FIU Names Radical Muslim to New Post

sd-450x311Frontpage, by Joe Kaufman, May 6, 2015:

‘FIU names Saif Ishoof VP for Engagement.’ This was the headline of a press release sent out by Florida International University (FIU) in March. Does the Miami, Florida-based school know that the individual it appointed to this position is a radical Muslim involved in extremist causes and institutions?

According to the website of FIU’s Office of Engagement, “The office provides leadership for the development and coordination of partnerships at the local, state, national and international levels with the goal of aligning FIU’s instructional, research and creative initiatives with local and global needs and priorities.”

On March 6, FIU published a press release stating that it had granted its position of Vice President of its Office of Engagement to Guyana-born Saif Yamani Ishoof, who the school described as a “dynamic leader who is well known in South Florida for his commitment to partnerships and to improving the lives of young people.” The Miami Herald quotes Ishoof as saying that, in his new role, he will be responsible for “linking students, faculty and administrators with the outside world.”

According to FIU, Ishoof will also serve as a senior fellow in FIU’s School of International and Public Affairs.

The above news is disturbing, given the number of radical causes and institutions Ishoof is and has been involved with, beginning with his involvement in Emerge.

The FIU release states that Ishoof is co-founder and trustee of a group called Emerge USA. The title of the group can easily mislead people into believing that it is one that is patriotic, yet the nature of the group is the very opposite.

Emerge USA is the brainchild of Khurrum Wahid, who today acts as the group’s co-chairman and spokesman. Wahid, a South Florida attorney, has spent years representing those whom the U.S. government has charged with terrorist activity. They include: Rafiq Sabir, who received a 25-year prison sentence for conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaeda; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was given a life sentence for being part of al-Qaeda and for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush; Hafiz Khan, a Miami, Florida imam who shipped $50,000 to the Taliban to kill American troops overseas; and Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian.

Wahid has previously served as a legal advisor for the national office of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a director of CAIR’s Florida chapter. CAIR was originally founded, in June 1994, as part of an umbrella organization run by then-global leader of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. CAIR was named by the U.S. Justice Department a co-conspirator for two federal trials dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. And CAIR was recently labeled a terrorist group by United Arab Emirates (UAE).

According to the Miami New Times, Wahid himself was placed on a federal terrorist watch list in 2011.

In December 2014, Emerge co-sponsored an event for the Muslim Students Association (MSA) with a number of organizations which have been associated with Hamas and/or al-Qaeda financing, including CAIR, ICNA Relief and Islamic Relief.

In August 2006, ICNA Relief was the top donor and partner to Pakistani charity Al Khidmat Foundation (AKF), at the same time AKF took a delegation to Damascus, Syria to hand deliver nearly $100,000 to Hamas global leader Khaled Mashal. Mashal thanked the group and said Hamas would continue to wage “jihad” (war) on the “Zionist yoke” (Israel). ICNA Relief continues to work directly with AKF overseas.

Both Israel and UAE have designated Islamic Relief a “terrorist organization.” In May 2006, Israel arrested the group’s Gaza program manager, Ayaz Ali, for providing “funds and assistance to various Hamas institutions and organizations.” Ali admitted he had cooperated with local Hamas operatives. In 1999, IR collected and sent more than $6 million to Chechen rebels linked to al-Qaeda. That same year, IR received $50,000 from Human Concern International (HCI), a charity that the U.S. Treasury Department labeled a “Bin Laden front.”

Days ago, on April 30th, Emerge featured as a speaker at its Second Annual Founders Benefit Society Dinner held in Arlington, Virginia, Islamic lecturer Sayed Ammar Nakshawani. Nakshawani is a follower of Iranian terror leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and has previously called for the destruction of Israel.

In a speech made by Nakshawani, titled ‘Sayed Khomeini’s Quds Day,’ he states, “The shame in this world is that, if we put ourselves down to a two-state solution, we would allow a country which has broken 60 UN resolutions to have their own freedom of peace. It is barbaric that this Zionist state is allowed to continue.”

