states that the market value of all its assets was almost $125 million. To this day, the Alavi Foundation is accepting applications for grants from its “interfaith dialogue and religious pluralism” initiative. The page states that the organization has funded interfaith conferences at the Temple of Understanding in New York, Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia and Hartford Seminary in Connecticut.

The Alavi Foundation’s financial reports and website disclose that it donated heavily to the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C., making contributions of $45,000 in 2007; $60,000 in 2006; and $75,000 in 2005 and 2004.

The Roman Catholic Sacred Heart University in Connecticut received $5,000 in 2008; $39,000 in 2007; $60,000 in 2006; $10,000 in 2005 and $3,000 in 2004.

Hartford Seminary, a theological college, was awarded $35,000 in September 2012; $47,000 in August 2011 and $17,500 in 2008. The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, also has a close relationship with Hartford University and donated over $1 million to endow a chair in Islamic Chaplaincy.

Eastern Mennonite University received $20,000 from the Alavi Foundation in 2010. The IIIT has also partnered with this Christian school. In August 2011, the director of the University’s Center for Interfaith Engagement attended an IIIT fundraiser.

The Iranian regime front also donated $5,000 to the Interfaith Center of Greater Philadelphia in 2009. Last month, we exposed how two colleagues of radical imam Siraj Wahhaj have had official positions in the Center. Wahhaj has restrained his rhetoric a bit since 9/11 out of necessity. In 2011, he advised Muslims not to discuss Sharia Law because “we aren’t there yet.”

Read more at Front Page