CAIR Intertwines with US-based, Terror-Linked Fuqra Group

Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, the radical head of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a terrorist organization fronted in the U.S. by Muslims of the Americas.

Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, the radical head of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a terrorist organization fronted in the U.S. by Muslims of the Americas.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Feb. 9, 2016:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its “moderate” image is suffering from a self-inflicted wound now it has become intertwined with the Muslims of the Americas, a radical anti-Semitic front for the Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group.

CAIR’s Massachusetts chapter now shares an official with MOA and two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference.

The Massachusetts chapter of CAIR recently chose MOA’s general counsel, Tahirah Amatul Wadud, as a board member. CAIR, a U.S.Muslim Brotherhood entity banned for its own terror links in the UAE, wisely omitted mention of MOA. It described her generically as a “general counsel for a New York Muslim congregation.”

Wadud reportedly posted an article by MOA’s Pakistan-based leader,Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, on her Facebook claiming the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is a puppet of the British government and a Jewish conspiracy perpetrated the attacks on Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001. The Clarion Project was the first to report on the inflammatory article.

“There was no need for America to go to war against Hitler. Hitler was not the enemy of America or the American people. There was a mutual animosity between Hitler and the Jews. So, the American people paid a very heavy price for fighting someone else’s war,” Gilani wrote.

Two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s InternationalIslamophobia Conference, which included a poster featuring the faces of the “American Taliban” that included Clarion Projectnational security analyst Ryan Mauro. They were CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid and CAIR-ArizonaExecutive Director Imraan Siddiqi. Walid was one of the CAIR officials who have questioned whether Muslims should honor fallen U.S. servicemen on Memorial Day, sparking a backlash from Muslims who appreciate the U.S. military.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra is led by Gilani. It is best known for a series of terrorist attacks and plots in the 1980s and early 1990s and for setting up “Islamic villages” across the country, including at least two that were shut down by the authorities. These “villages” are known to have been used for guerilla warfare training. Fuqra now goes primarily by the name of Muslims of the Americas (MOA), among other names. The group says it has 22 such “villages” in the U.S.

The Clarion Project obtained video of female members receiving basic paramilitary instruction in military fatigue at its “Islamberg” headquarters in New York. The date of the footage is cut off, only stating “Jan. 28 20,” presumably meaning it was made in 2000 or after. The best explanation MOA members have come up with is that it was a “self-defense class.”

View the video here:

The Clarion Project identified a Fuqra “village” in Texas in 2014 and retrieved an FBI intelligence report from 2007 that stated MOA “possess an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.” and “the documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government.”

The FBI also said “members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Gilani.” In 2001, ATF Special Agent Thomas P. Gallagher testified in court that “individuals from the organization are trained in Hancock, N.Y., and if they pass the training in Hancock, N.Y., are then sent to Pakistan for training in paramilitary and survivalist training by Mr. Gilani.”

After Clarion Project identified the Texas site and published the FBI report, a dozen Muslim groups have signed a statement calling for Fuqra’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Of course, CAIR isn’t one of them. CAIR actually came to Fuqra/MOA’s defense.And now CAIR and Fuqra have shared leadership through CAIR-Massachusetts and hold events together.

MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference took place at the Muslim Community Center of the Capital District in Schenectady, New York. CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Imraan Siddiqi is listed as a member of the Board of Directors, indicating he played more than a speaking role in setting the MOA event up.

The MOA’s event featured delegates representing the U.S., Canada, Pakistan, Senegal, India, Taiwan, Bangladesh and Egypt. Siddiqi was the delegate representing India. MOA flyers also list headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela and Las Lomas, Trinidad & Tobago. The MOA claims it had nearly 300 attendees and thousands watched online. It announced it would start a new political coalition named the “International United Muslim Forum.”

Ironically, MOA has tried to excuse itself from its terrorist and criminal history by claiming that it was infiltrated by Wahhabist/Muslim Brotherhood operatives who were sent to undermine Sheikh Gilani. It even claims that one operative was a shape-shifter who could go “through physical changes before speaking to people as if he were Sheikh Gilani.”

And now MOA is collaborating with a known Muslim Brotherhood entity. You can read our documented profiles of CAIR and MOA here and here.

Google and Fox TV Invite Anti-Trump, Hitler-Citing, Muslim Advocate to Join Next GOP TV-Debate

Noor-Trump-Hitler-640x480

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, Jan. 27, 2016:

Fox News and Google have invited three YouTube personalities to ask questions at the Jan. 28 GOP debate — including a Muslim advocate who describes Donald Trump as a bigot and who visually portrayed him as being in agreement with national socialist Adolf Hitler.

“We have a presidential candidate whose loudest message reeks of hatred and Islamophobia… turning on the news now is scary, and oftentimes, humiliating,” the Muslim woman, Nabela Noor, says in a December YouTube video.

She admits to becoming a Muslim political activist amid the growing criticism of Islam’s doctrines. “The current social environment for Muslims today is not safe or just… as a Muslim American, I felt like I needed to use my voice,” she claimed. 

Noor also urged her YouTube viewers to rally against critics of Islam. “I’m so thankful for those who speak up and out against anti-Islamic speech and ideologies. Our community needs more allies like you, but we have a long way to go,” she said.

The two companies announced Tuesday afternoon that the anti-Trump Muslim advocate would be allowed to play a role in the debate.

Google is teaming up with the Fox News Channel for the final  Republican debate in Iowa on Thursday, January 28, 2016, and integrating three new components into the debate to help people get informed before they head to the polls, including a way to hear directly from candidates on Google; real-time Google Trends data; and questions from three of YouTube’s most prominent voices—Nabela Noor, Mark Watson, and Dulce Candy — who will join the moderators in the debate to ask the candidates a question on an issue that matters to them and their communities.  

The Republican National Committee also approved the choice of Noor, an LA.-based press aide for YouTube, Jackie Cavanagh, at MPRM Communications, told Breitbart. “I believe” she was chosen by YouTube, with help from the RNC and Fox, she said.

“YouTube creators were selected in collaboration with Fox based on things such as audience size and their ability to bring a new, fresh perspective to the most important issues of our time. Fox informed the party/candidates of the format,” said a p.r. person. 

Allison Moore, a press secretary for the RNC, told Breitbart that “We had nothing to do with that.” 

Irena Briganti, a spokeswoman for Fox, also did not respond.

In December, Trump announced he would restrict the immigration of Muslims until the jihad problem can be addressed. “It is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” said Trump.

The statement came 14 years after Islamic jihadis killed 3,000 Americans and destroyed the Twin Towers in New York, and after many other jihadis launched or tried to launch a series of attacks across the United States.

In her videos, Dulce Candy, the invited Latino questioner, said she was brought fromcentral Mexico to the United States while a young girl. She later joined the U.S. military and served in Iraq. The press announcement described Candy:

With over 2 million subscribers on her YouTube channel, Dulce is a top YouTube beauty, fashion and lifestyle influencer. The only thing more impressive than her fanbase is her story: she immigrated to the United States from Mexico at age 6 and served in the armed forces in Iraq. Today, she’s a proud U.S. citizen, mother, and entrepreneur who serves as a role model for latinas, women, and more.

