Published on Sep 16, 2014 by Q Society of Australia Inc
Clare Lopez at the Q Society event in Sydney on the evening of 5 September 2014.
Published on Sep 16, 2014 by Q Society of Australia Inc
Clare Lopez at the Q Society event in Sydney on the evening of 5 September 2014.
Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood — as well as all other Islamists — have no place in the U.S. government.
By Ryan Mauro:
Mohamed Elibiary announced that he has left his position as a senior advisor with the Department of Homeland Security. Elibiary, a stalwart supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, said he was leaving so he can focus on “reforming” the conservative movement ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Under the Obama Administration, Elibiary served on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Homeland Security Advisory Committee for five years. He also served on the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and the DHS Faith-Based Security and Communications Advisory Committee.
Elibiary is a long-time Texas Republican Party official and was a delegate for Senator John McCain in 2008. He continues to identify himself as a conservative Republican and argues that he can help the party’s electoral prospects by moving its foreign policy in a pro-Islamist direction.
Elibiary is known for his almost daily advocacy for the Muslim Brotherhood on Twitter. He admits being intimately involved with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, which he describes as a “social network.”
“People like me know of the brotherhood group in a much more personal manner than the Average White Guy, who has no more insight than what’s available in the media,” he wrote.
On September 5, he tweeted that the Muslim Brotherhood is “intellectually undermining” the Islamic State terrorist group (formerly known as ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) and that the Brotherhood has been vital to counter-radicalization for over 40 years. He stated that if the Brotherhood did not exist, the world would “rush to create it.”
The Clarion Project contacted Elibiary asking for further explanation of how he hopes to “reform” conservative politics. He said he would not reply and accused the author of being part of “Islamophobia, Inc.”
Over the last year, the author communicated with Elibiary extensively and published a 37 page annotated interview with him. Among the takeaways are that Elibiary was 16 years old when he first befriended the CEO of the Holy Land Foundation, Shukri Abu Baker.
In 2011, counter-terrorism journalist Patrick Poole reported that Elibiary tried to leak confidential documents from the Texas Department of Public Safety that allegedly show evidence of “Islamophobia” in the government. He was said to have his access to a DHS database revoked as a result.
Elibiary told me that Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano exonerated him, but Poole said that he and his source were never contacted by DHS. He asks, “How could they have done an investigation with only one side being heard?”
Poole also broke the story that the Justice Department torpedoed forthcoming indictments of U.S. Muslim Brotherhood figures, specifically CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad and several leaders of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. He named Jamal Barzinji as one of them.
In my interview with him, Elibiary made two comments that may indicate he had a role in protecting the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood from prosecution and scrutiny.
He said, “I helped my community pick up the pieces and safeguards its nonprofit organizations, in order to protect its liberties, after the HLF’s [Holy Land Foundation’s] closure and eventual conviction.”
He said with confidence that the unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land trial would not be prosecuted. He stated, “As has been reported in multiple conservative media outlets over the past few years, the long-desired HLF 2.0 trial for the unindicted co-conspirators is no longer going to happen.”
Read more at Clarion Project
It’s hard to keep up with the news about Islam. One week, the focus is on Boko Haram, then it shifts to Hamas, and then to ISIS.
Every once in a while, it helps to step back and take a look at the big picture—that is, the big picture in regard to the Islamic resurgence. Not that there aren’t other big threats on the horizon—such as Russia, China, and North Korea—but let’s confine ourselves here to the Islamic threat.
That threat comes in two forms: armed jihad and stealth jihad. Since armed jihad is more conspicuous, it gets most of our attention. It’s difficult not to notice the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria or ISIS in Iraq, or the major terror attacks that occur once every year or so—the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the London bus and subway attack, the bombing of commuter trains in Madrid and Mumbai, and the mall massacre in Nairobi. In the back of our minds, we also know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and that Iran will soon acquire them (although some American bishops assure us that Iran has no such intention).
The balance of military power still favors the West—although it’s no longer clear whether Turkey, which has the second largest military in NATO, will come down on the side of the West or on the side of the Islamists. But military power can be offset by asymmetrical warfare—in other words, the type of warfare that terrorists favor. A small team of terrorists can incinerate the World Trade Center or paralyze Madrid or Mumbai, and there’s not much that F-16s or nuclear submarines can do about it.