This was not the first time Emerge featured Nakshawani at one of its events. He was also the keynote speaker at Emerge’s Annual Miami Benefit Dinner, held in South Florida in May 2014.

Saif Ishoof was in attendance for both events, at least one of which he was a speaker as well.

Prior to getting involved with Emerge, Ishoof was the rally organizer and contact for the extreme anti-Israel group, March for Justice. The other contact and spokesman of the group was Nidal Sakr, who was arrested in March 2014 after returning to the U.S. from Egypt, where he was a rally organizer for the Muslim Brotherhood.

While with March for Justice, Ishoof organized an event at the University of Miami, in October 2002, which labeled then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon “the world’s longest standing terrorist” and Israel an “illegitimate state.” Ishoof said he was “outraged” that his former university would host then-senior advisor to Sharon, Raanan Gissin, referring to Gissin as “a mouthpiece of state sponsored terrorism.”

Today, Ishoof is a director of Nur-Ul-Islam Academy, a Muslim children’s school located in Cooper City, Florida whose former Vice President was Hamas fundraiser Raed Awad. Awad was the Florida representative for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a Hamas charity that was shut down by the U.S. government in December 2001. Awad was also the imam who oversaw the conversion to Islam by convicted terrorist and “Dirty Bomber,” Jose Padilla.

According to corporation documents, Ishoof was officially named a director of the school in January 2008, at a time when the home page of the Nur-Ul-Islam website contained links to violent, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian material, including having a link to, a website that encouraged its viewers to donate to Hamas.

The radical associations of Saif Ishoof ought to make FIU think twice about their appointment of him.

People who are involved with groups like Emerge, CAIR, March for Justice or Nur-Ul-Islam should not be embraced by legitimate institutions, especially those dealing with youth, as FIU – an upstanding educational facility – does.

These persons should, instead, be shunned from society.

Dr. Mark B. Rosenberg is the President of FIU. According to his Curriculum Vitae, he is as well a member of the Board of Directors for the Holocaust Memorial of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation and a member of the Florida Advisory Committee for the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, an organization which deals in matters of national security and foreign policy.

If you wish to discuss the issue of Saif Ishoof’s appointment with Dr. Rosenberg, you can send an e-mail to Please be respectful, when doing so.

Joe Kaufman is an expert in the fields of counter-terrorism, foreign affairs and energy independence for America. He has been featured on all major cable networks, including Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and C-SPAN. Kaufman has served as a consultant to different government agencies, and he has been instrumental in getting U.S.-based terrorist charities shut down and terror-related individuals put behind bars. Exactly one month prior to the September 11 attacks, Kaufman predicted the attacks by stating that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was not an aberration and that it would happen again.

The Muslim Brotherhood Inquiry: What’s Happening?

Gatestone Institute, by Samuel Westrop, January 23, 2015

There are several reasons the British government may be publishing only the “principal findings” of the report. First, some of the information gathered will have been done so by the intelligence services, so there are assets and agreements to protect. Another is the possibility that by revealing the scope of the Muslim Brotherhood network in full, the government would be revealing its own partnerships with Brotherhood organizations, and providing insights into the vast amount of public funds that has filled the coffers of Brotherhood charities.

“Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in each country work according to a common vision — but in complete operational independence, making the Brotherhood an informal global movement. It’s what makes designating the whole movement a terrorist organisation virtually impossible in the UK, as authorities knew from the very beginning. But the lack of a ban does not equal an exoneration or an endorsement — hardly the general tone of the review.”

The British government will publish only the “principal findings” of an inquiry commissioned by the British government into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain, according to a report in the Financial Times.

Although the former head of the MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, has described the Brotherhood as being, “at heart, a terrorist organization,” Brotherhood organizations in the UK have, nevertheless, long enjoyed the support of government ministers and taxpayers’ money.

Previous media statements have indicated that the report written for the inquiry, first commissioned in April 2014, has since sparked a great deal of argument between government ministers and officials and has led to a lengthy delay.

