President Obama: “We are not at war with Islam” – but is Radical Islam at War with Us?

ISIS Foreign Fighters Source: ADL

ISIS Foreign Fighters Source: ADL

NER, by Jerry Gordon, Feb. 19, 2015:

On Wednesday, February 18, 2014 at a White House Summit, President Obama presented his views on countering “violent extremism”.  He suggested that Islamic terrorists misappropriate Islamic doctrine, exploit disaffected youths in communities across the US and globally throughout the Ummah- the community of Muslim believers. He suggested that youths prone to radicalization outside the US may be victimized by poverty, without job opportunities and oppressed by corrupt regimes. Countering violent extremism he suggests is a multi-pronged approach involving economic programs, political reform and community involvement to halt radicalization. His focus in the US was on creating community partnerships and pilot projects in several American cities, endeavoring to integrate Muslims in America, preserving and protecting their civil rights under our constitution against untoward surveillance. The President gathered Muslim and other religious clerics from the US and abroad, community leaders, law enforcement, homeland security officials, and high tech entrepreneurs seeking means of stopping radicalization of youths. Youths  attracted by the ‘successes’ of  the Islamic State blasted around the world via the internet,  tens of thousands of tweets, high production videos and on-line webzines in a number of languages including English.

Watch this C-Span video excerpt of the President’s remarks at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism:

Nowhere in his remarks , did  the President explain what the Islamic doctrine is that has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters, Americans  among them,  to be recruited to the cause of this self-styled Caliphate, the Islamic State (IS).  What he has called ISIL, the Islam State in the Levant (ISIL) is a reference to the broad geographic area that stretches from the Mediterranean coast of Israel to the shore of the Persian Gulf encompassing the Arabian Peninsula.   Those ‘successes’ include videos of the savagery perpetrated against the hated Kuffars, Infidels, including Christians, Jews, ancient religious minorities and apostate Muslims.  Those videos show barbaric beheadings, burnings, crucifixions, mass shootings and enslavement.   The President mentioned recent incidents in Paris, Copenhagen, Ottawa and Sydney of attacks on victims without naming the victims; leftists, free thinkers, Christians and Jews. Neither did he identify the perpetrators.  He used the unfortunate murder of three Muslims in North Carolina by an alleged atheist insinuating that it may have been a hate crime equivalent to Antisemitism.  Interestingly, 60 percent of FBI hate crimes reported involve Antisemitic acts, such as vandalism spray painted on garage doors in Madison, Wisconsin last weekend.  Less than 12 percent of such FBI reports involve hate crimes against Muslims.   Coincidentally, the ADL, which the White House invited to the Summit, released a report,   Homegrown Islamic Extremism in 2014, identifying American Muslims involved in perpetrating violent hate crimes and others arrested in the process of leaving to join IS.

February 18th coincided with Ash Wednesday in the Christian calendar signifying the onset of the 40 days of Lent.  The ashes of burned palm fronds dobbed on the foreheads of professing Christians as an emblem of penitence reflects the biblical injunction about the fragility of life   as stated in   Genesis: 3:19: “For dust you are and to dust you shall return.”   Notice of recent atrocities committed against Christians by IS was reflected in remarks of Pope Francis in Rome and Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington.  Pope Francis remarked   about the by masked IS followers on the shores  of Libya beheading of 21 Coptic Christians communicating a message to all Nations of the Cross that conquest of Rome could follow, “ they are Christians, the  blood of our brothers and sisters cries out.” Following the slaughter of Christians in Libya IS perpetrated in Iraq, a barbaric burning alive of 45 Kurdish captives held in cages.

Just prior to the mid-February White House Summit, The Atlantic Magazine published an article by Graeme Wood, What ISIS Really Wants.  The subtext capsules the arguments propounded   by Wood:

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam in an email exchange with this writer after reading the Wood Atlantic article commented, “This is a jump in level. First, [Bill] Mahr and now this. The lib/progressive clue phone is ringing.”  Russian historian at Connecticut Central State University, Professor Jay Bergman, wrote, “I read it.  Superb.  The [President] should read it.  But of course…he won’t.”

According to Wood, IS bases all of its power and authority on a strict adherence to a Salafi literal interpretation of Islam and Sharia law, with almost a total focus on the doctrine of Tawhid.  Tawhid calls for strict adherence to the laws of Allah as revealed by the Prophet Mohammed. Further that  all man-made laws and systems must be rejected.  IS considers, any Muslim who  doesn’t adhere  to the doctrine of  Tawhid , an infidel, including “core Al Qaeda” and other Salafists who object to IS public displays  of savagery.

Wood reveals the Tawhid doctrine of IS citing spokesman Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani and   Western experts like Professor Bernard Heykal at Princeton.  Wood interviewed proponents of these same Salafist Jihadist views exemplified by “prophetic methodology” of the exemplar Mohammed, Allah’s messenger.  Among  leading Salafists in the west  interviewed  by  Wood  is Sheik Anjem Choudary in the UK, a subject of monitoring by Mi-5 for his radical views.  Wood’s interview with Australian radical Muslim preacher and IS recruiter Musa Cerantonio, reveals the apocalyptic end time vision espoused by Salafists.   Wood explains how doctrine IS is faithful  to foundational  Islam anchored in Sharia and Islamic legal rulings, frequently citing them in conduct of its feats of savage barbarity. He also notes how  the leaders of the Islamic State, considers the leaders of  the Muslim Brotherhood , Al Qaeda and even other Salafists  as takfir, apostates, subject to death  fatwas.

Read more

CAIR Mourns Charlie Hebdo, Yet Advocates Censorship

Cair posterAmerican Thinker, By Andrew E. Harrod, Jan. 25, 2015

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-derived “civil rights” group, “repeated its defense of freedom of speech” in a baffling January 7 press release that “condemned” the Paris jihadist Charlie Hebdo massacre. A trip down a bad memory lane, though, is necessary in order to evaluate critically CAIR’s commitment to free speech rights with proverbial grains of salt equivalent to the Dead Sea’s renowned salinity.

CAIR, an unindicted terrorism coconspirator, and “defense of freedom of speech” simply do not match. CAIR, for example, has unsuccessfully tried to stop critical commentary on Islam in an American public library and school. CAIR has also harassed a Michigan individual who opposed a mosque construction with frivolous subpoenas, ultimately quashed. One 2012 article on the CAIR-Chicago affiliate website discussed how the First Amendment has “been manipulated to make America the catalyst for unjust hate.”

Nihad Awad

Nihad Awad

Accordingly, CAIR executive director Nihad Awad sounded an uncertain free speech trumpet when presenting the press release that noted Charlie Hebdo’s “derogatory references to Islam and its Prophet Muhammad.” Awad equated “extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions,” placing thereby Charlie Hebdo’s victims on a level with their murderers. Similar analysis had appeared in a 2006 CAIR press release concerning the Danish cartoons, even as CAIR, the 2015 press release recalled, “rejected the sometimes violent response to Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.”

“We all value freedom of expression,” Awad had written to the Danish ambassador in 2006. “But we should also use good judgment and common sense to avoid actions” that are “intentionally insulting” or “promote hatred.” Awad proposed CAIR “as a bridge between the Muslim community worldwide and the government of Denmark” in “offering proactive educational measures.” CAIR could therefore exploit the affair to present Islam in a positive manner and effectively proselytize.

At the same time, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR’s then chairman and a Hamas/Hezbollah apologist who had also extended a speaking invitation to a neo-Nazi while leading CAIR’s Florida chapter, expressed support for blasphemy laws. Ahmed wrote on his website that a “connection between terrorism and a venerated religious figure such as Prophet Muhammad transgresses all bounds of decency.” “Free speech, like every other freedom, comes with responsibility,” Ahmed intoned, and the “affair was avoidable had all sides approached the issue wisely.” Ahmed demanded the “same zero tolerance for Islamophobia as… anti-Semitism” while painting dark scenarios of speech inciting violence. He feared “plunging the world into the abyss of a clash between civilizations.”