Which is where that other form of jihad comes in. Stealth jihad, which, as the name implies, is the less noticeable type, can create a base for armed jihadists to ply their trade. Stealth jihad, in essence, is an attempt to turn a culture in an Islamic direction by infiltrating and influencing key institutions such as schools, courts, churches, media, government, and the entertainment industry. The “Trojan Horse” plot for taking over 10 schools in Birmingham, England is one example of stealth jihad; the national security establishment’s purging of training materials that cast a critical eye on Islam is another.
But, in order to do the long march through the institutions, you have to have enough bodies to do the marching. Thus, many critics look upon Muslim immigration into non-Muslim societies as a form of stealth jihad. For example, in their book Modern-Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Sam Solomon and Elias Al-Maqdisi describe Muslim immigration as, well, a “modern-day Trojan Horse.” They’re not saying that every single Muslim immigrant wants to subvert your local school, but rather that mass migration and Islamic conquest have been linked ever since Muhammad and his followers migrated from Mecca to Medina and commenced the takeover of Arabia.
Many places in Europe have changed almost beyond recognition due to the combination of mass immigration and high Muslim birth rates. And the political makeup of Europe is also changing. Since Muslims in Europe and the UK tend to vote as a bloc, politicians have begun catering to them, thus magnifying their influence. It’s widely thought, for instance, that the victory margin for French President Francois Hollande—a strong proponent of Muslim immigration—was provided by Muslim voters.
It used to be that anyone who talked about the Islamization of Europe was dismissed as an “alarmist.” But plenty of Europeans are talking about it now– including European Muslims who proudly march with signs proclaiming their intention to dominate Europe. Social-network researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have concluded that “when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakeable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.” France is already over 10 percent Muslim, and the majority of Frenchmen, like most Europeans, don’t seem to have any strong convictions about anything outside of an unshakeable belief in long vacations and early retirement.
In significant ways, stealth jihad paves the way for armed jihad. In its early stages, it can create localized environments where homegrown jihadists can grow and flourish. In its later stages? The ultimate aim of stealth jihad is to put the reins of power in the hands of Muslims. What if, as seems increasingly likely, France and England concede more and more political power to Islamists? Both countries are nuclear powers with advanced delivery systems. Given the rapid rate at which the old order of things is being turned upside down, it is not inconceivable that these weapons could someday fall into the hands of Islamic radicals.
Read more at Front Page
Center For Security Policy, By Nonie Darwish:
It has been 13 years since 9/11 and the West is still reluctant to link the non-ending parade of jihad groups with Islam. The West is also in denial about the similarities all radical Islamic groups share. It is important for the West to realize that there is a natural division of labor between the different terror groups. Some groups specialize in terror against non-Muslims and Western governments while others specialize in terrorizing Arab governments that refused to follow Sharia. But the truly sophisticated groups are those who reside in the West, calling themselves ‘moderate’ while at the same time defending and controlling the direction of Islamist goals through advocacy, diplomacy, negotiation and PR.
All of the above types of Islamist groups work together in perfect harmony like an orchestra that sings to the tune of “Allahu Akbar.” And when Islamic terrorism and beheadings anger the world and turn public opinion against Islam, that orchestra starts playing a different tune to confuse and prevent the world from uncovering their coordinated handy work. While one group proudly takes credit for the terror, another publicly denounces it. But most groups, while enjoying the power and attention the terrorists have bestowed on them, stand by with a look of victimhood saying: “I am a victim too because you condemn me and my peaceful religion when I did not do anything. That is not Islam and you are an Islamophobe.”
Not only is there division of labor amongst Islamist groups, but these groups also often change roles, tactics and appearances — after birthing other more radical terror groups to do the dirty work of terror. Because the West and some Arab governments refuse to deal with terror organizations, these organizations play a game of presenting a face of rehabilitation and moderation, while delegating the terror and assassinations to newer groups. Old guard terror groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and Fatah were able to change color and they assumed a new, but only cosmetic, appearance of moderation, but not before birthing the more violent Al-Qaeda and Hamas.
The West was told the MB and Fatah were now the moderate and humanitarian face of Islam that could be counted on and that could run Islamic government. Islam will present itself as working with the rest of the world only for the sake of establishing the Kalifate. The West has been only too happy to welcome the new face of the old terror groups to the camp of moderation. But the new face of evil after the MB became Al-Qaeda.