Noor is described in the company anouncement as well: 

Born in New York, Nabela is a 24 year old Muslim American whose parents immigrated from Bangladesh. As an up-and-coming beauty creator with over 140,000 subscribers, Nabela hasn’t shied away from social issues. In a recent video, she spoke about being called a “terrorist” in elementary school after 9/11 and emphasized the importance of tolerance above all.

The perspective of the Muslim woman, Noor, has been shaped by her Bangladeshi immigrant parents, who were paired off by their parents in an arranged marriage as teenagers, aged 17 and 14.

These Bangladeshi Muslim parents migrated to the United States — while hiding am anchor-baby pregnancy — and later kept Noor in the house for many years to prevent her from integrating with American society. “Growing up, we weren’t allowed out much, our parents wanted to preserve our culture at all costs,” she said. They even refused to let her date a man, even after she had gone to college, Noor said in a biographical video. The parents also arranged a marriage for Noor’s older sister. Her mother still wears a head-covering to mark her as a loyal Muslim.

Aspects of Islamic culture remain part of Noor’s personality, under the outward appearance of an American fashionista.

For example, Noor argues that Muslims are individually and collectively insulted when many Americans’ offer sincere and well-argued criticism of Islam’s violent doctrines — for example, jihad, bans against free speech, the death penalty for quitting Islam, sexual subordination of women, opposition to democracy and the separation of mosque and state, etc., etc. That bigoted claim of injury from free speech echoes the demand from orthodox Islam that critics of Islam be silenced – by force if needed – and that the status or honor of each Muslim is damaged if they fail to fight against any criticism of Islam by non-Muslims.

So Noor claimed:

To be hateful and Islamophobic has become so common that it is proudly displayed all around us, online, on the news, and in politics. it is dehumanizing and it hurts. It is hard not to see a bumper sticker of a bigoted presidential candidate and not feel personally attacked when his entire campaign rests on the backs of Muslim-Americans. Where there should be messages of hope and tolerance, there are messages being spread of fear and hate, thus breeding violence.

In contrast, Western Christians and non-Christians try to treat criticism of ideas, such as Christianity’s claim that unborn humans deserve the right to life, or the merits of any particular presidential candidate, as a problem to be solved by facts, logic, free-speech, and compromise. That’s fundamentally different from Noor’s Islamic-style, only-one-winner fight over honor, pride, and supremacy.

That only-one-winner, zero-sum attitude often pushes Muslims to escalate debates into shouting matches and threats. Noor, for example, showed an image linking Trump and Hitler, which suggests that Trump’s criticism of Islam’s jihad ideology is so morally reprehensible that it is equivalent to actually murdering six million Jews, plus at least 10 million Slavic Russians, plus millions of other victims of Hitler’s socialism-for-Aryans Nazi ideology.

In fact, much to the embarrassment of Muslim advocates in the United States, that aggressive aspect of Islam was admired by Jew-hating, left-wing Hitler, who naturally also hated Christianity’s peacefulness, reason and emphasis on individuals’ conscience.

Noor also described criticism of Islam as “Islamophobia,” as if only the existence of a nationwide mental-disease could explain why Americans criticize jihad or child-marriagesor the murder of captured Christians or the murders of homosexuals or the murder of a seventh-century poet.

That term, “Islamophobia,” was developed by Islamic advocates to help their allies stigmatize critics of Islam. Generally, Western advocates do not describe their critics as mentally diseased, but as illogical, selfish, or misinformed.

In her video, Noor also tried to argue that Trump’s implied criticism of the violence associated with Islam — likely, including the 9/11 atrocity, the San Bernardino murders, and many other recent jihad attacks — is somehow causing more attacks by Americans against Muslims in America. She did not supply evidence, but did show a newspaper clipping that was actually about a Muslim in Detroit who stabbed two non-Muslims after asking them if they were Muslims.

“Nick Loussia, Deputy Chief of Police for the Southfield Police Department, said [the stabber] ‘is Muslim, and asked the victims what religion they were’ before allegedly attacking them,” said a report at MLive.com.

But Noor portrayed the Muslim-against-not-Muslim jihad attack as actually caused by Americans’ fear of Muslim attacks

“The fear-mongering tactics are a direct cause of hate-violence against Muslims and that makes being a Muslim in America today very, very scary,” she claimed. Noor did not mention any of the many, many, many attacks by Muslims against non-Muslims in America.

She did, however, try to argue that the many Islam-inspired attacks are not Islamic. ‘There are people out there that manipulate our texts to serve their own sick twisted agenda,” she said, without trying to explain how ISIS violates Islamic texts, or trying to disavow the many commandments for jihad in the Koran. 

Why Are Muslims Faking Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes?

Muslim demonstratorsIBD Editorials, Jan. 5, 2016:

Hype: As the attorney general threatens to prosecute Americans for anti-Muslim hate crime, Muslims are faking anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country to prop up the fiction that Muslims are victimized in the U.S.

The latest fabrication involves the torching of a Houston mosque on Christmas Day. The arson was quickly seized on by the national media and Muslim-rights groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which demanded that police investigate it as a hate crime.

“We urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire,” CAIR’s Houston chapter said in a statement.

Federal authorities did investigate, and they collared a suspect. Sorry, CAIR, he’s not a Muslim-hating Trump supporter. He’s a Muslim.

Not only that, he’s a longtime member of the damaged Islamic Society of Greater Houston mosque, where he prayed five times a day, seven days per week.

Last Christmas, a similar incident was reported at a mosque in Fresno, Calif.; and in a similar rush to judgment, the media joined Muslim groups in accusing anti-Islamic bigots for the vandalism of the Islamic Cultural Center there.

Only, it turned out that the incident was not an act of “Islamophobia” at all.

As in Houston, the damage was self-inflicted by a member of the mosque. Police arrested Asif Mohammad Khan. They said that he was an admirer of Osama bin Laden.

These are hardly isolated cases of Muslim groups and their media apologists misleading the public about anti-Muslim hate crimes.

They are part of a long series of events — including pure fabrications — that serve to portray non-Muslims as threats and deflect attention away from Muslims as the real threats. Learning from other groups, they’ve discovered that racism can be blamed for almost everything.

October 2014: Two Muslim activists released a video showing NYPD cops harassing and “racially profiling” Muslims just for wearing Islamic garb. The video went viral; CAIR demanded an investigation for discrimination. But the whole thing was staged. The cops weren’t even real.

June 2014: After three burned Qurans were found in front of a mosque in Dearborn, Mich., the imam there led a campaign to pass a local statute criminalizing the desecration of holy books. The media ran with it, and his crusade gained traction — until it was revealed that the Quran barbecuer was none other than a Muslim named Ali Hassan al-Assadi.

April 2014: After murdering his wife, a Muslim man in El Cajon, Calif., made it look like an anti-Muslim bigot did the crime. He left a note with her body that read: “Go back to your country, you terrorist,” which led the media to report the murder as an “Islamophobic” hate crime.

Some claimed that the slain wife was targeted for “wearing a hijab.” CNN host Reza Aslan blamed conservative “Islamophobic f**ks” for the homicide — even after the truth came out that it was an Islamic honor killing, not a hate crime.