Ahmed Rehab, CAIR-Chicago’s director and a similar Hamas and Nazi apologist, also discussed “racism targeting Muslims” during a 2008 radio interview on republishing the Danish cartoons. “The majority of Muslims are both against the cartoons and, of course, against death threats,” was Rehab’s immoral equivalence. America does not have “absolute freedom of speech” allowing pornography on daytime television, for example, but a “responsible tradition of free speech.”

The Danish cartoons were a “red flag” for Rehab who, like Ahmed, falsely analogized criticizing Islam to anti-Semitic prejudice. “Long before there was any indication of gas chambers,” European Jews confronted bigoted “freedom of expression.”  The “demonization of a particular faith community or race-based community,” Rehab hyperbolically warned, can incite “further violence against that group or… discrimination.” “Just because one has a right” to speak, Rehab added online in 2010, “does not make it the right thing to do” under a “standard of decency.”

The strategies of CAIR et al. to equate criticism of Islamic ideas with prejudice against individuals and warn of non-Muslim speech inciting Muslim violence have not been without effect. President Barack Obama condemned the Charlie Hebdo assault as an “attack on our free press,” but in 2012 an Obama spokesperson had doubted the magazine’s “judgment” in publishing Muhammad cartoons. Days later Obama infamously declared before the United Nations General Assembly that “future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s fifty-seven member states, meanwhile, have advocated for years legal suppression of “Islamophobia” as a “crime against humanity” resembling anti-Semitism. Countries like Denmark have obliged with hate speech prosecutions against Islam’s critics, something not protested by CAIR. Private news organizations also often refrain from showing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while showing no such scruples towards Christians.

Under CAIR’s standards, individuals touching the third religious rail of Islam might escape with their lives, but not their liberty. If social ostracism does not suffice to silence those irreverent towards Islam, groups like CAIR will not refrain from seeking where possible legal instruments of censorship. While trying to talk a good talk on liberty, CAIR’s past shows all too clearly where it is heading.

Islamist Panel Approaches Self-Parody in Hebdo/Radicalization Talk

IPT News
January 23, 2015

1118A panel discussion Thursday hosted by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) promised to plumb the “the root causes of radicalization” in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks at Charlie Hebdo magazine and a kosher market.

It turns out the problem is not Islamic theology or radical Muslim ideology. It’s all the things the West does wrong. Fix those problems, panelists said, and things get better.

During the 90-minute program at the National Press Club, no speaker discussed the Quranic verses invoked by terrorists in the Islamic State or al-Qaida to justify their actions. Instead, speakers emphasized a host of grievances that they say lead young Muslims to believe that peace and democracy will not lead to the changes they desire.

Muslim immigrants must be treated with more dignity and equality, said CSID founder Radwan Masmoudi. “Basically you must end all forms of racism, discrimination and hatred directed against Europeans of Arab descent or of the Islamic faith.” The West also must end the war in Syria and denounce the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood regime by Egypt’s military in July 2013.

Dalia Mogahed, a pollster and former White House adviser, took issue with the public reaction to the attacks. Defending the right to offend people as part of free expression plays into the terrorists’ agenda, she said. There is such a right, but society normally polices “incredibly offensive depiction(s)” of minorities. She wasn’t offended by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as a Muslim, but she was “disgusted” by them as an American.

"All is forgiven"

“All is forgiven”

“The correct question isn’t, ‘can we?'” she said, “the correct question is ‘should we?'”

Mogahed called the attack on Charlie Hebdo “a very strange event” because it came at a time in which there were no protests. “The shooting literally came out of nowhere. It was a calculated act of provocation on the part of terrorist organizations. This was not an organic, or even fanatical, response of just rage and anger against cartoons.” This ignores the magazine’s history of satirizing all faiths, generating no violence from Christians or Jews. Last week, 10 people were killed in Niger when protesters angry at the latest Charlie Hebdo cover torched churches.

The assertion is puzzling because, as a pollster, Mogahed has monitored attitudes in the Muslim world for years. As such, she is well aware that the Paris attacks did not happen in a vacuum. In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered on an Amsterdam street by a radical Muslim angered by van Gogh’s film, Submission, which focused on Islam’s treatment of women. In 2010, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard survived a home invasion attack by an ax-wielding Somali with ties to the Islamist terrorist group Al-Shabaab.

American Colleen LaRose, known as “Jihad Jane,” is serving a 10-year prison sentence in part due to her plotting to travel to Sweden to kill another cartoonist, Lars Vilks. That murder, she wrote in an email obtained by federal investigators, would be “my goal till i achieve it or die trying.”

There are numerous other examples of plots and attacks targeting people for their depictions of Islam’s prophet.

But the intent behind the attacks, Mogahed said, “was for Europe to respond essentially exactly as it did – to assert the right to offend by reprinting the cartoons.”

That certainly is a point of view. Another is that the terrorists hoped to intimidate others from showing images of Muhammad under any circumstance. Given that major American news outlets, including the New York Times, CNN and Fox and others have refused to show the Charlie Hebdo images, the attacks succeeded.

The focus on radical Islam and defense of free speech that resulted from the Paris attacks gave the terrorists “the rhetorical victory they desired,” she said. A better response would have been “to reassert the place of French citizens of Muslim faith in the republic.”

Mogahed and others repeatedly expressed resentment that the terrorists’ beliefs were being conflated with the beliefs held by 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide. They provided no examples to show this is what people mean when they talk about Islamic extremism.

Whatever the merits of Mogahed’s argument, it seems to have little connection to the causes of radicalization, which is what the panel was supposed to discuss.

In a podcast Wednesday, atheist writer Sam Harris slammed an emphasis on the West’s flaws in analyzing the Paris terrorist attacks as “completely insane.” After slaughtering the Charlie Hebdo staffers, Harris notes, Cherif and Said Kouachi yelled, “We have avenged the prophet.” They did not lament racism, disenfranchisement or any other grievance.

“That’s what causes someone to grab an AK 47 and murder 12 cartoonists and then scream ‘Allahu Akhbar’ in the streets,” Harris said facetiously. “It is a completely insane analysis. Even if you grant everything that’s wrong with capitalism and the history of colonialism, you should not be able to deny that these religious maniacs are motivated by concerns about blasphemy and the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, and consider their behavior entirely ethical in light of specific religious doctrines. And it’s a kind of masochism and moral cowardice and lack of intelligence, frankly, at this point, that is allowing people to deny this fact.”

Harris argued that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were not racist. But even if they were, emphasizing the offensive nature of the images shows someone “has completely lost the plot here.”

“[P]rotecting this speech becomes important when you have one group of people – ‘radical Muslims’ – who are responding to this offense with credible threats of murder in every country on earth. We can’t give in to this.”

“People have been murdered over cartoons,” he added. “End of moral analysis.”

Not for Nihad Awad, co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). His prepared remarks at the radicalization forum focused on the frustration he said Muslim American youth feel for constantly having to condemn the actions of others and for drawing disproportionate law enforcement attention.

“Islam has been blamed for the recent events, not the terrorists themselves,” Awad said. The media’s focus on the religious motivation inspiring terrorists and references to a war of ideas within Islam “is very offensive to me, to implicate the entire Islamic faith and the 1.7 billion people into accusing them of being inherently violent and warring among themselves. I believe this is dishonest discourse.”

Awad’s assertion is contradicted by other Muslims who believe the only way to stem radicalization is by modernizing and reforming Islam, steering away from strict, literalist interpretations. In addition, those most offended by cartoons or commentaries need to learn more peaceful ways to express their frustration.

Read more (with video)

U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Political Party Financially Supports Congressman André Carson

2527216764Center for Security Policy, Jan. 5, 2015:

The Muslim American Society (MAS) and Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) just concluded their 13th annual convention held at the McCormick Center in President Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago from 25-28 December 2014. Notable among the scheduled contributors at this gathering of high level international and national leadership representing the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood was keynote speaker U.S. Congressman André Carson, a Democrat from Indiana’s 7th District. The presence at this convention of an elected U.S. lawmaker who has received financial donations from Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations ever since he was first elected to the House of Representatives in a special election in early 2008 must be a matter of serious concern.