When the MB won the Egyptian elections, Islamists believed the Kalifate could be achieved through elections, avoiding the usual violent jihad. But when Egyptians realized they had made a mistake by electing the MB and 35,000,000 Egyptians revolted against Islamist rule, the dreams of a Kalifate through peaceful elections were defeated. The only solution for Muslims to achieve their Kalifate is the old fashioned way of 7th century Islam: pure violence, savagery and terror; thus the rise of the newest Islamist terror group, ISIS, while the MB takes a back seat.
When Al-Qaeda’s reputation tanked after 9/11, even inside the Middle East, the terror jihadists were forced into working under a new name — same goals, but with a more ferocious appetite for terror and torture. After the defeat of the budding Islamist State through elections in Egypt in 2013, the restrained beast of public beheadings hidden in the Islamic genie bottle finally exploded for the world to see in the form of ISIS; an organization that declared itself as the true long-awaited Islamic State. Force became the only choice. Coincidentally, this follows the example of Mohammed who tried to peacefully Islamize Mecca for 13 years but failed and could only Islamize Arabia by force, terror and the sword when he became a warrior in Medina.
ISIS rushed to declare itself as the Islamic State even before finishing the job of conquering all of Iraq and Syria. It was flaunting its savagery to the world in the hope of giving the message to reluctant Arab countries that they will be next. The plan is very similar to what Mohammed and his followers did in the 7th century: conquer Arabia quickly by force so they could move to more important goals of taking over the outside world, now the West and Israel. By doing that they are confirming to Muslims around the world that terror works and that their prophet Mohammed was correct when he said: “I have been victorious through terror.”
Bottom line: What legitimate Islamic organizations must adhere to is obeying Islamic commandments to conquer the world for Islam, defeat and humiliate non-Muslim nations and establish the Kalifate — to be ruled by sharia. That is the plan. It is not the opinion of the writer of this article, but it is the basic objective of Islamic law books, scriptures and preaching, which explicitly define jihad as a war with non-Muslims to establish the religion of Islam. To facilitate this mission, Islamic law freed Muslims from any restrictions on their behavior; they can wage offensive wars, kill, terrorize, behead, lie, deceive, humiliate, slander, use corporal punishment on women and children, and sacrifice the well being of the family, all for the purpose of the empowerment of Islam.
But instead of properly facing the 21 Century Islamic challenge, the West has chosen denial. Obama is being criticized for resorting to golf in a time of trouble, but that is perhaps his only outlet when he feels paralyzed, because what he believed and advocated Islam to be and what it is turned out to be polar opposites.
Also, instead of facing the incompetence and many obvious weaknesses of Islamic terror groups, the West has chosen to appease an enemy that only respects power. Thus, the Obama administration decided to be more concerned with appearances and saying instead of doing the right thing. For example, Obama likes to correct Americans on the proper pronunciation of Arabic names and expressions such as Pakistan and ISIL instead of ISIS, etc. But when the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria was declared the West was too embarrassed to call it what it called itself, the Islamic State, and found the English abbreviation ISIS more appropriate than the Arabic name that linked the new terrorist state to Islam.
I was recently asked by visitors from Egypt, “What is ISIS?” My answer was, it is the preferred name the US administration and media use to refer to the newly declared Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Their response was, “Why? In Arabic they call themselves ‘The Islamic State?’” I told them it is a long story, but the West does not want to offend Muslims who believe that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, tyranny and hatred.
Obama insists on presenting himself as more of an expert on Islam than the founders of ISIS when he stated, “ISIL speaks for no religion.” It is not appropriate for the US government or media to define what is or what is not Islam to Muslims who are reading from their books statements that command them to kill infidels. All we should do is take them for their word.
Both the US government and media have decided, long before Obama, that it would be the wise thing to do to keep US citizens uninformed about the true goals of Islam. The goal of this policy was partially to convince Islamic terror groups to leave the West alone and perhaps in the long run Islam will reform on its own one day. But unfortunately history was not on the side of this theory. Appeasement did not work for Coptic Christians in Egypt nor for Zoroastrians in Persia when in the 7th century the two ancient civilizations fell to the Arab Islamic invasion in the same year. Both Egypt and Persia tried to appease but failed to win hearts and minds of the Muslim invaders who used the most barbaric forms of terror and tyranny to Islamize and Arabize both civilizations. Both Egypt and Persia never saw their glory days again and today they are incapable of ruling themselves without the usual Sharia-enforced oppression and tyranny.