The biggest point of contention has reportedly focused on concerns over the expected reaction of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — both of which have recently designated the Muslim Brotherhood and some of its front groups as terrorist organizations – if the inquiry’s report is perceived to be a whitewash.

London, it seems, has long been an important hub for the Muslim Brotherhood. Over the past 50 years, Brotherhood members have established dozens of Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, including lobby groups, charities, think tanks, television channels and interfaith groups.

The secretary-general of the International Organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, Ibrahim Munir, is a resident of London. In 2013, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Masry al-Youm reported that Munir was providing funds to the Egyptian Brotherhood through British Brotherhood groups such as the Muslim Welfare House — but under the guise of fundraising for Palestinians in Gaza.

This government inquiry was established to examine not just the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain, but to understand better the workings of the worldwide Brotherhood network. This network is both big and nebulous. The inquiry sought to examine the network comprehensively, including the Brotherhood’s collaboration with other Islamic groups, such as Jamaat-e-Islami, a South Asian Islamist network that also has a strong presence in Britain.

Why, then, has the report been delayed?

The question that has dominated most British media reports of the inquiry’s findings has centered on the allegation of terrorism. The relationship between Western governments and the Brotherhood on this point has long appeared murky. In 2002, for instance, the United States government shut down the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood fundraising group for the Hamas terrorist organization. And in 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives: “I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.”

At the same time, however, both the Bush and Obama administrations also sought to woo the Muslim Brotherhood. One anonymous Palestinian official, quoted in Asharq Al-Awsat, claimed: “The Americans mistakenly think that moderate political Islam, represented by Muslim Brotherhood, would be able to combat radical Islam.”

The inconsistency seems to have revolved around the Muslim Brotherhood’s connection to Hamas. Although Hamas’s 1988 covenant asserts that, “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine,” Western governments have nevertheless treated Hamas and the Brotherhood as unconnected entities — despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

In the United Kingdom, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas networks appear to overlap heavily. In 2005, for instance, the British government handed over the running of London’s Finsbury Park mosque to the Muslim Association of Britain [MAB]. The Muslim Association of Britain was founded by Muslim Brotherhood activists including Kemal Helbawi, who described the Israel-Palestinian conflict as “an absolute clash of civilisations; a satanic programme led by the Jews and those who support them, and a divine programme carried [out] by Hamas … and the Islamic peoples in general.”

One of the trustees appointed to run the Finsbury Park mosque was Muhammad Sawalha, a fugitive Hamas commander who, according to BBC reports, is “said to have masterminded much of Hamas’s political and military strategy” from London. Yet the police and local government continue to fund the mosque with tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

Muhammad Sawalha, a fugitive Hamas commander who is “said to have masterminded much of Hamas’s political and military strategy” from London, is a trustee of the Finsbury Park mosque, which receives tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money. (Image source: inminds YouTube video screenshot)

By ignoring both the operational and ideological relations between the Brotherhood and Hamas, Western governments have been able to claim a dedication to opposing terrorism while at the same time courting Islamist allies, ostensibly to help fight the jihadist threat. By 2009, for instance, the British government provided the Muslim Welfare House, mentioned earlier, with £48,000 of “counter-extremism” funds. To this day, leading Islamist charities, established by Brotherhood figures, continue to receive millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The Muslim Brotherhood, without Hamas, has worked hard to present itself as a benign organization. It is the government’s apparent failure to demonstrate adequate evidence of connections to terrorism, some critics argue, that has led to the delay in publishing the inquiry’s report. The prominent newspaper journalist, Peter Oborne, has claimed that the report “had discovered no grounds for proscribing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group… Publication of the report as originally written would infuriate the Prime Minister’s Saudi allies — and not just them. The United Arab Emirates have long been agitating for the defenestration of the Brothers…. The reason [for the delay] is simple: money, trade, oil, in a number of cases personal greed.”