August 2010: A Muslim high school girl in Ann Arbor, Mich., claimed that a mob physically attacked her in an apparent hate crime which included ethnic slurs and the forcible removal of her hijab.

The “alleged hate crime” prompted CAIR to lead a media blitz calling for investigations by state and federal authorities. Except the assault never happened. The girl was eventually charged and found guilty of disorderly conduct.

FBI data show that hate crimes against Muslims are actually rare, which probably explains the need to make them up.

Such hysteria over “Islamophobia” is merely used by terror-support groups such as CAIR to shut down debate over jihadism and the responsibilities of the Muslim community to reform violent Islam and call out the terrorists radicalized in its ranks.

Here’s the entire BIZARRE press conference with the terrorist family’s lawyers!!

Farook attorney

Right Scoop, by soopermexican, Dec. 4,2015:

Social media was lit up with disbelief as the lawyers for the family of the terrorists that killed 14 people held a press conference denying all terrorist ties.

Here’s the entire bizarre presser:

At one point, one of the lawyers says that it doesn’t matter if they visited Islamist sites, and gave the Britney Spears defense. When pressed on what motive there was for the slaughter, they cite that someone made fun of his beard. Yup, really. They accuse the FBI of Islamophobia, the press of Islamophobia, and the GOP candidates of Islamophobia. In all of this they deny any terror ties, but their defense is that the FBI can’t find links to an organized terror organization. Even if that’s the case, it doesn’t mean that they weren’t inspired by Islamism, and there’s plenty of evidence for that.

Read more

***

Farook Family Attorneys and Their Press Conference of Magical Wonders and Delights

Twice on Friday, the attorneys for the family of the accused terrorist and current corpse Syed Farook put on truly remarkable performances that left audiences breathless, confused, and probably questioning their own reality.

The first was a stunning interview on CNN with Chris Cuomo in which, among other things, attorney David Chesley implied a conspiracy to frame Farook and his wife, suggested his wife was too weak to lift a handgun, and dismissed pipe bombs as evidence because – and this is not a joke – “nobody ever saw him with one.” One would think it impossible to top that interview, but one would be terribly, wonderfully wrong.

In the video above, you see the press conference the two lawyers held this afternoon, and it was a doozy and a half. There is so much to go through that we will simply present you with a few of the highlights.

Like, it’s not like, well, ok, about Islam? And Farook was not aggressive, also:

Chesley made it clear that they feel they represent a lot more than just the Farook family. “The message that we want to give is, what we’d like to say on behalf of the families and the Muslim community in general,” continued Chesley. He stated that the FBI said “there was no sign that the alleged shooters belonged to a larger organization, like, a larger organized terror group or terror cell.” But he got a lot farther into the weeds on this:

“Throughout the whole process of the investigation yesterday it got to the point where the FBI actually said ‘look, let us explain ourselves, we’re trying to find evidence or information that could cause us to believe that, that the, that Syed Farook was in some way affiliated with this incident, like something inspired him to be involved in this incident, and, but the problem we’re having is that we’re not finding any evidence of any behavior that would lead, that would show us that this would be the alleged shooter, and so, you know, why isn’t that happening?’

And we were all like, well, we don’t have any explanation for you other than that there is no evidence. None of the family knew of him as being extreme or aggressive, or having kind, any extreme religious views.”

Say that five times fast – that was Chesley. Here is the other attorney, Mohammad Abuershaid, following up on that:

“And I think what the media should also be cautious about is, just because he had a religion that, he was Muslim, that had nothing to do with these acts. Islam does not agree, does not support any type of actions that occur like this. It does not support killing, it does not support murder of innocent individuals, and the family would never support anything like this.”

The emphasis on Muslim is not mine. Abuershaid put some stank on that.

Accidental profiling:

“I think every investigation the FBI does when it’s involving a Muslim will involve some type of terrorist investigation for it.” – Abuershaid

Hating Britney Spears:

“I mean any one of us may have looked at something on Facebook. That doesn’t mean we believe in it. I’ve checked out a Britney Spears post, and I hate Britney Spears music.”

Did we mention that, like, it’s not about Islam? Because it’s super not.

“Until there is absolute clear evidence, every headline doesn’t have to say ‘Muslim massacre’ or ‘Muslim shooters’ because it’s gonna cause intolerance and what we need right now is forgiveness I think.”

This one is puzzling. “Until there is clear evidence” of what? That the two alleged shooters were Muslim? There is clear evidence. That these two Muslim individuals were the shooters? There is clear evidence of that as well. Which thing isn’t clear? Secondly, you don’t “cause intolerance”; that’s an absurdity. A person is intolerant or not. And most people are intolerant of murder. And finally, forgiveness for what, sir? What should be forgiven, and who should be forgiven? Weren’t you just saying that there’s no clear evidence about anything? So what exactly are we going to forgive?

And we haven’t even gotten to the epic embeardening excuse yet…

Summary:

He was crazy. It wasn’t religion! Also it was work. It was workplace violence, not religion. They made fun of his beard! Did you know they made fun of his beard? Beards are very unpopular in America and people make fun of them. It was a video! No wait, it wasbecause of a Jew.

There were many tweets about this press conference. The Right Scoop has compiled some of them here. Twitchy has more here. It’s worth clicking on both links for more highlights.

It was a magical crazy time in America when the Farook family attorneys held their press conference-anza. We’ll leave you with these two thoughts:

t2

Stop the Jihad on Campus Campaign Combats Pro-Terror Groups

all_4_posters_600px

Exposing the true motivations of terrorist proxies and challenging their genocidal propaganda.

Frontpage, by Mark Tapson, Nov. 27, 2015:

Two weeks ago, a series of posters was placed anonymously on the campuses of George Washington University and American University in Washington, D.C. and those of UCLA, UC-Irvine and UC-San Diego in Southern California. The images were hashtagged #StopTheJihadOnCampus and pulled no punches in denouncing a pair of campus organizations for what they are: supporters of violent, Jew-hating jihad.

One poster depicted a bloody knife and photos of children being trained to become terrorists. Referring to a group known as the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the caption read, “Students for ‘Justice’ in Palestine: Supporting a Culture that Teaches Children to Slaughter Jews.” A second poster linked the late terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a national campus organization. A third targeted the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and the current “stabbing intifada” in Israel with the image of a bloody knife stabbing a Star of David. Its caption read, “The Real BDS: Boycott, Divest, Stab.”

Naturally, the posters sparked instant controversy and angry condemnations, because the campus supporters of jihad weren’t accustomed to having their agenda challenged or being caught in the harsh spotlight of truth. In response to the discovery of the posters, the Hillel organization at American University predictably issued a statement decrying them as threatening, “Islamophobic” hate speech and condemning “any efforts to demonize any racial or religious group.” Likewise, the statement from the Students for Justice in Palestine at American University labeled the posters as “the intimidation tactics of bigoted ideologues,” as “falsehoods” propagated about BDS (which the statement described as “the epitome of effective non-violent resistance”), and as “vitriolic, hateful rhetoric deliberately targeting Muslims, Arabs, those who may appear Muslim, and supporters of Palestinian rights.”