What everyone misses here is the right of the American people to know the full truth about their new enemy directly and honestly from their politicians and media. By caring about the feelings of Muslims more than American citizens’ right to the truth, and without naming Islam by name, the US government and media will usher America into a dark phase marking the beginning of tyranny and the end of liberty.
My new book Insecurity is a comedy about political correctness run amok in the government and the military. But, as recent events show, there is a decidedly unfunny side to the world that political correctness is helping to create.
Up until recently, the colloquialism “heads will roll” referred to a threat to fire employees. Nowadays, however, that phrase is more likely to evoke its original literal meaning—as in the beheadings that have become a common feature of the daily news cycle. The streets of Mosul in Iraq are reportedly lined with the severed heads of police and soldiers—victims of the ISIS jihadists. A photo circulating on the web shows one of the recently released Taliban leaders in the days before his capture posing with his trophy collection of five lopped-off heads. Those who thought that decapitation went out with the French Revolution have come in for a rude awakening.
It’s disturbing to realize that such things can happen in this day and age, but we in America tend to console ourselves with the reassuring thought that, thank God, it can’t happen here. Or can it? Why shouldn’t it happen here? Or, to put it another way, “Who’s going to stop ‘em?”
The most obvious answer to that question—the one that will jump most readily to mind—is the Army. And certainly, the U.S. Army is more than a match for any invading force of Middle Eastern jihadists. But, although our army can repel armed jihad, it’s not very well-equipped to resist the other kind—namely, stealth jihad. And if the conquest of America ever comes—as Islamists say it will—it will come about through stealth jihad.
What is stealth jihad? It’s the incremental spread of Islamic law in a society by means of activism, propaganda and lawfare, and by the gradual co-option of schools, courts, and media. It’s the long march through the institutions that the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci recommended to European communists. Leftists have already co-opted many of society’s institutions. What’s to prevent jihadists from doing the same?
Stealth jihad is much more difficult to detect and resist than the armed variety. It’s not the type of aggression the Army is trained to deal with. And, in fact, the Army has proven itself on several occasions to be an enabler of stealth jihad. Take the case of Major Stephen Coughlin. He was the Army’s top expert on Islamic law until he made the mistake of pointing out that Islamic law obliges Muslims to wage jihad. The Army didn’t cotton on to that idea and Coughlin was dismissed from his Pentagon job as an intelligence contractor. The official attitude was nicely captured by an admiral who, upon hearing Coughlin’s assessment, replied that he would first “have to check with my imam on that.”
You can see why the military has to contract out for its intelligence. Why would a high ranking officer have to consult his imam? Well, for reasons of political correctness, of course. It would be offensive not to bring the imam into the loop. For similar reasons, General Petraeus used to visit provincial leaders in Afghanistan dressed up as Lawrence of Arabia, and for similar reasons a manual for U.S. troops in the region directed them to avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” or “anything related to Islam.”
Read more at Front Page
One of the chief reasons that CAIR is waging war against words like “jihad” and “Islamist” is because the group doesn’t want its ideology to be discussed and it certainly doesn’t want Americans to know that it and Al-Qaeda share the same overall Islamist ideology. Their disagreements are only about target selection, rhetoric and tactics.
By Ryan Mauro:
The interfaith allies of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) think the American people can’t handle the truth about the jihadist motivation behind 9/11. They condescendingly infer that Americans are so inclined towards anti-Muslim bigotry that the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” must not be heard at the 9/11 Museum.
The 9/11 Museum, opening May 21, includes a seven-minute video titled The Rise of Al-Qaeda hosted by veteran news anchor Brian Williams. The tape refers to the Al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks as “Islamists” who believed they were pursuing a jihad against the United States. These are two terms that American Islamists have tried to delete from the American lexicon or at least whitewash them to the point they become meaningless.
CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and five other Arab groups have issued a joint statement demanding the removal of the video. Both have Muslim Brotherhood origins and a history of pro-Islamist activism. They are joined by the Interfaith Center of New York and New York Disaster Interfaith Services who have their own separatejoint statement.