Peter Oborne, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, was, in fact, echoing the line taken by the Brotherhood itself. British Brotherhood operatives, such as Anas Al-Tikriti, recently placed an advertisement in the Guardian newspaper that claimed, “this review is the result of pressure placed on the British government by undemocratic regimes abroad, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.” The letter was signed by a number of senior Brotherhood activists, MPs, Peers and journalists — including Peter Oborne.

The “Saudi pressure” argument serves a useful purpose. There is not a lot that can undermine a government inquiry so much as an accusation of political leverage and foreign financial influence. Both Saudi Arabia and the UAE regard the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat, and would like to see it suppressed. But neither the Saudis nor the Emiratis are naïve: both have worked to influence the British government for decades and both know how Westminster works. Hence, both know that it is extremely unlikely that the British government would ban the Muslim Brotherhood.

All that said, it is still possible to ignore Hamas and nevertheless link the Brotherhood to violence. In September 2010, the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Badie, advocated violent jihad against the United States, and declared that, “the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life… The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise.” In 2013, Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters in Egypt attacked 70 Coptic Christian churches, and more than 1000 homes and businesses of Coptic Christian families were torched.

Banning the Brotherhood, however, is difficult for another reason. Security analyst Lorenzo Vidino writes:

“Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in each country work according to a common vision — but in complete operational independence, making the Brotherhood an informal global movement. It’s what makes designating the whole movement a terrorist organisation virtually impossible in the UK, as authorities knew from the very beginning. But the lack of a ban does not equal an exoneration or an endorsement — hardly the general tone of the review.”

If the delay in the report’s release has been the product of political wrangling at all, the debate within Westminster is most likely over the influence of the Brotherhood upon extremism and radicalization, and with which groups the government should continue to work.

There is already some indication that changes are taking place. On December 18, 2014, the government announced publicly that two Brotherhood-linked Islamic charities, Islamic Help and the Muslim Charities Forum, were to lose their government grants over links to extremism. The Department for Communities and Local Government stated that it would not fund any group “linked to individuals who fuel hatred, division and violence.” This loss of funding followed a Gatestone Institute report investigating the Muslim Charities Forum’s links to extremism, which was subsequently picked up by mainstream British media.

Also in December, Islamic Relief, after being placed on terror lists by both the governments of the UAE and Israel, published an “independent audit,” claiming there was “absolutely no evidence” to link the charity to terrorism.

The British government, which has provided over £3 million of funding to Islamic Relief since 2013, offered little comment, but did publish, at the end of December, a document revealing that the UK government would match £5 million of donations to Islamic Relief until 2016.

Herein lies the contradiction. The Muslim Charities Forum is essentially a project of Islamic Relief. The present chairman of the Muslim Charities Forum, in fact, is Hany El Banna, who founded Islamic Relief, the leading member body of the Muslim Charities Forum. Islamic Relief, as the Gatestone Institute has previously revealed, has given platforms to the same extremists as those promoted by the Muslim Charities Forum, an act that led to its loss of funding. Why would the British government discard one charity while embracing the other? Is this perhaps a sign of further sleight-of-hand to come? Rather than sanction the Brotherhood as a whole, is the government likely in future to work only with sections of the Islamist network?

We have seen such posturing before. In 2009, Britain’s Labour government cut ties with the Muslim Council of Britain after some of its officials became signatories to the Istanbul Declaration, a document that calls for attacks on British soldiers and Jewish communities. The government has continued, however, to work with and fund interfaith groups partly managed by MCB figures and Istanbul Declaration signatories.

There are several reasons the British government may be publishing only the “principal findings” of the report. First, some of the information gathered will have been done so by the intelligence services, so there are assets and agreements to protect. Another is the possibility that by revealing the scope of the Muslim Brotherhood network in full, the government would be revealing its own partnerships with Brotherhood organizations, and providing insights into the vast amount of public funds that has filled the coffers of Brotherhood charities.