Controversy surrounds the appearance of Congressman Carson at the MAS-ICNA 2014 Convention in Chicago where he was a scheduled panelist together with Mazen Mokhtar, National Executive Director for the Muslim American Society, which was founded as the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Worse yet, according to the testimony of federal agents in federal courts, MAS National Executive Director Mokhtar facilitated operations for running an Al-Qa’eda website responsible for raising funds for the Taliban. In March 2014, MAS was just one of several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliates that joined together to establish the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first U.S. political party openly founded by members of the North American Brotherhood network.

At the December 2014 MAS-ICNA Convention, Carson and Mokhtar were scheduled to speak on a panel addressing “Ferguson Is Our Issue: We Can’t Breathe.” The following picture is from the actual program of the MAS-ICNA 2014 Convention issued to attendees, which clearly shows that Congressman Carson was scheduled to appear on a panel 26 December 2014 with Mazen Mokhtar, the executive director of USCMO member MAS National. (The program date is printed erroneously, as the last Saturday in December 2014 was the 27th, not the 26th). Nevertheless, Carson’s later official statement that he didn’t even find out about this panel until sometime on Sunday 28 December seems questionable.

ferguson

Prior to his scheduled appearance on this panel for Saturday evening, Congressman Carson did make an appearance as scheduled as the keynote speaker for the 13th Annual MAS-ICNA Convention Appreciation Dinner—after which he seems to have disappeared, with no comment from the Convention organizers about the empty seat at the Ferguson panel. The following picture is a screenshot from the MAS-ICNA 2014 convention website providing details for his appearance.

meet celebrity

There’s no question the Congressman was present at the Convention Center on the date in question. The following images are from Muslim Brotherhood leader Sabri Samirah’s organization UMMA and UMMA Board of Trustee member Darwish Mabruk’s Facebook pages, showing photos taken during the MAS-ICNA convention where Congressman Carson is pictured meeting with various Muslim Brotherhood leadership figures, apparently just prior to the dinner.

Pic3Carson handshake

Later, as the back-pedaling began, Congressman Carson issued a press statement on 31 December 2014 as shown in the screenshot below from his official Twitter account. In both the press statement and Tweet, however, he strangely neglected to mention the Muslim American Society, which was the co-sponsor of the MAS-ICNA Convention chaired by Hussein Ata(president, Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview, Illinois, where USCMO Secretary General Oussama Jammal is a past president and current Chairman of MAS-PACE).

Pic5

In Carson’s statement that appears on his Congressional website, the following message was delivered to his constituency on 31 December 2014:

  • INDIANAPOLIS – Today, Congressman André Carson released the following statement in response to his attendance at the ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) Chicago convention last weekend.
  • On Saturday, December 27, I attended the ICNA Chicago convention to deliver a speech on the importance of civil engagement and developing leaders in the community.
  • On Sunday, December 28, I learned that ICNA had also scheduled me to sit on a Ferguson panel Saturday night – which I had not planned on participating in.  At no point had I ever confirmed to attend any other events other than the dinner.  Any reference to my participation or appearance on the Ferguson panel during the ICNA conference is not factual.
  • As a former law enforcement officer with the Indiana Department of Homeland Security in the anti-terrorism unit, it is critical that Americans know that I would never associate with any individual or organization trying to harm the United States of America or its citizens.

The absence of the Muslim American Society’s name in Congressman Carson’s press statement and Tweet is peculiar. It’s not as though he’d avoided associating with MAS in the past—but of course, that was before the United Arab Emirates (UAE) listed MAS as a terrorist organization, as Patrick Poole noted here. But it’s also not the first time Carson has attempted to conceal details of such problematic associations. In June 2014, Congressman Carson was featured as a keynote speaker for the USCMO’s inaugural banquet, an event shrouded in secrecy with no transcripts, audio, or video having been released, as would usually be customary. Both Congressman Carson and Congressman Keith Ellison (Democrat, MN-5th District) were invited by USCMO Secretary General Oussama Jammal to speak at the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political party’s event on 10 June 2014 at the Hilton Crystal City Hotel near Washington, D.C. To date, their respective congressional offices have refused to make publicly available either the text or video of the remarks delivered by Carson and Ellison at this high level Muslim Brotherhood function, held at a time when the Obama administration’s foreign policy supporting Brotherhood revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria was collapsing in failure.

So, perhaps the Congressmen’s reticence might have something to do with the all-star Muslim Brotherhood line-up that attended that banquet, a couple of which groups, as noted above, were named in November 2014 by the UAE to its new terrorist organizations list (on that list are both CAIR and MAS, along with the Muslim Brotherhood itself.). As reported by the Muslim Link Paper for this historic Muslim Brotherhood leadership gathering, others in the speaker line-up included Dr. Ousama Jammal, Secretary General, USCMO; Dr. Osama Abu-Irshaid, Board Member, American Muslims for Palestine; Nihad Awad, National Executive Director, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); Naeem Baig, President, Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); Mazen Mokhtar, Executive Director, Muslim American Society (MAS); Khalil Meek, Executive Director, Muslim Legal Fund of America; Imam Delawar Hussein, Dr Lynne Muhammad, Founder, Making A Difference Through Discoveries, American Islamic College, Whitney Young Magnet High School; and W.D. Mohammed II, President, Mosque Cares.

Read more at CSP

Also see:

Days Before UAE Terror Designation, CAIR Awards PIJ Board Member

IPT News
November 20, 2014

1097Officials at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have expressed astonishment and confusion over a decision by the United Arab Emirates to include the American-Islamist organization on a list of terrorist groups.

“Well this is shocking to us in the first place,” CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad told CNN Tuesday. “It’s a bizarre move by the UAE and that’s why we’re seeking clarification by this decision, not only CAIR but other civil Muslim organizations including Muslim American Society and the largest Islamic relief organization for Muslims in the West. So it is quite frightening and shocking that a state like the UAE would designate an American civil rights and advocacy organization like CAIR.”

The terrorist list was first reported by Buzzfeed on Saturday, which cited a UAE state media announcement.

One week earlier, a CAIR banquet in California bestowed its “Promoting Justice” award to Sami Al-Arian and his family. Al-Arian was on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Shura Council – its board of directors – in the 1990s and provided refuge to at least three other board members in the United States, including current PIJ Secretary General Ramadan Shallah.

During a 1991 speech in Cleveland, Al-Arian was introduced as the head of a charity called the Islamic Committee for Palestine. “A brief note about the Islamic Committee for Palestine,” Imam Fawaz Damra explained to the audience. “It is the active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine. We preferred to call it the “Islamic Committee for Palestine” for security reasons.” [Emphasis added]

[see video]

During a later fundraising session, Damra urged the audience to give to the Islamic Jihad, invoking a recent attack by one of its members. “And whoever wants to write a check,” Damra said, “he can write it in the name if the Islamic Committee for Palestine, ‘ICP’ for short.”

Four years later, in the wake of a double-suicide bombing in Israel that killed 21 Israelis, Al-Arian wrote a letter to a Kuwaiti legislator seeking money “for the jihad effort in Palestine so that operations such as these can continue…”

Al-Arian has claimed that the letter was never sent. But it was handwritten in Arabic and signed, and a copy was kept in his home, where federal agents found it during a November 1995 search.

“The evidence was clear in this case that you were a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad,” U.S. District Court Judge James Moody told Al-Arian during a 2006 sentencing hearing. “You were on the board of directors and an officer, the secretary. Directors control the actions of an organization, even the PIJ; and you were an active leader.”

Al-Arian pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide goods or services to the PIJ. His plea agreement included an admission that he was associated with the PIJ. But he has never acknowledged the depth of his involvement, and certainly never disavowed the group’s bylaws, which were found in his home and call for: “The rejection of any peaceful solution for the Palestinian Cause, and the affirmation of the jihad solution and the martyrdom style as the only option for liberation.”