The following week, the David Horowitz Freedom Center took credit for distributing the posters as part of a major campus initiative called Stop the Jihad on Campus. The poster campaign targeted SJP and MSA, both of which were spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood, the same terrorist organization that launched al-Qaeda and Hamas. As a Freedom Center statement put it, both groups “are the chief campus sponsors” of the BDS movement “designed to destroy the Jewish state.”

UCLA’s Daily Bruin posted an article labeling the “offensive posters” as Islamophobic, to which David Horowitz himself responded with a letter in the Bruin correcting that and other “misleading impressions” in the initial article. “Shame on the students who spread the genocidal lies of Hamas on the UCLA campus,” he wrote. “Shame on them for supporting the 70-plus-year Arab aggression against the Jewish state and the 70-plus-year oppression of Palestinian Arabs by Fatah and Hamas.”

It is typical of these campus supporters of terrorism to attempt to suppress their critics by falsely accusing them of racism and Islamophobia, even though no racial or religious group was specified in the poster campaign. The posters were aimed at the two campus groups not because their membership is entirely Muslim (it’s not), but because they hold “Israeli Apartheid Weeks,” spread Jew-hating propaganda, support intifadas like the current one in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and support terrorist parties in Gaza and the West Bank that call for the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of the Jews of the Middle East.

The Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign seeks to raise awareness of how such anti-Israel terrorists have infiltrated American universities, spreading terrorist propaganda and messages, with university funding and support. Along those lines, it offers teach-ins to raise student awareness and combat pro-terrorist propaganda on American campuses. It has since gone on to post a list of the “Top 10 American universities most friendly to terrorists.”

The campaign’s demands are simple: no campus support for jihad terrorists, no campus privileges for anti-Israel hate groups, and no student funding for apartheid hate weeks. “Our goal in placing these posters on prominent campuses across America,” explains David Horowitz, “is to expose the true motivations of these terrorist proxy-groups and challenge their genocidal propaganda.” He continues:

These terrorist support groups are afforded campus privileges, including university offices and the right to hold events on campus grounds that would be denied to any other group that preached hatred of ethnic groups or supported barbaric terrorists who slaughter men, women and children as part of a demented mission to cleanse the earth of infidels.

Below are photos from the “Palestinian Wall of Lies” display recently set up at the University of South Dakota in conjunction with the Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign, as part of the Freedom Center’s efforts to counteract campus propaganda. The Wall lists and then debunks the major Palestinian lies about Israel and the Jews, which are often propagated unquestioned by the mainstream media and swallowed whole by impressionable college students. Needless to say, the Wall has proven to be quite a conversation piece whenever it has appeared on American campuses awash in leftist indoctrinationabout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

To donate to Stop the Jihad on Campus, click here.

cid_dc1e62b8579549d89ea97db7b67fe8admarkthink

cid_690eb3bda02e415b81fb76a14569c245markthink

cid_3742d32731cf4b3aadccab2a07ade7e5markthink

Also see:

AHMED MOHAMED HUGS SUDAN’S GENOCIDAL THEOCRAT OMER HASSAN AL-BASHIR

ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/Getty Images

ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, Oct. 16, 2015:

Ahmed Mohamed, the Texas youth who was briefly detained Sept. 14 when he brought a clock-like device that looked like a bomb in to school, met with Sudan’s genocidal dictator Oct. 13.

That visit may prove embarrassing to President Barack Obama, whose science deputy personally invited the boy to an Oct. 19 science fair in the extended White House grounds.

Mohamed was invited to the White House after progressives and the media accepted and broadcast his claim that the arrest was prompted by unreasonable anti-Muslim and anti-African views supposedly prevalent among cops in Irving.

The boy’s hug for the genocidal Muslim theocrat prompted much criticism among his progressive supporters.

AmAhmad249 tweet

Elanosi tweet

On October 13, Ahmed, his sisters and his Sudan-born father flew out of Saudi Arabia into Sudan, a theocratic Muslim state that split into two states after waging a long war against Christian and tribal minorities in the south of the country.

It’s so genocidal that the International Criminal Court has posted a warrant for Bashir’s arrest. So theocratic that Bashir was Osama bin Laden’s host for several years. In March, Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, posed for a photo with Bashir, to the displeasure of left-wing outlets. In a tweet, the Texas-born boy described Sudan as his “home.”

am tweet

He also posted a vine of his arrival in the country.

Once in Sudan, he met the country’s president, Omer Hassan al-Bashir, who is still waging genocidal war against minorities, according to critics.

“Today al-Hassan [the father] and his son spoke graciously of Bashir who according to Sudan official news agency (SUNA) honored him in tribute to his intelligence and talent and in line with government policy of caring for gifted youngsters.

“Mohamed told reporters afterwards that he is ‘extremely delighted’ for meeting Bashir and visiting Sudan. He expressed hope that he would have the opportunity to meet again with the Sudanese president ‘with a new invention and success,’” according to a Paris-based, English-language Sudanese newspaper.

It is not clear if Ahmed will bring his clock-in-a-box to the White House, or if Obama will choose to meet with him.

The youth’s clock apparatus, which he described as an “invention,” was extracted from a commercial clock and then stuffed into a metal-looking school box. The clock’s face could not been seen when the case was closed. If the case was opened, the dismantled clock’s unshielded 110-volt transformer was hazardous to anyone who put their hands inside the clock-box.

The boy brought his clock to school; a teacher told him to not to display it, but when he showed it to another teacher, that teacher called the police. The boy admitted later that that the clock-in-a-box would raise suspicions. “I didn’t want to lock it [closed] to make it seem like a threat, so I used a simple cable [around the box] so it won’t look that much suspicious,” he said on video.

The police reacted skeptically because the clock-in-a-box did not seem like a school-related project. Also, police are on alert for shootings or disruptions in schools.

They’re also on alert for jihad attacks. The youth brought the apparent hoax-bomb to school just four months after two Muslims tried to machine-gun an art exhibition in nearby Garland, Texas. The two Muslim gunmen were successfully killed by guards, who were hired in the correct expectation that Islamic tenets would prompt a few Muslims to attack the guests at the exhibition.

When the youth did travel up to New York, he left his crude clock-in-a-box with the police department in Irving rather than show his embarrassingly simple device to his allies. He also did not take the clock-in-a-box with him when he flew in late October to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan.

Since the arrest, the youth has repeatedly smeared Irving’s cops and teachers as bigots.

On Sept. 17, he said was detained “because I’m Muslim,” during an interview on the al Jazeera network, just three days after the incident. Al Jazeera is a pro-Islamist TV network by run the autocratic leader of Qatar. “There is a lot of stereotypes [sic] for people who are foreigners and [when] they have Muslim names… names mainly in Islam… no this would not have happened to any of my classmates,” the youth said. Irving officials “should apologize,” he said.