In spite of the expectedly unexciting report, the global Muslim Brotherhood still seems worried. Even the most benign report could damage the legitimacy upon which the Brotherhood thrives. Although unlikely, visas for Brotherhood residents in Britain could be revoked, and the report could produce a domino effect — sparking inquiries in other European countries. Evidently, the Brotherhood attaches great importance to its political and diplomatic connections and influence.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding the report, media misinformation and Brotherhood propaganda have been spreading. Back in April 2014, the British government’s announcement of the inquiry produced a great deal of noise. The actual scope of the inquiry and the possible consequences, however, were left to the imaginations of the many commentators and conspiracy theorists.

Consequently, just as the full findings of the report are unclear, so is its significance. If certain sections of the Brotherhood are declared unsuitable, it seems that the report might provide a useful opportunity for the British government — aided by new statutory powers for the Charity Commission and proposed new counter-extremism powers — to crack down on those parts of the Muslim Brotherhood which serve to accrue financial and political support for Hamas.

Thus far, for the government, the Muslim Brotherhood inquiry has been a PR disaster. The eventual publication of the inquiry’s report could provide an opportunity for the British government to end its continued support and funding for Britain’s Muslim Brotherhood charities, and to stop treating Brotherhood operatives as representatives of Britain’s Muslim community. It would indeed be a shame if the only outcome of the inquiry were an even cozier realignment with the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities.

Scottish Government Funds Pro-Terror Group

islamic-reliefby Samuel Westrop:

Although the Scottish government may be convinced it is engaging with the Muslim community, in truth it is funding Islamist groups with extremist agendas and ties to terrorism.

The Daily Express revealed last week that Islamic Relief Worldwide, a British charity accused of links to terrorism, was presented with £398,000 of the taxpayers’ money by the Scottish Government last year, as part of its £9 million International Development Fund.

The funding was announced by Scottish politician Humza Yousaf, formerly the Media spokesperson for Islamic Relief Worldwide, and currently a Scottish National Party Member of the Scottish Parliament and Minister for External Affairs and International Development. This grant comes in addition to the European Union’s grant of €22 million provided to Islamic Relief Worldwide between 2007 and 2011.

In 1999, Islamic Relief Worldwide received a payment of $50,000 from a Canadian charity that the US Department of the Treasury identified as a “Bin Laden front”. In 2005, the Russian Government accused Islamic Relief of supporting terrorism in Chechnya.

In 2006, the Israeli Government designated Islamic Relief a “terrorist front.” After three weeks’ detention in Israel, the head of Islamic Relief’s operations in Gaza, Ayaz Ali, was deported by Israeli authorities after being accusedof funneling money to banned organizations and storing images of swastikas and Osama bin Laden on his computer.

In November 2012, the Swiss Bank UBS closed the account of, and blocked all donations to, Islamic Relief due to “counter-terror concerns.”

A considerable number of Islamic Relief officials are also connected to extremist groups:

  • Ibrahim El-Zayat, a trustee of Islamic Relief, is a leader in both the European and the German Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist Islamist organization with branches all around the world.
  • Dr. Ahmed Al-Rawi, the former head of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), was also previously a director of Islamic Relief. FIOE is a leading advocate of jihadist Egyptian scholar, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
  • Issam Al-Bashir, a former Director of Islamic Relief, is the former Minister of Religious Affairs in the Sudan and has held many positions associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Dr. Hani Al-Banna, the co-founder of Islamic Relief Worldwide, was formerly affiliated with Muslim Aid, a London-based Islamic “charity” which was previously a “partner organization” of the Al-Salah Islamic Association. The US Government has officially designated Al Salah a terrorist entity.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Depictions of 9/11 Now an Islamophobic Hate Crime in New Jersey

timecover-263x350By :

The Muslim Student Association is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. All three leaders of Al Qaeda were members of the Muslim Brotherhood… including Osama bin Laden. The MSA has been involved in funding terrorists and a large number of MSA presidents have gone on to join Al Qaeda.

But what is additionally troubling about this story is that the mere depiction of September 11 is now considered a hate crime.

Montclair State University is investigating a bias incident in which someone drew a picture of planes hitting the World Trade Center on the door of a Muslim student group’s headquarters, campus officials said today.