Islamists like CAIR draw other Muslims and non-Muslims to their side with the argument that these terms promote “Islamophobia,” as if Americans are so uneducated and prejudiced that they’ll automatically assume that all Muslims are Al-Qaeda sympathizers. Even if that were true, the 9/11 Museum goes to great lengths to debunk anti-Muslim stereotypes.
The museum spokesman said there are two exhibits that clearly show that Al-Qaeda is a “far fringe of Islam.” The New York Timesreports that the Museum has photos of Muslims mourning after the attacks, stories about Muslims who died in the attacks and testimony from Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman in U.S. history.
The museum’s executives had Princeton University Professor Bernard Haykel approve the script before making it a part of the site. He stands by the decision to approve the film because there is simply no honest way to explain the motivations of Al-Qaeda without mentioning jihad.
“The critics who are going to say, ‘Let’s not talk about it as an Islamic or Islamist movement,’ could end up not telling the story at all, or diluting it so much that you wonder where Al-Qaeda comes from,” he told the Times.
He’s right. CAIR and its allies are essentially saying that Americans can’t handle the truth, so they shouldn’t know it.
Read more at Clarion Project
“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers… until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere…”
- Fethullah Gulen
Later this month, organizations affiliated with the Turkish-based Gulenist Islamist movement will hold a reception lobbying Louisiana’s lawmakers.
Why would a Turkish-based Islamist movement seek to lobby lawmakers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA? For the same reason they have conducted similar influence operations in almost every state capitol in the United States.
The Gulenist Islamist movement is a 25 billion dollar empire that raises money partially through membership dues and partially through commercial activities, such as their Shariah-compliant bank, their Shariah-compliant insurance company, a media empire consisting of TV networks, news agencies, and news magazines, industrial trade organizations, universities, and a network of 1300 schools in the US, Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
The Gulenist movement’s main focus in the US has been its network of schools, two of which have operated here in the state of Louisiana:
By now you’re wondering what the Gulenist movement is, no doubt. The Gulenist movement is a secretive, controversial Islamist movement founded by Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish Islamic scholar with a controversial history and a great many followers and admirers in both the Islamic and Western worlds. However, a close analysis of Gulen and his movement reveals what may very well be a disturbing threat, rather than the benign movement that many suppose. (Gulen fled Turkey for the US in 1998 and settled in a massive, fortified compound in rural Pennsylvania.)
Gulen preaches peace on the one hand – while on the other hand credible reports indicate that the Gulenist movement controls the secret police in Turkey, which has been key to brutally suppressing recent pro-democracy protests there. But Gulen’s primary relevance to Americans comes from something quite peculiar – namely, the fact that his movement is associated with roughly 1,200 schools in numerous countries around the globe, including approximately 135 schools here in the USA. The American Gulenist schools are mostly taxpayer-subsidized charter schools and there is much to be concerned about, both in terms of their goals and operations. And Americans – and in particular those Americans charged with credentialing these schools – know scant little about with whom they’re dealing.
In reviewing the long-form literature on Fethullah Gulen, without exception, every single book about Gulen paints him in a positive, almost saint-like light. In order to fully grasp the man and his motivations, one has to read his own work – the most troubling and revealing of which is his 1998 book Prophet Muhammad as Commander.
While much of the book details the life of Muhammad as a military commander and political leader, the opening sections of the book reveal more about the author than they reveal about Muhammad, about whom much is already known and documented. The first 37 pages of Prophet Muhammad as Commander contain revealing, troubling passages that provide a window on Fethullah Gulen’s views on Jihad and warfare.
In Prophet Muhammad as Commander, Gulen explains Muslim hostility toward non-Muslims in a similar manner that most non-Muslims will find at least very curious:
“For this reason, a Muslim’s enmity towards unbelievers is, in fact, in the form of pitying them.”
Gulen ties this pity in with the concept of “compassion.” Unbelievers who deny that Allah is the only god and that Muhammad was his prophet are thought to be committing an “injustice.” Out of “compassion” for those unbelievers and to prevent them from committing further injustice, Muslims have enmity towards them and in some cases fight them as enemies.