Also see:

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

5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asad al-Barari

Also see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

Also see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Video: A Closer Look at Ahmed’s Clock

***

Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Also see:

A Counterjihad Survey From a British University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I chose the second option, but appended a proviso:

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

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

Part A: Personal details

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

Part B: Questionnaire

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

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

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

2. What is your role in Gates of Vienna?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICNA-MAS in Crisis: Islamophobia Works

1924991841Center For Security Policy, June 5, 2015:

In the wake of violence, looting, and riots that swept across Baltimore, Maryland the night of 25 April 2015, Muslim Brotherhood supporters from thirty-eight states gathered in this virtual ghost town over a bloody Memorial Day weekend during which twenty-nine people were shot, including nine reported homicides. While the residents of Baltimore were reeling from their deadliest month since 1999, the 40th Annual Islamic Circle of North America-Muslim American Society Convention revealed that Muslim Brotherhood leadership is also in crisis mode following jihadist attacks against free speech in Copenhagen, Denmark, Paris, France, and Garland, Texas, compounded by a litany of savage brutality from the Islamic State’s campaign to conquer and subjugate in the name of a new Caliphate. Atypical of past Muslim Brotherhood conventions, this most recent ICNA-MAS convention’s almost despondent tone seemed surreal, while confusion emanated from an uncharacteristically subdued leadership, which completely overhauled the convention’s theme at the last minute. Facing an identity crisis and public relations debacle, thanks to jihadist rampages at home and abroad, ICNA-MAS tried hard to send a convincing message of love and peace to non-Muslim Americans. Nevertheless, relentless pressure from Americans both Muslim and non-Muslim, newly-awakened to the shocking reality of Islamic rampages as well as the frightening closeness of Muslim blasphemy code enforcers, clearly took its toll on this conference.

Even the U.S. Brotherhood could not escape the stark reality that Islamophobia is real, it’s reasonable, and it’s spreading with every new beheading, crucifixion, execution, and jihad assault flashing across our screens. The Memorial Day 2015 Baltimore ICNA-MAS conference didn’t change its programming because its leadership disapproves of the jihad assault wave: it changed it because Islamophobes are multiplying, denouncing the jihad narrative, and turning against all who are perceived to support the Global Jihad Movement. And that includes ICNA-MAS.

Read more

Deborah Weiss exposes Georgetown’s Orwellian “Bridges Initiative”

John Esposito

John Esposito

Frontpage, by Deborah Weiss, May 20, 2015:

“Nothing bad happened in the West after the publication of the Danish cartoons in 2006. Nobody died.” “There is no more anti-Semitism in the West anymore. The ‘Jewish Question’ has been settled with equality.”

These are just some of the lies spewed forth by “esteemed panelists” at the launch of Georgetown University’s Bridges Initiative, which embodies a new approach and stepped up efforts for the Islamist propaganda campaigns waged by the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).

On April 30, 2015, in Jesuit Georgetown University’s Healy Hall, amidst paintings of priests and Christian imagery, The Bridges Initiative was launched. The event was titled, “A Conversation on Islamophobia”. The motto of the campaign is “Protecting Pluralism – Ending Islamophobia.

Opening remarks by John Esposito, Director of the ACMCU, whose pockets are lined with Saudi money, explained that Islamophobia is not a about Muslims but about pluralism. “Tea party types like Pamela Geller, [sic] tweets to her followers to protest, and this causes Bill O’Reilly to have a show on Fox News.” Then pop culture through its arbiter of social media, especially Pamela Geller’s blog, influences Islamophobic activists without “alternative narratives.” The Islamophobia industry is not arbitrarily popping up, he explains. It exists due to funding and networks. And, for reasons Esposito can’t quite figure out, Islamophobia is worse in Europe.

Ann Norton, Professor of “Muslim Political Thought” at the University of Pennsylvania was the first speaker and is responsible for the above comments on the Danish cartoons and anti-Semitism. According to Norton, “every period of time has its challenges” and in the 19th century, people were afraid of “Jewish terrorists”. This fear became bigotry and was the reason for anti-Semitism prior to the Holocaust. But now, in the West, the “Jewish Question” has been resolved. Too bad the Jews fleeing France in droves due to (primarily Islamic) anti-Semitism haven’t heard the good news.

Currently, Norton explains, the same thing is happening with Muslims. There is terrorism and thus fear, which has turned into “bigotry” against Muslims. (Please note that prejudice by definition is a pre-judgment, and not a post-judgement based on a particular group’s behavior.) Never-the-less, Norton says, people “perceive” that Islam doesn’t treat women well and “perceive” that it is in opposition to free speech. “But some speech puts our national security at risk!” (Of course, it wouldn’t if all Muslims would refrain from responding to speech violently.) The real problem, is “the indictment of the West, the shame of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and indefinite detention.” Yeah, that’s the problem. Well, what can one expect from the author of a book titled, “Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire”?

Norton insists that drawing a cartoon of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad is A-OK in Islam, but the problem is doing it repeatedly to tell us what we must say: that some are trying to “oblige people to praise bigotry” and to be “pro-Israel”. After all, freedom of speech includes the freedom to refrain from speech. And, well, it really is awful that all those Islamophobes are pointing guns to the heads of Americans forcing them to support Israel!

Norton rejects the notion of a clash of civilizations and iterates that accepting Islam and Muslims is the true challenge of whether America accepts Western values of tolerance. Islam is “the ‘Other’ of Democracy” she states. (“Otherizing Muslims” was a theme throughout the conference). And yet, she is an admitted fan of the Muslim Brotherhood theologian, Sayyid Qutb, author of “Milestones” because he supported private property rights.

Ms. Norton is a strange amalgamation of radical leftist politics and support for Islam. She likes the powerful image of the Bridge, because it brings people closer together. Of course, the ACMCU’s bridge flows in only one direction – towards the Islamization of America.

The next speaker, Mehdi Hasan, an Aljazeera presenter, asserted that there is rampant Islamophobia and anti-Muslim “hysteria” in the West. “You can say things about Muslims … that you can’t say about any other group.” He repeatedly made false analogies, pointing out that all the negative comments stated in public discourse regarding Muslims would be unacceptable if one substituted the word “Jews.” Apparently, facts make no difference. He also focused on the Muslim as “the Other”, incorrectly implying that Islam and Judeo-Christian values are in sync. He brought up numerous newspaper headlines to demonstrate negative commentary about Islam or Muslims, erroneously claiming the facts asserted were untrue. For example, he claimed it’s a lie that some UK banks stopped using piggy banks due to Muslim offense. Yet, UK banks have done exactly that.

Hasan also did a very good job of identifying the “Islamophobia industry’s” positions and countering them, calling many of them “myths”. Citing the leftist Center for American Progress’ “Fear, Inc.” as support for his contention that funding and networks that have given rise to Islamophobia, he also argued that Islamophobia is “immoral and dangerous”, making “extremism” more appealing to mainstream Muslims.

The final speaker was Roland Schatz, President of Media Tenor International. (The subtitle on his website is “creating perceptions”). His organization focuses on statistical research and strategic media analysis. The bulk of his presentation consisted of charts and graphs created over the last 15 years, monitoring whether news reporting was positive, negative, or neutral on subjects including terrorism and Islam. The accuracy of the news reports was not addressed.

Schatz’ organization is pushing a book titled, “Constructive News.” He has given up on getting the media to drop negative reporting on Islam and Muslims. Now, he’s resorting to asking news media to make things balanced. Schatz believes that every time the media reports a negative incident about Muslims, it should also report a positive incident. If it can’t find one, the negative incident should be omitted.