The bylaws include a goal of creating “a state of terror, instability and panic in the souls of Zionists and especially the groups of settlers, and force them to leave their houses.”

CAIR officials know all of this. They have stood by Al-Arian’s side for nearly two decades possessing that knowledge. They also know his plea agreement includes his agreement to be deported.

In introducing the award Nov. 8, CAIR San Francisco Vice President Maleeha Haq explained that “the Al-Arian family was a natural choice. For over 11 years now they have been at the center of an unjust campaign by the government. Alhamdulillah, the government decided to finally dismiss all of their unfounded charges against Dr. Sami Al-Arian. However, he remains in limbo awaiting deportation proceedings.”

Al-Arian thanked CAIR for the award and challenged the audience to fight against law enforcement sting operations, which he said unfairly target and entrap Muslims.

But the only way to stop it… is through a public organization campaign to change the government,” Al-Arian said in a video message. “Brothers and sisters, our young men should not be sacrificed at the altar of Islamophobia or a fake war on terror. Our people should not be targeted because of their beliefs or associations. We should say no to thought crimes, no to preempted or pre-crime prosecutions … This is a crisis that our community has been ignoring for so long, and we must face up to this challenge. Brothers and sisters, ladies and gentlemen – if not you, then who? If not now, when?”

Awad, the CAIR national executive director, also spoke during the banquet at the Santa Clara Convention Center. Despite consistent FBI data showing hate crimes against Muslims remain relatively steady, and far less of a problem those targeting Jews, blacks and gays, Awad had a dire warning for his audience.

“Islamophobia is a national crisis for the Muslim community,” he said. “Islamophobia is an existential threat to the presence and the future of Islam and the future, and the freedom of religion for Muslims in this country.”

The terrorist designation by the UAE, a Muslim nation, wouldn’t be announced for another week. The designation reportedly stems from CAIR’s connections with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In his CNN appearance Tuesday, Awad dismissed that as a fantasy.

“We were never linked to the Muslim Brotherhood,” he insisted. “We are not. We are an independent American organization. But guilt by association should not just be taken easily by these governments.”

Internal Muslim Brotherhood documents tell a different story. They place Awad individually and CAIR as an organization inside a Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in the United States that was called the Palestine Committee.

Awad participated in a secret 1993 Palestine Committee strategy session in Philadelphia called to devise ways to “derail” the new U.S.-brokered Oslo peace initiative without exposing themselves as Hamas supporters. Awad even referred to Hamas in the code name organizers instructed, reversing the spelling and calling it “Samah.”

Those connections were enough to prompt the FBI to cut off all outreach communication with CAIR in 2008. A federal judge determined there was “ample evidence to establish” a connection between CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian offshoot Hamas.

At the banquet, Awad acknowledged the contributions to CAIR by co-founder and former national chairman Omar Ahmad, described by an FBI agent as “a leader within the Palestine Committee.”

The UAE’s terror designation doesn’t mean CAIR is actively plotting attacks. But as we have repeatedly demonstrated, it has no problem standing by those who enable terrorism through fundraising, propaganda and more. People like Al-Arian, or the Holy Land Foundation leadership, or convicted Palestinian bomber Rasmieh Odeh.

CAIR’s timing, awarding a PIJ director just before the UAE labeled CAIR as terrorists, doesn’t do much to bolster CAIR’s complaints that it is being unjustly tarnished.

CAIR, 20 Years of Terror

cair-450x187Frontpage, by Joe Kaufman:

On the night of Saturday, November 8, the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of CAIR held its 20th Anniversary Banquet at the Santa Clara Convention Center. It was fitting that two out of three of the event’s featured speakers have been associated with terrorism, as 20 years ago CAIR was founded as a main component of a Palestinian terrorist enterprise inside the United States.

CAIR or the Council on American-Islamic Relations has been in existence for 20 years — since June 1994 — when it opened up its national headquarters in Washington, D.C. The group was established as being a part of the American Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization run by then-global Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who was based in the U.S. at the time and who now operates out of Egypt as a spokesman for Hamas.

The other members of the umbrella included a Hamas financing wing, Holy Land Foundation (HLF); a Hamas propaganda wing, Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP); and a Hamas command center, United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), which was then led by Ahmed Yousef, who later left the U.S. for Gaza to become Senior Political Adviser to Hamas leader Ismail Haniya.

The founding and current National Executive Director of CAIR is Nihad Awad. Just prior to co-founding CAIR, Awad held the position of Public Relations Director for the IAP. As the propaganda wing of Hamas, the IAP had been involved in distributing Hamas terrorist videos and publishing vehemently anti-Jewish and anti-Israel materials, including the Hamas charter in different languages.

Only months before the creation of CAIR, Awad announced his support for Hamas.

Under Awad’s leadership, CAIR has had a number of representatives cited for terrorist-related activity. CAIR officials have been convicted and imprisoned for terror-related crimes and/or deported from the United States. As well, during Awad’s tenure, CAIR has been cited itself. In 2007 and 2008, amidst two federal trials, the U.S. government named the group a co-conspirator in the raising of millions of dollars for Hamas. The individuals who had been indicted for the trials (CAIR was named an “unindicted co-conspirator”) were found guilty of all charges.

This past Saturday night, Awad was not at his home base in D.C. Instead, he was speaking at a banquet for CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) chapter. San Francisco was the home of CAIR’s first regional U.S. chapter, established not long after CAIR National was established, hence the California group celebrating its 20th Anniversary.

A second featured speaker at the Saturday banquet was Siraj Wahhaj, the imam of the At-Taqwa Mosque, located in the Bed-Stuy section of Brooklyn, New York. Wahhaj frequently speaks at CAIR sponsored events. Indeed, Wahhaj previously sat on CAIR’s National Board of Advisors.

Wahhaj has been associated with terrorism far beyond his involvement with CAIR.

In 1995, much like CAIR’s trials, Wahhaj was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” for the federal trial prosecuting those involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj had been linked to the bombmaker of the attack, Clement Rodney Hampton-El, and during the trial he was a character witness for the spiritual leader of the attack — the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman — whom Wahhaj has openly praised.

Wahhaj has recently taken up the cause of speaking at functions for and doing fundraising for rabid anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.

Also speaking at the banquet was Nihad Awad’s San Francisco counterpart, Executive Director of CAIR-SFBA Zahra Billoo. Billoo has made a number of extremist statements in the past. She has written that “one amazing reason to get married” is to “raise fighters” (children) to attack the nation of Israel. She wrote that to celebrate Columbus Day is “the same as having Jews celebrate Hitler and the Holocaust.” She refers to U.S. troops as “scum.”

Billoo proudly announced on her blog that her younger brother, Ahmed, was quoted in an article in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal — an article that discusses in length about how her brother supports suicide bombings. Billoo wrote that she, herself, had thoughts of committing suicide, after she viewed a pro-Israel advertisement on a San Francisco train.

On her Twitter account, Billoo boasted that her CAIR event was sold out, and the pictures taken at it do show a full house. This is a frightening indication that many Muslims in America appear to support and approve of CAIR’s agenda. Certainly given the amount of information available about the speakers at the event, one would be hard pressed to believe that the attendees weren’t at least somewhat aware of CAIR’s terror-related background.

While CAIR has attempted to present itself as a Muslim civil rights organization, the individuals involved with CAIR reveal that the group is cynically exploiting this designation.

The title of CAIR’s weekend event was ‘Rooted in Faith,’ but one has to question what type of faith would have radical luminaries who are associated with terrorism representing it.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Mechric Asks Church to Remove Jihadist-Linked Nihad Awad of CAIR

20140413_CAIRNIHADAWAD_LFamily Security Matters:

MECHRIC, the largest coalition of Middle East Christian NGOs in the United States and internationally asked the Archbishop to remove Nihad Awad, the director of Islamist group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) from a coalition said to be aimed at helping Christian minorities in the Middle East. MECHRIC said “Middle East Christian minorities are offended by having Nihad Awad and his Islamist group CAIR claim they are part of a coalition in defense of Christian minorities.” MECHRIC argued that Awad and his group are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terror organization in Egypt and other Arab countries, linked to Hamas, and part of a bigoted campaign against Middle East Christians in the US and worldwide.  