Jihad as a concept fits in with justice. In fact, according to Gulen (page 20), Jihad is integral to justice:
“God does not approve wrongdoing and disorder. He wills that human beings should live in peace and, accordingly, that justice should prevail amongst them. It is therefore incumbent upon those who believe in One God and worship Him faithfully to secure justice in the world. Islam calls this responsibility jihad.”
Gulen then goes on to explain the various forms of jihad, including warfare.
Read more at The Hayride
US media reported last month that the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) had issued a “Declaration Against Extremism.” According to an LA Times report:
December 13, 2013, 12:51 p.m. Highlighting its 25th anniversary, the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council on Friday issued what it called a Declaration Against Extremism, an effort to change public perception by distilling the values of mainstream Islam.
‘We have allowed the extremist voices to run rampant without effectively conveying our message,’ said Salam Al-Marayati, president of the council, among the nation’s most influential advocacy organizations for American Muslims. ‘What this declaration represents is a higher level of conveying the message of Islam, the true spirit of Islam, which is based on spreading mercy, justice and engaging others in a pluralistic society.’
Among other principles, the council’s statement calls for respecting all cultures, equal treatment of women, and upholding the idea that authority comes from God rather than from individual leaders.
Conveying the ideas of Southern California Islamic leader Dr. Maher Hathout — who co-founded the council and is now battling cancer — the declaration also confronts extremism and violence in Islam’s name.
‘Extremism to us is a major threat to our faith,’ Al-Marayati said at a Friday news conference. ‘It disfigures our faith and it creates more misapprehensions about Islam, and indeed it creates misconceptions about Islam that fuels Islamophobia.’
The single-page declaration will be used by the Muslim Public Affairs Council for outreach to Muslims and the broader community, the organization’s leaders said.
Hathout, 77, will be honored this weekend at the councils 25th anniversary convention, to be held Saturday at the Long Beach Convention Center. The organization began with about 300 members and has grown to a membership of about 10,000, Al-Marayati said.
Aside from its L.A. offices, it also has a public policy wing in Washington, D.C.
Although the MPAC Declaration called for, among other things, “respecting all cultures”, MPAC and its leaders have made anti-Semitic statements that assert or imply an organized Jewish effort to defame and exclude U.S. Muslims from U.S. political life and has engaged in frequent and virulent demonization of Israel including describing Israeli actions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque as a “rape of the soul of the Islamic people”, asserting that the objective of Israeli actions in Gaza was “gross killings of Palestinian civilians, including women and children”, and accusing supporters of Israel of using tactics similar to Hitler’s. In December 2009, MPAC reported that “Israeli doctors had extracted human organs from dead Palestinians during the 1988 intifada and into the 1990s.” MPAC leader Salamn Al-Marayati suggested on a talk radio show on September 11, 2001 that Israel might have been behind the 911attacks. stating:
If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.
The Investigative Project reported just seven days after MPAC’s “Declaration Against Extremism” that MPAC was promoting a story accusing Israel of opening a dam during a freak winter storm, causing massive flooding in the Gaza Strip. As the IP report noted, the dam in question does not appear to exist.
Read more at GMBWatch
By Ryan Mauro:
Islam expert Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad andSharia vs. Freedom, has discovered alarming extremism in an Islamist journal bearing the name of Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and wife of New York City mayoral candidate, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
The Clarion Project helped bring attention to the Islamist ties of Abedin in July 2012, specifically her family’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and her position as an assistant editor of the Islamist journal from 1996 to 2008. More recently, we’ve covered thedonations from an Al-Jazeera lobbyist to the mayoral campaign of her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
The publication in question is the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Originally known as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs Journal from 1979 when it began to 1995. The Institute was founded by Abedin’s late father and two Islamist colleagues that led the Muslim World League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth, two powerful engines of Wahhabism.
Abedin was the assistant editor of the journal for at least a dozen years, from 1996 (the year she began working as an intern at the White House) to 2008. She worked alongside several family members on the publication, including her mother, brother and sister.
Her mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist resume, though the overlaps in the Islamist infrastructure can make it confusing. In short, Abedin’s mother is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.
Read more at The Clarion Project
Muslim supremacist leadership understand the power of propaganda as well as did the Reich’s Ministry of Propaganda.
The infamous Tariq Ramadan urged Muslims to all get involved in widespread propaganda. Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood. He was banned from the US under Bush, but of course welcomed with open arms under the pro-jihadist Obama administration. Among his many repugnant platforms, he favors the legal extinction of Israel.