Additionally, Schatz is upset by America’s “obsession” with Muslims and freedom of speech. “My right to freedom stops where yours starts,” he proclaimed. However, the examples he gave indicated a right to be free from insult, a right conspicuously absent from the U.S. Constitution. It made him angry that politicians world-over participated in France’s unity march after the murders at Charlie Hebdo magazine. “Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo!” he declared, followed by an outburst of audience applause.

Schatz insists that freedom of speech and other freedoms should not be singled out as special, but rather there should only be one word that includes all freedoms equally, “freedom!” Of course, this is entirely false, as not all freedoms are equal. Some are considered fundamental, some rights are enabling rights, without which other rights would not exist. Indeed, freedom of speech is unique, is fundamental, and is more important and central to fundamental human rights than many other “rights” are.

Schatz claims that the public is victim to bigoted, Islamophobic media, and therefore can’t be blamed. It is up to Muslims to join panels, the media, and become involved so “another voice” can be heard. After all, Islamophobia really has nothing to do with Islam. It’s “xenophobia” similar to bigotry against Catholics when they first arrived in the U.S, and such “racism” is institutionalized. Like Hasan, Schatz believes that the West is baselessly treating Muslims like “the Other.”

Finally, Schatz accused the manufactured “Islamophobia industry” of publishing works from “pseudo experts” and “faux reports” all due to a closely-weaved network of activists, policy experts, think tanks and politicians, funded by a few Islamophobic foundations. Yes, we are all rich and doing this for the money!

It is likely no coincidence that the theological underpinnings of Islam, which refer to Jews as “apes and pigs” and treat non-Muslims as dhimmis or worse, were entirely absent from this seminar, as was a discussion of Islamic terrorism. Instead of acknowledging that so-called “Islamophobia” might result from the actions taken by a global Islamist movement, the assumption was all “anti-Islam” sentiment constitutes bigotry. Continually conflating “Islam” and “Muslims”, panelists failed to acknowledge that the public might have legitimate concerns about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities, and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. Yet, in America and Europe, where Muslims are free and equal, the public and media is accused of “otherizing” them, despite the fact that Shariah law is the ultimate Otherizer.

The charge of a “manufactured Islamophobia industry” which arises out of nothing more than networks for the sake of money is laughable. While a few make a nice living derived from funding, the majority involved in this movement have made great sacrifices for the Cause because of its importance. Moreover, its funding pales in comparison to the Saudi and Soros money that goes to support the anti-Islamophobia industry, which actually is manufactured. The facts speak for themselves: Islamic doctrine, Shariah law, the jihadists own words, Saudi Arabia’s and Iran’s theocratic laws, all provide indisputable evidence for the claims of the anti-Shariah movement. Accusations of money, networks and faux reports, made by those who accept Saudi money and deny the evils of Shariah law, constitute a classic example of psychological projection. Everything this panel accused the “Islamophobia industry” of doing, is something they are doing themselves.

The Bridges Initiative appears to be distinguishable from Georgetown’s past anti-Islamophobia campaigns in that it aspires to collect data from, and act as a repository for, seemingly objective data including charts, surveys, articles, news and statistics, provided by high profile professors, think tanks and policy “experts” to give it an air of legitimacy. It plans to funnel this body of work through Facebook, Twitter and other social media, hoping it will go viral and preferably undisputed.

The ACMCU and other Saudi-funded and interfaith programs have long been centers of indoctrination of America’s youth, teaching them in an Orwellian fashion that America is evil and the Muslim world is Victim.

Those who work on national security issues realize that we have to identify the ideological enemy in order to defeat it. But, Georgetown’s new program demonstrates that it is equally imperative that America also knows herself. One way or another, students must be inculcated with knowledge of the US Constitution, American history, and the fragility of freedom, in order to fight for its continuance, and not fall prey to politically correct, but factually false programs, like ACMCU’s Bridges Initiative.

Pulitzer Prize Winner David K. Shipler Hawks the “Protocols of the Elders of the Anti-Islam Movement” in The New Yorker

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, May 13, 2015:

A document entered into court evidence by Justice Department prosecutors in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, and later cited affirmatively by the federal judge in the case and cleared by the federal appeals court, would seem an unlikely target for a former journalist to try to spin a conspiratorial tale around, namely slandering others of hawking a racist/’Islamphobic’ “Protocols of the Elders of Islam.”

And yet that is what David K. Shipler, a former New York Times reporter and winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize, is now trying to do.

512R2aJ0iLLClearly upset that so-called “Islamophobes” have been successful using the document – again, discovered by the FBI, submitted into the evidence by federal prosecutors and approved as genuine by the federal court – to expose the Muslim Brotherhood roots of some of America’s largest Islamic organizations, Shipler wields his “Islamophobia” harpoon like Ahab at his “anti-Islam industry” Moby Dick.

He makes his dubious case in a new book out this week, entitled “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” (Alfred A. Knopf), which includes an entire chapter on the subject, and summarizes it in an article published on Tuesday in The New Yorker, “Pamela Geller and the Anti-Islam Movement.” The book received a very lukewarm review in the New York Times this past Sunday.

In the New Yorker article, Shipler claims:

Virtually all the alarm over the coming Islamic takeover and the spread of Sharia law can be traced back to an old document of questionable authority and relevance, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Dated May 22, 1991, it was found in 2004 by the F.B.I., buried in one of a large number of boxes uncovered during a search of a house in northern Virginia. (I reported on the discovery and the use of the document for my book “Freedom of Speech: Mightier than the Sword.”) It is cited on numerous Web sites, and in articles, videos, and training materials, which quote one another in circular arguments. Its illusion of importance was enhanced by federal prosecutors, who included it in a trove of documents introduced into evidence in the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization ultimately convicted of sending money to Hamas.

The memo, however, is far from probative. It was never subjected to an adversarial test of its authenticity or significance. Examined closely, it does not stand up as an authoritative prescription for action. Rather, it appears to have been written as a plea to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership for action, by an author we know little about, Mohamed Akram. He is listed elsewhere as a secretary in the Brotherhood, but he writes in the tone of an underling. Islam watchers do not quote his appeal that the recipients “not rush to throw these papers away due to your many occupations and worries. All that I’m asking of you is to read them and to comment on them.” These lines reveal the memo as a mere proposal, now twenty-four years old. No other copies have come to light.

Two features of the memo are highlighted by the Islam watchers: first, its assertion that “the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” and, second, “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” [emphasis added]

What’s remarkable about Shipler’s treatment of the Explanatory Memorandum in his article and in his book is how much he is willing to quickly dismiss facts that completely undo his case, and pays no attention to the glaring contradictions he ends up wrapping himself trying to debunk the document. At major points he contradicts himself. He breezes over the mountain of evidence that he has to overcome, but that means he can’t plead ignorance of it. One is only left with the conclusion that he’s being intentionally mendacious.

I beg the reader’s indulgence, for I will quote lengthy passages and on occasions paste screenshots from the court documents themselves so you know I’m not engaged in anything dodgy. Tellingly, most of these quotes never appear in Shipler’s book, and if so, only selectively edited form.

So let’s start with the evidence.

The document he is trying to cast doubts on is known generally as the “Explanatory Memorandum,” but it’s actual title is, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America.” The document is dated May 22, 1991 and was entered into evidence as “Elbarasse Search – 3″ by federal prosecutors in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2008.