Following is the text of the letter, with copies sent to many members of Congress:

Nov 4th 2014

Archbishop Atallah Hanna
Archbishop of Sebastia,
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem
P.O. Box 14518, Jerusalem 91145
Re: interfaith Coalition to Protect Christians

Dear Bishop Hanna:

We have learned that you have sponsored the formation of an “interfaith coalition to protect Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East.” We are troubled by the fact that among the NGOs and activists invited to join the coalition are a number of Islamist and pro-Jihadi groups whose agenda has been and continues to be hostile to the freedom and survival of Christian and other minorities in the Middle East.

Among the activists you have included is Nihad Awad, the President of the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR), which is an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Terrorism case and is not the civil rights organization it claims to be. For more than a decade, CAIR members and former members have been indicted, and some are serving jail sentences, for terrorism cases successfully brought against them. The Islamist organization is considered by experts as a front to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has inspired leading members of al Qaeda and ISIS (Daesh) and has been put on terror lists by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. Several members of Congress, including the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Pete King, and the Chairwoman of the subcommittee on Intelligence, Rep. Sue Myrick, have considered CAIR an extremist Islamist organization. There are bills introduced in the US House of Representatives calling for identifying the Muslim Brotherhood as a Terror organization.

CAIR has attacked Middle East Christian leaders across America, including Copts such as Dr. Shawki Karas, Lebanese Christians, as well as Iraqi and Syrian Christians while also waging smear campaigns against prominent Middle East experts for raising the issue of persecution of minorities in the Middle East. CAIR stood with the oppressive regimes against Christians and other sectors of civil societies and backed the genocidal regime of Sudan headed by the ICC indicted General Omar Bashir. CAIR backs the Muslim Brotherhood, who in Egypt has been responsible for attacks against Christian Copts and in Libya backed the Jihadi forces responsible for violence against civilians. But even more dangerous, CAIR politically backs the Islamists and the Jihadists who in Syria and in Iraq have persecuted Christians. Some of these factions joined the Islamic State known as ISIS, which has perpetrated war crimes and crimes against Humanity in Mosul, the Nineveh Plain, and Sinjar against Christians and Yazidis.

CAIR and its executive director Nihad Awad have been notorious for suppressing educational programs, both in the public and private sectors, aimed at informing the American public about the persecution of Christian minorities in the Greater Middle East. Awad and his acolytes have politically harassed writers and intellectuals, academics who have been raising the issue of persecution of religious minorities and have become the main obstructers of truth about this persecution. In a sense, Awad and CAIR, by being supportive of the Jihadists and the Islamists and by suppressing the voices defending the persecuted Christians, actually bear some moral responsibility for the persecution and violence against Christians in the Middle East.

It would be unthinkable and unbearable for Middle East Christians and Yazidis to see a so-called interfaith Coalition presided by a Church official, partnering with haters of Middle East Christians and bigots against oppressed Middle East minorities

We therefore, as representatives of the Middle East Christian Committee MECHRIC, representing the largest coalition of Americans from Middle East Christian descent, including Copts, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, Maronites, Melkites and other groups, as well as Yazidis, ask you to remove Nihad Awad and any Islamist militant from your coalition immediately. Our communities have been offended by the presence of pro-Jihadists in a coalition claiming to help Middle East Christians and other minorities.

Sincerely,

John Hajjar, on behalf of the Middle East Christian Committee MECHRIC

Executive Committee

 

CC: Members of Congress (Foreign Relations and Homeland Security Committees in House and Senate)

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Senator Robert Menendez, Chairman,

Senator Bob Corker, Ranking-

Senator Ted Cruz

Senator John McCain

Senator Lindsey Graham

House committee on Foreign Affairs

Rep. Edward R. Royce, Chairman

Rep. Eliot L. Engel, Ranking Member

Sub-committees the Middle East and North Africa

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman

Rep. Theodore E. Deutch , Ranking Member

Sub-Committee on Terrorism

Rep. Ted Poe , Chairman

Rep. Brad Sherman, Ranking Member

Committee on Home land security

Rep. Michael McCaul, Chairman

Sub-committee on counter terrorism and Intelligence

Rep. Peter T. King, Chairman-

Rep. Chris Smith

Rep. Louie Gohmert

Islamist Campaign Donors Overwhelmingly Back Democrats

campaign_financeBy David J. Rusin:

An analysis of federal campaign contributions finds that key figures at six of America’s most prominent Islamist organizations have favored Democrats over Republicans by a ratio of 12 to 1 since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This trend began with multiple donations to Cynthia McKinney dated September 11, 2001, reversing a previous pattern that had seen Islamist officials spend slightly more on Republicans. Their preference for Democrats has solidified during the past 13 years and shows no signs of waning. What does this say about the politicians who benefit from Islamist largesse?

Islamist Watch [1], a project of the Middle East Forum [2], recently launched Islamist Money in Politics [3] (IMIP [3]), to monitor Islamists’ influence in the halls of power, inform the public about which politicians accept their tainted money, and hold accountable those who do. IMIP’s inaugural data release [4] focuses on the national organizations of six Islamist entities [5] — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR [6]), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA [7]), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA [8]), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA [9]), Muslim American Society (MAS [10]), and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC [11]) — as well as CAIR’s many local chapters.

Names of important personnel [12], both current and former, were mined from the groups’ Internal Revenue Service filings and/or website listings, some going back more than a decade. The Federal Election Commission’s online database [13], which spans the late 1990s to the present, was then searched for donations to candidates, joint fundraising committees, relevant political action committees, and parties. IMIP employed biographical information to select only those contributions that could reasonably be attributed to the individuals of interest, rejecting ones likely to have been made by unrelated persons who share their names. See IMIP’s description of methodology [14] for details and a discussion of the challenges.

As of now, the IMIP database [3] tabulates nearly $700,000 in donations. Surely many more people and contributions remain to be added, but the data already constitute a large and representative sample that is sufficient for an initial pass at quantifying Islamists’ political affinities.

First, who contributes? Major donors tend to be board members rather than staffers. While many of the biggest contributors maintain relatively low public profiles, several are quite familiar. With outlays totaling $56,800, the most generous funder of politicians in IMIP’s database is Kenny Gamble [15], who goes by Luqman Abdul Haqq [16] in his position on MANA’s governing body. An Islamist-aligned music and real estate mogul [17], Gamble is tied to the “Islamic paramilitary boys group” known as the Jawala Scouts[18] and has been accused of working to build a self-contained “black Muslim enclave [19]” in South Philadelphia. Also among the top 20 donors are CAIR executive director Nihad Awad [20], who has contributed under numerous variants of his name; former MAS president and current CAIR national board member Esam Omeish [21], who resigned from a Virginia immigration panel [22] in 2007 after a video emerged of his speech touting the Palestinians’ embrace of “the jihad way” against Israel; and Zead Ramadan [23], the CAIR-New York board member who unsuccessfully ran for New York City Council [24] in 2013.

With regard to recipients, the Democratic Party [25] dominates. Leading the all-time list by vacuuming up close to one in every five dollars is Keith Ellison [26], the Islamist-leaning Muslim congressman [27] from Minnesota who has a long history of collaborating with Islamist groups. Barack Obama [28], whose policies have been popular with Islamists [29], comes in second when direct contributions are combined with those sent to joint fundraising committees associated with his 2008 [30] and 2012 [31] presidential campaigns. Third is Cynthia McKinney [32], the far-left former congresswoman [33] from Georgia who peddled conspiracy theories and harsh critiques of U.S. foreign policy in the wake of 9/11; that she ranks so high despite the fact that most donations to her were collected during a one-year, post-9/11 window testifies to Islamists’ endorsement of her adversarial stance at the outset of America’s military response to Islamic terrorism. Fourth is Indiana’s André Carson [34], the second Muslim congressman [35] to be elected; he told attendees [36] at the 2012 ICNA–MAS convention that educators should model American schools after Islamic madrassas. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [37] rounds out the top five.