The graffiti was found Monday outside the Office of the Muslim Student Association in the student center, said Suzanne Bronski, a campus spokeswoman.

“The university police immediately launched a full investigation, which is continuing, and the university’s Bias Response Team was appropriately alerted and has been involved,” university officials said in a statement.

Graffiti is straightforward vandalism and campus police rarely investigate the things that students scrawl on walls and doors. They were common in my time and I suspect they are even more common today. There’s no mention of whether this was done with paint or a marker, but I suspect it was the latter, which means it’s easy enough to clean off.

Is scrawling a depiction of 9/11 on the door of a Muslim organization linked to that terrorist attack by way of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda a hate crime?

Is it Muslims in general that are being targeted or the MSA, an organization with a long history of supporting extremist hate and terrorism?

The Montclair MSA appears to fundraise for Islamic Relief. Islamic Relief was founded by Hany El Banna who talks about being inspired by Sayyid Qutb and other Islamists and his charity has been accused of having terrorist links. And it may have even received money from Osama bin Laden.

The Montclair MSA has invited in Sheik Qatanani to speak to students. The Sheik is both a member of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It invited Lauren Booth, who is an open supporter of Hamas and the Brotherhood.

But let’s get past the Montclair MSA’s willingness to host terrorist group members and supporters and get to the point.

The MSA has always argued that its attacks on Israel are political and protected by free speech. So when the MSA depicts Israel as a Nazi state and terrorists as heroes, it is practicing free speech. The MSA in conjunction with SJP has picketed Holocaust memorials while screaming hate. But that’s not a bias incident. That’s free speech.

So why is a picture of the worst Muslim atrocity in American history a bias incident?

If the MSA has the right to desecrate the Holocaust without it being a bias incident, if it has the right to accuse Jewish students of being Nazis, why is accusing the MSA of being linked to terrorism a hate crime?

Especially when it’s true.

Front Page

Islamist Charity Linked to State Dept Has Bank Account Closed

UBS currently has 64,000 employees in 57 countries, including the UK

by: Ryan Mauro

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), a charity based in the United Kingdom, is complaining that counter-terrorism regulations have compelled the British bank UBS to close its account and to block its customers from donating to IRW. As reported, IRW has strong Islamist links and its CEO, Abed Ayoub, has served as an adviser to the U.S. State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

IRW says that UBS is acting out of a fear of being fined by the British government. It mentions that its main bank, Barclays, was fined for its business in Iran and Sudan. IRW’s finance director, Haroun Atallah, warned that these counter-terrorism regulations will “increase the risks of radicalization” and act as a “recruiting sergeant” for terrorist groups, repeating a theme commonly used by Islamists under scrutiny.

In 2006, the Israeli government arrested IRW’s project coordinator for its Gaza office for allegedly funneling money to Hamas. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: “The IRW’s activities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip are carried out by social welfare organizations controlled and staffed by Hamas operatives. The intensive activities of these associations are designed to further Hamas’ ideology among the Palestinian population.”

IRW has an American branch called Islamic Relief USA that also has strong Islamist connections. Its fundraisers regularly featured incendiary Islamists. Americans for Peace and Tolerance first noticed that IRUSA’s president and chairman of the board, Mohamed Amr Attawia, was listed as the New England director of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood in a 1991 phone directory.

Shockingly, IRUSA has been publicly embraced by the Obama Administration. IRUSA CEO Abed Ayoub, who is also a governance committee member of IRW, joined the State Department’s Working Group on Religion and Foreign Policy in November 2011. He has also been a part of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid since April 2010. The group’s website has two pictures of Ayoub with Vice President Biden.

Click here for’s entire report on Islamic Relief USA.

Ryan Mauro is’s National Security Analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

Hamas-Linked Fundraiser in Florida

By Ryan Mauro

On Sunday, June 16, a widely-exalted charity embraced by the U.S. government called Islamic Relief USA is hosting a “Palestine Benefit Dinner” in Orlando. A second fundraiser will be held in Fort Lauderdale the following day. The events feature the chairman of Americans for Palestine and a former official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Islamic Relief USA says it belongs to the “family” of Islamic Relief Worldwide, a group tied to Hamas, but it has received little scrutiny.