Helpfully, the federal court overseeing the case in an unusual move posted the trial evidence on their own website. The Explanatory Memorandum and the FBI translation of the document can be found here.

At this point, we can turn to what the Justice Department said in federal court about the Explanatory Memorandum. In one court filing, available on the ACLU’s website, federal prosecutors state (p. 12):

The evidence introduced at trial, for example, established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood.8 Govt. Exh. 3-64 (seized from the home of HAMAS leader Ismail Elbarasse); Govt. Exh. 3-3 (Muslim Brotherhood document noting that ISNA was founded by the US-Muslim Brotherhood) ; Govt. Exh. 3-85 (1991 memorandum authored by U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni, recognizing ISNA and NAIT as Muslim Brotherhood organizations.) Government’s Exhibit 3-85, entitled An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group, described the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as a kind of “grand Jihad”:

The Ikhwan must understand that their role in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious…. [emphasis added]

So the Justice Department states that:

1) Two Islamic organizations – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – were created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (based on other trial evidence as well as the Explanatory Memorandum);

2) The Explanatory Memorandum was authored by U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member Mohamed Akram Adlouni;

3) That the memo describes the Brotherhood’s strategic goal as “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within.”

Now please note that these claims were not made by “Pamela Geller and the Anti-Islam Movement” but the Justice Department in a federal court filing. He can tilt at all of the “anti-Islam” windmills he wants, but fundamentally he still has to explain away the court evidence.

And as stated earlier, much to the consternation of Shipler, the federal court agreed in a published opinion with the Justice Department’s analysis of the document when Judge Jorge Solis ruled on motions from three separate organizations named as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial – ISNA, NAIT, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – asking to be removed from the Justice Department’s co-conspirator list. The judge’s ruling against removing the groups from the unindicted co-conspirator list was unsealed in 2010.

In that ruling, Judge Solis states (p. 15):

Government Exhibit 3-85 is titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” authored by Mohamed Akram of the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood and dated May 22, 1991. (Gov’t Ex. 3-85 (Elbarasse 3) at 21.) The “Explanatory Memorandum” includes a section titled “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,” which states that the work of the Ikhwan in the United States is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Id.)Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Fund (“OLF”) (HLF’s former name), and the United Association for Studies and Research (“UASR”). (Id. at 32.)

So Judge Solis found that:

1) The Explanatory Memorandum was authored by Mohamed Akram of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council;

2) That the document describes the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within”;

3) That the document lists the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” including ISNA and NAIT.

At this point Shipler laughably believes he has room to maneuver. In the New Yorker article and in his book, he makes three general claims:

1) That the judge blindly accepted the Justice Department’s argument about the origins and importance of the memo and never allowed adversarial challenges to its provenance;

2) That the Explanatory Memorandum was admitted as hearsay, meaning that the groups named in the memo were never allowed to challenge in court;

3) That the judge failed to distinguish between the memo’s list of “our organizations” and “the organizations of our friends.”

Let’s take these in order.

1) Judge Solis accepted the Justice Department’s description of the Explanatory Memorandum unquestioningly and never allowed adversarial challenges.

In discussing the order by Judge Solis in response to the motions of the three Islamic organizations, Shipler states in his book (p. 190):

CAIR and two other groups moved to have themselves removed from the list of unindicted co-conspirators, but the effort backfired and gave Islam watchers more ammunition. Not only was their motion denied by Judge Jorge Solis, who presided over the retrial, conviction, and sentencing of the five Holy Land Foundation defendants (the first trial had ended in a hung jury). He also accepted the government’s assertions by citing the seized Elbarasse documents, including the Explanatory Memorandum, without testing their accuracy in an adversarial proceeding. He did not distinguish between the memo’s list of “our organizations” and “the organizations of our friends.” He ruled, “The Government had produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA [Islamic Society of North America], and NAIT [North American Islamic Trust] with HLF [Holy Land Foundation], the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” [emphasis added]

Remarkably, Shipler contradicts himself just a few pages later, quoting a defense attorney for the Holy Land Foundation defendants who said that the Elbarasse documents had, in fact, been challenged by the defense team (p. 198):

The defense team lodged vigorous objections to the introduction of this and the other documents from the Elbarasse search, and two attorneys on the defense team, Nancy Hollander and Marlo Cadeddu, scoffed at Guandolo’s statement. “There was no such stipulation by the defense,” said Cadeddu. “Nor would we ever have stipulated to any such thing. Any claims to the contrary are simply untrue.” Indeed, after the five Holy Land officials and fund-raisers were convicted, their lawyers argued specifically, in an unsuccessful appeal to the Fifth Circuit, that the trial judge had erred in admitting the documents, which the attorneys branded hearsay, irrelevant to the charge that the defendants had funneled money to Hamas. [emphasis added]

At this point, observant readers are no doubt confused. By Shipler’s own admission, the Elbarasse documents, including the Explanatory Memorandum, were subject to challenges on both the trial court and appellate levels. Both sides briefed the court, and judge and the appeals court panel ruled on the merits of their arguments. These are what as generally known as “adversarial proceedings,” much as Shipler claims never occurred. It’s not clear exactly then what Shipler was expecting. An entirely separate trial over the Explanatory Memorandum? With his own damning acknowledgement of these defense team challenges, we can only conclude that he’s being duplicitous, or really, really thick.

But that’s not all. During the trial one of the investigators in the Holy Land case, FBI Special Agent Lara Burns, twice mentioned the Explanatory Memorandum (trial transcript 09/28/2008 at p. 21, 10/07/2008 at p. 71).

Read more at PJ Media

Also see:

Jim Harbaugh: ‘Michigan Football Will Watch American Sniper!’

harbaughTruth Revolt, by Bradford Thomas, April 9, 2015:

Newly-hired Michigan head football coach Jim Harbaugh reacted to the controversy over a (temporally) canceled campus screening of American Sniper Wednesday by announcing that the football team would be watching the film regardless of what the university decided:

coach tweet

As TruthRevolt reported Wednesday, a group of about 300 Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) and Muslim students issued a collective letter earlier this week accusing the university of creating an “unsafe space” for students and “tolerating dangerous anti-Muslim and anti-MENA propaganda” by showing a film that contributes to “a culture of Islamophobia in America.” In response, Michigan’s Center for Campus Involvement canceled the screening and apologized for “causing harm” to students.

After getting hammered in the press for caving to a protest, Michigan reversed its decision. Late Wednesday, Michigan’s vice president of student life E. Royster Harper issued a statement calling the temporary cancelation “not consistent” with the university’s “high value” on the freedom of expression and announcing that the screening of Chris Kyle film was back on:

It was a mistake to cancel the showing of the movie ‘American Sniper’ on campus as part of a social event for students.

The initial decision to cancel the movie was not consistent with the high value the University of Michigan places on freedom of expression and our respect for the right of students to make their own choices in such matters.

The movie will be shown at the originally scheduled time and location. We recognize, however, that some students are uncomfortable with the content of the movie, and appreciate that concern.

Therefore, the university also will show an alternative movie, “Paddington,” in another location on campus at that same time and date to provide our students with additional options that evening.

Who Is to Blame for the Chapel Hill Murders? The Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Industry?