However, Democrats did not always prevail in the battle for Islamist cash. According to IMIP’s current data, Republicans [38] actually received about 15 percent more Islamist-related contributions than Democrats [25] did over the several years prior to 9/11. The Islamists’ favorite Republican of that period was Californian Tom Campbell [39], who contested a Senate seat in 2000. Campbell’s warm [40] relationships [41] with radical Muslims, such as terror operative Sami al-Arian [42], are thoroughly documented. Further, although IMIP features only a handful of entries from the 2000 presidential race, there is more money for George W. Bush [43] than for Al Gore [44]. This is not a surprise because Bush won the backing [45] of the American Muslim Political Coordination Committee, an Islamist-heavy coalition.

Read more at PJ Media

Brookings Takes Both Sides of the Issue on Islamist Censorship

Part 3 of a 4-Part Investigative Series: Brookings Sells Soul to Qatar’s Terror Agenda

by Steven Emerson, John Rossomando and Dave Yonkman
IPT News
October 30, 2014

1081Brookings’ partnership with the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in conjunction with its Qatari-backed Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, sends a mixed message for a think tank that claims to want “a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.”

The OIC is a 57-government body (56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority) that constitutes the largest United Nations voting bloc.

Fighting against criticism of Islam and those who link the religion with violence under the banner of so-called “Islamophobia” features prominently in the OIC’s rhetoric and diplomacy.

“Freedom of expression … cannot be used as a pretext for inciting hatred … or insulting the deeply held beliefs of any community. It should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions,” OIC’s “Seventh Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2013-April 2014″ states.

Islamophobia under OIC’s definition even covers court-proven facts such as the use of zakat (charity) payments to fund terror, evidenced by the international body’s attack on FBI training materials that describes it as a “funding mechanism for combat.”

Zakat is the tithe Muslims must pay as a pillar of their faith. It may be spent on feeding the hungry or caring for the sick, but also for funding violent jihad. Muslim authors suchas Sheik Muhammad Ali Hashimi, a well-known author in the Arab world, teach that funding “jihad for the sake of Allah” is the most important use for zakat.

Court documents and classified State Department cables demonstrate that numerous charities such as Qatar Charity (formerly the Qatar Charitable Society), the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and countless others have diverted zakat collections to benefit terror groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas. A 2012 UN Security Council report notes that the Taliban uses zakat collected from areas it controls to finance its operations.

Instead of unequivocally and unconditionally defending free speech, Brookings sends mixed messages, with some experts endorsing the OIC’s effort on Islamophobia and others condemning its excesses.

Brookings scholar Ahmet T. Kuru argued following the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead, that Muslims need “mechanisms and institutions” to prevent the dissemination of “anti-Islamic propaganda.” In this case, Kuru implicitly referred to the “Innocence of Muslims” video that the Obama administration and others blamed for triggering the attack.

“The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has taken some important steps forward in promoting respectful, civilized and effective ways of fighting Islamophobia. Their diplomatic attitudes, however, have yet to spread at the grassroots level,” Kuru wrote, contrasting the OIC’s efforts with those of violent Muslim protesters. “The recent incident also shows how counterproductive Islamophobia is. There are politicians and religious leaders in the United States and Europe who, unfortunately, promote Islamophobia.

“Western countries need to develop effective mechanisms and institutions to marginalize Islamophobes; that will be consistent with their principle of working against discrimination, as well as serving their interests in different parts of the world.”

Other Brookings scholars reflect this line of reasoning about the threat from Islamophobia and their perspectives similarly align with many of the OIC’s complaints.

A few years earlier, in a June 2007 article, former Brookings scholar Peter Singer cited former U.S. diplomat William Fisher, saying that “an unreasoning and uninformed Islamophobia” served as a new prejudice that threatened to undermine U.S. foreign policy and that it was rapidly becoming “implanted in our national genetics.”

Brookings scholar David Benjamin extended this line of reasoning in an Oct. 7, 2008 paper, stating that Islamophobia driven by “the religious right and talk radio” had undermined the integration of Muslims into American society. He claimed this compounded the effects with “dubious prosecutions.”

“Officials should denounce incidents of anti-Muslim sentiment quickly and vigorously,” Benjamin wrote.

The OIC’s diplomatic efforts against so-called Islamophobia have included applying pressure to governments and international bodies to criminalize free speech.

OIC’s war on free speech

Brookings invited then-OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to speak at its annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum in 2006, 2011, 2012 and 2013 in Doha. The conferences drew intellectuals and policymakers from the United States and across the Muslim world, and serve as a major part of Brookings’ Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World.

Ihsanoglu’s organization for years has lobbied the European Union and the United Nations to outlaw criticism of Islam.

Read more

FBI Evidence: CAIR Leaders are HAMAS USA

 

Published on Oct 28, 2014 by theunitedwest

Tom Trento presents FBI “smoking gun” evidence that the Palestine Committee which oversaw and ran the Holy Land Foundation (convicted on 36 counts of providing material support to terrorism, money laundering, conspiracy and tax fraud) was founded by a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) and HAMAS Leader Mousa abu Marzook along with Senior Executives Nihad Awad and Senior officer Omar Ahmad who both Co-Founded the largest Muslim advocacy group in the United States CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) for the purpose of raising money for the HAMAS and to support a media, public relations, and political campaign to ultimately destroy Israel.

THE UNITED WEST: FBI WARNING: CAIR Organized by HAMAS

 

Published on Oct 19, 2014 by theunitedwest

In 2008 the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned America that the self-proclaimed “Muslim civil-rights” group, CAIR, was really part of the Palestinian terrorist organization the HAMAS.

In fact, as we have proven, CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations actually functions as the “Special Operations Division” (SOD) of the political department of the HAMAS. Part of the CAIR “SOD” functions is to attack with media propaganda any person or organization who analyzes or criticizes CAIR.

For several years now, CAIR has been able to maintain their non-terrorist Islamic “hue,” that is, until they have become a subject of our ground-breaking series, “Enemies of the State.” Stay tuned to this unique series as we send our research investigators deeply into the federal files on CAIR and present factual conclusions that will disrupt, disable and destroy the operations of CAIR/HAMAS USA.

Analysis: Does the Islamic State Really Have ‘Nothing to Do with Islam’?

by Jeffrey M. Bale
Special to IPT News
October 10, 2014

1071


Note: This analysis has been excerpted, with the approval of the author, from a much longer scholarly article that will be published in an academic journal.

“Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgement that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas – jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy – reliably lead to oppression and murder?”

Sam Harris, Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon

As is invariably the case these days in the wake of the terrorist violence, brutality, and atrocities carried out explicitly in the name of Islam, a host of dissimulating Islamist activists, other Muslims in a state of psychological denial, and apologetic Western pundits insist that the actions of the terrorist group calling itself al-Dawla al-Islamiyya (IS: the Islamic State) have little or nothing to do with Islam.

Not long ago, many such commentators also argued that the horrendous actions committed by the Nigerian jihadist group Jama’at Ahl al-Sunna li al-Da’wa wa al-Jihad, better known as Boko Haram (Western Influence is Sinful), had nothing to do with its members’ interpretations of Islam.

In all such cases, however, the perpetrators of these violent actions not only proudly insist that their actions are inspired by the Qur’an and the exemplary words and deeds of Muhammad himself (as recorded in the canonical hadith collections), but explicitly cite relevant Qur’anic passages and the reported actions of their prophet to justify those actions. Therefore, to argue that jihadist terrorists are not directly inspired and primarily motivated by their interpretations of Islamic doctrines and by clear precedents from early Islamic history, one must stubbornly ignore what the actual protagonists keep telling the entire world.