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) was birthed in the United Kingdom in 1984. Its creator is Hani Al-Banna, who previously served as a trustee in Muslim Aid. Joe Kaufman documents that one of Muslim Aid’s “partner organizations” was the Al-Salah Islamic Association, a group the U.S. government labeled a Hamas front. Al-Banna’s previous group was also involved with Muslim Brotherhood affiliates like Jamaat-e-Islami.

In 1999, IRW received a $50,000 donation from Human Concern International; a group the U.S. government says is linked to Al-Qaeda. IRW’s material continues to refer to HCI as a partner (page 18). The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report has more data on how top IRW officials are involved with the Muslim Brotherhood. One IRW official even used to be Sudan’s Minister of Religious Affairs.

According to the NEFA Foundation, IRW is one of the founders of a network of charities called the Union of Good that was created in 2000. It was blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2008 for its links to Hamas. The U.S. government said it was “created by Hamas leadership to transfer funds to the terrorist organization.” It is led by Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the top Muslim Brotherhood cleric who unequivocally supports Hamas and violent jihad.

In 2006, Israel arrested the project coordinator of IRW’s office in Gaza, Iyaz Ali for funneling money to Hamas. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs made it clear that Ali was not acting as a rogue employee. “The IRW’s activities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip are carried out by social welfare organizations controlled and staffed by Hamas operatives. The intensive activities of these associations are designed to further Hamas’s ideology among the Palestinian population,” it said.

Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA) was incorporated in California in 1993. Kaufman reports that its Registered Agent is the former attorney for Wagdy Ghoneim, an extremist involved with Hamas fundraising. IRUSA’s website says it and IRW are “legally separate and independent affiliates (also referred to as ‘partner offices’), but its Facebook page says that it is “a member of the Islamic Relief Worldwide family.” If you go to IRUSA’s website and click on “Affiliates” under the “About Us” tab, you are informed about IRW.

IRUSA gives millions of dollars to IRW. As the Money Jihad blog shows, it gave $4.8 million in 2007, $5.9 million in 2008 and $9.4 million in 2009. There is every reason to believe that a large amount of the funds raised on June 16-17 will go to IRW. After all, IRUSA’s consolidated financial report from December 31, 2010 states, “The majority of IRUSA’s programs are administered through grants with Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), which is based in the United Kingdom.” On page 12, it says, “During 2010, IRUSA incurred $21,849,599 in grant expenses in collaboration with IRW.”

A 2009 report by Americans for Peace and Tolerance states, “Islamic Relief USA has partnered in funding foreign projects with the Holy Land Foundation and Kind Hearts, both designated terrorist entities.” The IRUSA website lists Mohammed Amr Attawia as its chairman of the Board of Director and is also on IRW’s Board of Trustees.  The same report points out that he was also Vice President of the Muslim American Society, a Muslim Brotherhood front and that “Holy Land Foundation trial exhibits identify Attawia as the American Muslim Brotherhood’s director for the New England region in the 1990s.”

A high-level Justice Department source mentioned Islamic Relief in a conversation with counter-terrorism reporter Patrick Poole in April 2011 about U.S.-based Hamas fronts. He said, “Ten years ago we shut down the Holy Land Foundation…Then the money started going to KindHearts. We shut them down too. Now the money is going through groups like Islamic Relief and Viva Palestina.”

The National Geospatial Agency is being sued for cancelling the security clearance of Mahmoud M. Hegab, who says the agency declined it because his wife works for IRUSA. The agency was concerned about her “current affiliation with one or more organizations which consist of groups who are organized largely around their non-United States origin.”

These facts have not stopped the U.S. government from working with IRUSA under both parties. The current administration has been particularly friendly to the charity. In April 2010, its CEO, Abed Ayoub, was appointed to the U.S. Agency for International Development Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. He then was appointed to the State Department’s Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group in November 2011.

Read more at Front Page