Accused: Craig Hicks, 46, is pictured entering the courtroom for his first appearance at the Durham County Detention Center on Wednesday, after he allegedly shot the three students to death on Tuesday

Accused: Craig Hicks, 46, is pictured entering the courtroom for his first appearance at the Durham County Detention Center on Wednesday, after he allegedly shot the three students to death on Tuesday

PJ Media, By Robert Spencer On February 13, 2015:

Muslims are under siege in the U.S. — don’t you know that? Roving bands of Islamophobes routinely harass and threaten innocent Muslims, and a well-heeled Islamophobia Network spends millions to demonize and vilify Muslims in the American public discourse. Things have gotten so bad that pious Muslim women fear to wear their hijabs in public – and when they do, they’re spat upon and worse. The climate of fear and hatred that the Islamophobes have so assiduously whipped up culminated in the horrific murder last Tuesday of three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, by a psychopath seething with hatred for Muslims.

That’s the way numerous leftists and Muslims see life in Barack Obama’s America, but in reality, that scenario is almost wholly false. A psychopath really did murder three Muslims in Chapel Hill last Tuesday, but the rest is pure leftist mythmaking, providing an illustrative example of how the Left and the mainstream media ignore inconvenient facts and bend others in order to further their chosen narrative.

Who is Craig Hicks?

The problems with this narrative are many. From the looks of his Facebook page, Hicks is hardly the right-wing, anti-Muslim Islamophobic redneck of their hysterical fantasies; instead, he is a hardcore leftist and fan of the Huffington Post and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Those two are among his huge and revealing list of “Likes,” which shows him much more preoccupied with Christianity than with Islam. He likes the atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Bill Maher, all of whom have criticized Islam, but his page includes none of their statements about Islam. He likes many anti-Christian groups but no groups that are critical of Islam, and he even likes a group called “Obama Backs Mosque Near Ground Zero: ‘This is America,’” praising Obama for supporting the Ground Zero Mosque.

Other “Likes” from Hicks’ Facebook page include Bill Nye The Science Guy; Sarah Silverman; Penn & Teller: Bullshit!; Stop the World, the Teabaggers Want Off; LGBT / Atheist Alliance; Scary Bible Quote of the Day; World Atheists: Lets Kick Islam and Christianity out of Africa; Merry christmyth; Pass The 28th Amendment – Complete Removal Of The Church From The State; The Rachel Maddow Fan Page; Pissing Off The Religious Right; Keep your Bible out of our Vaginas; Mitt Romney Sucks; Separation of Church and State; Still here? Silly Christians; Jesus McChrist; Denying Evolution Won’t Make Your God Any More Real; Dogs Against Romney; The Atheist’s Bible Commentary; Organization for Educating Misinformed Tea Party Patriots; GOPHypocrisy; Liberals Against Conservative Propaganda; Arrest the Pope and Tax Religion; Not wasting my Sundays at church; Network for Church Monitoring; Dominionism is destroying America; Christians vs. Atheists; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Stop The Westboro Baptist Church!; and many, many more. Oh, and Gun Toting Liberal.

He likes no anti-Islam groups, and his Facebook page contains no criticism of Islam other than one comparison of “Radical Christians” and “Radical Muslims.” From the looks of all this at least, if Craig Hicks had been planning to commit a hate crime, it seems much more likely that he would have targeted “right-wingers,” Republicans, evangelical Christians, etc., than that he would have targeted Muslims because they were Muslims.

What’s more, Hicks’ wife has said:

I can say with absolute belief that this incident had nothing to do with religion of the victims’ faith, but it was related to a longstanding parking dispute that my husband had with the neighbors.

These killings were over parking, not Islam

The Chapel Hill Police said the same thing: these killings were over parking, not Islam. Karen Hicks added that her husband “often champions on his Facebook page for the rights of individuals. … He believes everyone is equal – doesn’t matter what you look like or who you are or what you believe.” U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand stated Wednesday:

“The events of yesterday are not part of a targeting campaign against Muslims in North Carolina,” and that there was “no information this is part of an organized event against Muslims.”

It is demonic madness to murder people over a parking space, but it is not the seismic event that the cold-blooded murder of three Muslims solely because they were Muslims would be. And so many decided to go with the old adage from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

 

The father of one of the victims insisted: “This was not a dispute over a parking space; this was a hate crime. This man had picked on my daughter and her husband a couple of times before, and he talked with them with his gun in his belt. And they were uncomfortable with him, but they did not know he would go this far.” He said his daughter told him: “Honest to God, he hates us for what we are and how we look.”

Is the sky falling on accusations of Islamophobia?

Curious that Craig Hicks would seethe with such hatred for Muslims that it would move him to murder, and yet never mention this hatred to his wife of seven years or give a hint of it on his Facebook page, where so many of his hates were on abundant display. Nonetheless, it was time to turn the legend into fact: Nihad Awad of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thundered:

Based on the brutal nature of this crime, the past anti-religion statements of the alleged perpetrator, the religious attire of two of the victims, and the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric in American society, we urge state and federal law enforcement authorities to quickly address speculation of a possible bias motive in this case.

Duke professor Omid Safi (who is so nakedly dishonest that he once claimed that I had threatened to kill him) assumed that speculation was fact as he lamented:

There is a tendency to say, “This is a nice place, these eruptions of violence don’t belong here.” And yet here we are. This is, in all of the heartbreak and violence and sadness, where we are.

Islamic supremacist activist Linda Sarsour said the murder “sends a message to other young people in the Muslim community that the fear is valid.” Abed Ayoub of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) linked the killings to the film American Sniper (which Craig Hicks actually probably hates):

It may not be directly linked to the film, but the overall way that Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment are moving in this country is portrayed in the words of those who watched American Sniper. The film gave us a look into how these individuals were feeling and for the first time we were getting raw, real messages – and they were frightening.

Where is the evidence of a hate crime?

Why did these activists and so many others assume that the killings were hate crimes despite the lack of any evidence that they were? Because for all their lamentations, they actually want and need hate crimes against Muslims, and in the absence of any significant number of actual ones, they have to invent them. Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have on many occasions in the past not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques.

Hamas-linked CAIR and other groups like it use hate crimes against Muslims to try to gain political points: Muslims are victims, you see, and part of their victimhood is that they’re subjected to unwarranted law enforcement scrutiny. Attacks on innocent victims can be and are used to try to deflect attention away from the reality of jihad terror and to blunt law enforcement efforts to stop that jihad terror. Hate crimes against Muslims are used as weapons to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror, for it will lead to the victimization of innocent Muslims. And so when Muslims are killed for any reason, as in this heinous crime in North Carolina, these disingenuous opportunists run with “hate crime” claims, no matter how much they have to trim the facts to do so.

It’s a far more well-financed and well-oiled machine than the fictional “Islamophobia Network” of leftist and Islamic supremacist myth – witness the growing avalanche of mainstream media stories lamenting “Islamophobia” after Hicks’ “Islamophobic” killings. The facts don’t matter; how they can be twisted to prey on people’s emotions and manipulate policy is all that does matter. We have seen this machine roll into especially cynical operation in the case of the psychopath Craig Hicks.

Related at the PJ Tatler: Obama: FBI Probing Possible Hate-Crimes Violation in Muslim Students’ Murders