But why ignore the claims of the perpetrators and instead rely on Islamist activists, who are often peddling outright disinformation, or on Western commentators, most of whom know little or nothing about Islam or Islamism, for explanations of this behavior? These pundits are prone to minimize the central role played by Islamist ideology and erroneously ascribe the actions of jihadist terrorists to assorted subsidiary causal factors, such as garden-variety political grievances, poverty, lack of democracy, psychopathology, greed, or simple hunger for power.

Needless to say, most of the commentators who keep insisting, against all evidence to the contrary, that the actions of jihadist terrorists cannot be attributed to their interpretations of Islam do not also argue that the violent actions of other types of extremists cannot be attributed to their ideological beliefs. On the contrary, whenever other types of terrorists carry out gruesome attacks, many of those same commentators are quick to ascribe their actions primarily to their proclaimed theological and ideological beliefs – and justifiably so.

One can easily illustrate this glaring contrast with respect to the analytical treatment of Islamist terrorism by asking a simple question: when was the last time that any more or less respected commentator made the case that Nazi ideology had nothing to do with inspiring particular acts of terrorism committed by self-identified neo-Nazis, or that notions of white supremacy had nothing to do with anti-minority violence committed by members of the Ku Klux Klan? Thus it is virtually only in cases of acts of terrorism committed by jihadists that one encounters so much unwillingness to face reality and so much frantic desperation to absolve Islam itself – or even Islamist interpretations of Islam – from shouldering any responsibility for inspiring acts committed in its name.

Some academicians mistakenly minimize the role of ideology as a key factor in inspiring the violence and terrorism carried out by non-state extremist groups, not just in the case of jihadist terrorism but also in other such cases. These efforts are seriously misleading, since they tend to be based on flawed social science theories that overemphasize the role of “rational choice,” materialistic rather than idealistic motives, personal psychological factors, “really existing” political and economic grievances, or larger impersonal structural forces as causal factors in the etiology of terrorism. However, they at least have the merit of not employing double standards, i.e., of making an unwarranted and wholly artificial distinction between the causes of Islamist terrorism and other types of ideologically-inspired terrorism. Indeed, although some have specifically applied such problematic notions in the context of Islamist terrorism, there is no reason to suppose that they regard ideology as being any more important in other terrorism contexts.

But the most egregious nonsense about the Islamic State is currently being peddled by ideologues, spokesmen, and activists from Islamist organizations, both in the Muslim world and in the West. Leading Saudi clerics, Saudi-sponsored and Saudi-funded international Islamic organizations like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and numerous Islamist groups and networks linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are now belatedly hastening to denounce the IS and to falsely claim that it has “nothing to do with Islam” or that its appalling actions are “un-Islamic” or even “anti-Islamic.”

Unfortunately, many naïve or agenda-driven Western journalists cite these deceptive statements by Islamists in an effort to challenge conservative Western media claims that not enough Muslims are speaking out against the IS. Indeed, those journalists tend to highlight such statements to give the impression that lots of supposedly moderate Muslims are publicly opposing the IS, either without actually knowing or without bothering to mention that most of the people and organizations that are making such statements are in fact Islamists who are trying to whitewash Islam and their own brands of Islamism, burnish their own tarnished images and thereby protect themselves, and/or mislead gullible “infidels” in the media.

Most of these commentators repeat the same one-sided mantras that have been endlessly repeated since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, e.g., that “Islam is a religion of peace” or that “Islam does not sanction terrorism and beheadings,” usually without providing any actual textual or historical evidence in support of their claims. This is all the more peculiar, since if the jihadists affiliated with the IS were in fact egregiously misinterpreting Islam, it should be very easy indeed for their critics to point this out by referring to Islam’s sacred scriptures and the reported words and deeds of Muhammad to explicitly repudiate barbarous IS actions such as the wholesale massacre or torture of captives, the confiscation of their land and wealth, the enslavement (sexual and otherwise) of their women, the gruesome public beheadings and stonings of designated enemies and “sinners” in order to terrorize others and perhaps also to precipitate the arrival of the Mahdi and the onset of the “end times,” the wanton destruction of places of worship and historical monuments, and the list goes on and on.

Yet they generally fail to do this. On those rare occasions when they try to demonstrate that these kinds of activities are “un-Islamic,” usually by citing a handful of Qur’anic passages out of context or by noting a few recorded examples of Muhammad’s compassion, their arguments are weak and unconvincing, if not preposterous. The jihadists themselves and certain hardline pro-jihadist clerics have thus far seemingly had little trouble rebutting their Muslim critics’ often specious arguments.

An illustrative example of such Islamist sophistry is provided by Nihad ‘Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a key component of the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S.

In an opinion piece entitled “ISIS is Not Just Un-Islamic, It is Anti-Islamic,” ‘Awad describes ISIS as a “criminal gang” that “falsely…claims to uphold the banner of Islam.” In support of his claim, ‘Awad attempts to redefine the term jihad in such a way that it cannot be associated with offensive warfare.

Much more at IPT

Dr. Jeffrey M. Bale is an Associate Professor in the Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), where his focus is on the study of political and religious extremism and terrorism. He obtained his B.A. in Middle Eastern and Islamic history at the University of Michigan, and his Ph.D. in modern European history at the University of California at Berkeley.

Is CAIR Lying about a Rally for Hamas?

by Daniel Pipes
Gatestone Institute
August 22, 2014

A “Stop the Bloodshed in Gaza” rally in downtown Miami on July 20 featured aggressive Islamist chants typical of anti-Israel events. In English, the demonstrators yelled “We are Hamas!” and “We are Jihad!” (as can be seen and heard here). In Hebrew, a Hamas partisan screamed at an Israel-supporter, “Son of a bitch” and “Go to Hell!” and made an obscene arm gesture. In Arabic, the crowd chanted the infamous “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jew, Muhammad’s army will return” (a reference to a massacre of Jews under the auspices of Islam’s prophet in A.D. 629).

As I say, just a typical anti-Israel demonstration, and far from the worst. Typical – except that some of its sponsors desperately seek respectability.

In a July 23 report on the demonstration, investigative researcher Danielle Avel posted a scan of a glossy paper flier advertising the event, listing its seven sponsors:

American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Florida, Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Syrian American Council of South Florida (SAC), American Muslims for Emergency & Relief (AMER), and American Muslims Foundation.




The event’s Facebook page lists a coalition of eight organizations, some of which overlap with those on the flier:

Join us & spread the word! In coordination with our coalition: Al-Awda Coalition, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)-FL, POWIR, Broward Green Party, CAIR, National Lawyers Guild (South Florida), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) – FAU, and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) – FIU.



Two groups in particular, CAIR and ICNA, caught Avel’s eye because they aspire to invitations to the White House, appearances on network television and at leading universities, and other signs of public acceptance. What took place in Miami, she correctly noted, reveals their true extremism.

Six days later, on July 29, CAIR’s Florida chapter responded with a denial:

CAIR-Florida was not part of, did not plan, did not sponsor, did not participate in, and had absolutely nothing to do with the July 20 rally. If any document lists CAIR-Florida as a sponsor of the event, that listing was included without CAIR-Florida’s permission.



I doubt the veracity of this denial for several reasons.

  • CAIR’s mendacity is so widespread that I have an entire bibliography of my writings exposing the reasons not to trust it.
  • The flier, of which I have a copy, twice states that Sofian Zakkout organized the rally. Zakkout is so close to CAIR, he’s effectively a staff volunteer: he coordinates with it, is quoted by it, seeks helpfrom it, and is listed as a contact by it. (For more on Zakkout, see Avel’s exposé.) A year earlier, he listed CAIR’s Florida branch on another rally flier. It beggars the imagination that he would list CAIR without authorization.
  • The Facebook page still lists CAIR as a sponsor, two weeks after CAIR’s statement of denial.
  • Perhaps CAIR seeks to conceal the truth through semantics. Both the national organization (on the Facebook page) and the Florida chapter (on the flier) are listed as sponsors. The July 29 statement only denies permission from the latter, not the former. It is more than credible that CAIR nationalgave its permission to be listed as a sponsor while CAIR’s Florida chapter did not.

Given these facts, I disbelieve CAIR’s statement.

I do believe it sponsored the vile event in Miami; that its denial of that sponsorship is false; and that the despicable words at the Miami rally revealed the true face of CAIR.

CAIR must not be validated by invitations and appearances. It should be treated as a marginal and despised group like the Ku Klux Klan or the Nation of Islam.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

 

Also see:

1053

Prominent Islamists Blast NSA for Monitoring Emails

Nihad Awad, (r) founder and executive director of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Nihad Awad, (r) founder and executive director of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Surveillance of a handful of Islamists who been supportive of terror groups is hardly unjust or a persecution of all Muslim Americans.

BY RYAN MAURO:

A 45-member coalition — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), two U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities with extremist histories — is accusing the Obama and Bush Administrations of persecuting the entire Muslim-American community by monitoring the emails of five Muslims with links to terrorists.

The coalition is responding to a new report based on classified documents leaked by former National Security Agency (NSA) employee Edward Snowden. It focuses on the monitoring of five Muslim-American activists, including CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. The authors of the report are Glenn Greenwald, who has spoken for at least three CAIR fundraisers, and Murtaza Hussain.

The documents provide about 7,500 email addresses monitored by the U.S. government between 2002 and 2008. This is not a shocking number, especially considering the activists’ histories and that there are 2.75 million Muslim-Americans.

Of these, only 202 are listed as Americans and some of these are multiple accounts held by one user. The authors of the report were able to identify five activists who were being monitored.

The Director of National Intelligence said in a statement it is “entirely false that U.S. intelligence agencies conduct electronic surveillance of political, religious or activist figures solely because they disagree with public policies or criticize the government, or for exercising constitutional rights.”

Rather, before monitoring, an independent judge from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court must be persuaded that there is strong enough evidence that the subject is linked to terrorism or under the control of a foreign power.

Public information, much of it cited by the authors, links each of the five to Islamist terrorists. The authors of the report admit they do not know what classified information the NSA and FBI is in possession of; nor do they have any evidence that the NSA failed to get a judge’s approval as required.

Yet, the monitoring of these five activists’ emails is depicted as a scandal by the authors of the report and the coalition, depicting this as an assault on the entire Muslim-American community. Further, the coalition includes groups with their own checkered histories like CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Muslim Legal Fund of America.

There are very strong grounds to believe that the government has legitimate reasons for monitoring the five activists. They are as follows:

Read more at Clarion Project

Glenn Greenwald Enraged that Muslims with Terror Ties Under Surveillance

Screen-Shot-2014-07-09-at-1.03.34-PM-448x350by :

Glenn Greenwald and his fellow jihad-enabling “journalist” Murtaza Hussain on Wednesday published a major exposé, “Under Surveillance: Meet the Muslim-American Leaders the FBI and NSA Have Been Spying On,” about Muslim leaders who are being spied upon by the FBI and the NSA. The thrust of the article is that each one is as pure as the day is long, with the one sin of opposing U.S. government policies.

The idea, of course, that opposing U.S. government policies from the Left will get you placed under surveillance these days is beyond ridiculous: Obama’s IRS is targeting conservative groups, not Leftists, and claiming that “right-wing extremists” are a terror threat, with nary a word about genuinely violent Left-wing extremist groups such as the Occupy movement and others.

And so it is no surprise that Greenwald and Hussain make their case by glossing over the genuine reasons why the FBI and NSA have placed these men under surveillance — surveillance which, if it is still going on at this point, is sure to end now as a result of this article. The article highlights these five men, glossing over the very real reasons why surveillance is justified:

• Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush;

• Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases;

• Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University;

• Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights;

• Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country….

Regarding Faisal Gill, Greenwald and Hussain write:

…After leaving the Navy, Gill worked as a consultant for the American Muslim Council, which was founded by the political activist Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi to encourage participation by American Muslims in the political process. A Republican since high school, Gill joined the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11, eventually moving to the White House Office of Homeland Security, where he briefly worked with Richard Clarke and obtained a top-secret security clearance. After roughly a year, he joined the Department of Homeland Security as a senior policy adviser, where he was cleared to access sensitive compartmented information, a classification level reserved for some of the nation’s most closely held secrets.

In 2003, al-Amoudi was arrested for participating in a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and for illegal financial transactions with the Libyan government, crimes for which he eventually pleaded guilty. Because Gill’s name had turned up in al-Amoudi’s papers, he was investigated by DHS security officials and asked not to report to work pending the outcome. He told investigators that he had met al-Amoudi only three or four times and didn’t work closely with him during his time at the American Muslim Council. After passing a polygraph test, Gill says, he was told by DHS that he was “good to go” and returned to work.

Greenwald and Hussain here establish the pattern of their entire piece: they leave out crucial details of the background of each of their supposed innocent victims of surveillance, thereby obscuring why they were put under surveillance in the first place. Faisal Gill worked as a consultant for the American Muslim Council. He says that he only met Alamoudi a few times and didn’t work closely with him.

Very well. But Greenwald and Hussain don’t mention that, according to Discover the Networks, the plot to assassinate Abdullah involved “two U.K.-based al Qaeda operatives,” and that he “ultimately pled guilty to, and was convicted of, being a senior al Qaeda financier who had funneled at least $1 million into the coffers of that terrorist organization.”

So here is Faisal Gill, who was a consultant for a group founded and headed by a confessed senior al Qaeda financier. He hardly knew him — fine. He was cleared of any wrongdoing — fine. But is it not possible that Alamoudi or someone connected to him might try to contact Faisal Gill, and win this upstanding American patriot over to their side, or try to use him in some way? Is there not, then, a case for placing Faisal Gill under surveillance, given his association with a senior jihad terror financier?

Also, would Greenwald and Hussain be enraged if the FBI and NSA placed under surveillance someone who had worked as a consultant for a group headed by a senior Ku Klux Klan financier, even if the consultant had been cleared of any wrongdoing? I doubt it. Nor should they be.

Likewise with Asim Ghafoor:

In 2003, the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi charity, hired Ghafoor after its U.S. assets were frozen by the Treasury Department over claims that it funded terrorist operations. The government alleged that there were “direct links” between the U.S. branch of the charity and Osama bin Laden. Al Haramain had previously been represented by some of the biggest and most prestigious American law firms, including the D.C. powerhouse Akin Gump. Ghafoor’s work with Al Haramain led him to other controversial clients, including Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden who was the subject of FBI and CIA surveillance for years, as well as the government of Sudan.

This would seem to be enough in itself to keep Ghafoor under surveillance, in case one of his jihad terrorist clients gave out information that could stop a jihad terror attack. But there is more. Discover the Networks notes that “Asim Ghafoor was a political consultant, spokesman, and public relations director for the Global Relief Foundation (GRF), which the U.S. government shut down in December 2001 because of the organization’s ties to terrorism….GRF is not the only organization with ties to terrorism with which Ghafoor has been involved. While he was with GRF, Ghafoor was also the spokesman for Care International. The December 6, 2002 Wall Street Journal reports: ‘Records indicate close ties between [Care International] and the Boston branch of Al Kifah Refugee Center, the Brooklyn branch of which was named by prosecutors as the locus of the 1993 conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center.”

Greenwald and Hussain don’t mention any of that, of course. And their inclusion of Hooshang Amirahmadi is just bizarre. Greenwald and Hussain note that he “does not self-identify as a Muslim and describes himself as an atheist.” So why is he included in a piece entitled “Meet the Muslim-American Leaders the FBI and NSA Have Been Spying On”? Apparently Greenwald and Hussain couldn’t find enough Muslim leaders whom they could even with the remotest plausibility portray as innocent victims of unwarranted surveillance, so they figured an Iranian atheist was close enough.

If a foe of jihad terror were that careless of the facts, Greenwald and Hussain would be among the first to pounce.

Read more at Front Page