The left, of course, loves him:
Tariq Ramadan is a Swiss-born philosophy professor currently based in France. In February 2002Salon.com called him “one of the most important intellectuals in the world,” characterizing him as “the Muslim Martin Luther.” In 2004 Time magazine named him one of the world’s top 100 scientists and thinkers.
When speaking to Western audiences, Ramadan preaches an amicable message of unity and mutual respect. But to Arabic-speaking audiences, he vents his deep-seated hatred of the West and his endorsement of Wahhabism, the most extreme form of Islam. Moreover, Ramadan has numerous connections to fundamentalist Islamic militants and is suspected by U.S. intelligence agencies of maintaining ties with the terrorist group al Qaeda. (DTN)
In a speech given in Detroit in 2013, Tariq Ramadan has used the concept of “Eurabia” to explain why the perception of Israel has changed in Europe.
Ramadan in his speech largely focused on the importance for Muslims to work in the media. He told the crowd “not to infiltrate,” just “to become journalists” and “to shape perceptions.” This is consistent with the Muslim Bortherhood group CAIR’s project to support HAMAS with “media, money and men.”
Read more at Atlas Shrugs
by Lauri B. Regan
July 2, 2013
Steve Emerson and The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s documentary Jihad in America: The Grand Deception is a powerful film that should be shown across America -in high schools, on college campuses, in our houses of worship, and most importantly, throughout the state and federal governments. It turns the concept of political correctness that has dominated our learning institutions, government bureaucracies, and media and entertainment organizations on its head as the viewer is left in wonderment at the self-induced and resulting indoctrination that has overwhelmed American culture.
Emerson’s documentary exposes the stealth war that the Muslim Brotherhood has been conducting behind the scenes in America as its influence has infected academia, Hollywood, journalism, law enforcement, and the highest echelons of government. Throughout the film, undercover video and audio clips are interspersed between interviews with law enforcement officials and MB experts to describe the evolution of an organization that was founded in Egypt in 1928 in order to bring Muslims back to their Islamic values and create an Islamic caliphate across the world. From founder Hassan al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and extend its power to the entire planet.”
With the MB’s migration across the globe, its presence in the U.S. should be no surprise. What is surprising is the film’s exposure of the extent to which the MB has infiltrated so many influential aspects of our society. Through the establishment of a complicated network of front groups seemingly legitimate on their face, the group has gained respectability without accountability and successfully camouflaged its true agenda of destroying Western civilization from within.
A disturbing lesson from the film is that the U.S. government — from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State to the F.B.I. — has full knowledge of the MB’s intricate network and agenda. In the face of that knowledge, the officials whom we have entrusted with national security and protection of our freedoms and values have either willfully turned a blind eye or been utterly complicit in furthering the nefarious goals of radical Islam.
Author’s note: This was originally published in Dec. 2011 in Front Page Magazine and it was the most popular piece I’ve written until this piece of mine. I’m a cartoonist, so the only essays I write are ones that I cannot express in any other way but words, and here- in light of the latest Jihad attack in London, and the latest “Islam vs “Islamism”” debate going on- is what I think is my most comprehensive piece on Islam, Muslims & Jihad.
My name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim.
That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.
But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.
So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.
Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.
Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.
The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.
In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.
Read more at Front Page
May 17, 2013
“Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” a new film by Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson, was honored this week as the best documentary at the 2013 International Beverly Hills Film Festival.
The 70-minute film focuses on the Muslim Brotherhood and its penetration in the United States. It features documents and recordings from federal investigations, undercover recordings and interviews with FBI agents, federal prosecutors and Muslim experts on radical Islam.
“I am honored by the recognition the judges in Beverly Hills and Myrtle Beach have given ‘The Grand Deception,'” Emerson said. “This shows what happens when people break through the noise which often dominates discussion on this issue, actually watch the film and judge for themselves. The problem of covert Muslim Brotherhood activity in America is a serious one, and my film explores it with original source documents and a list of sources with first-hand experience combating it.”
The film also placed third at the Sunset International Film Festival in Los Angeles and is an official selection for upcoming festivals in New York and Madrid.
“As much of an honor as it is to be recognized for this work, Grand Deception co-director Rachel Milton told the Beverly Hills gala attendees upon accepting event’s crystal plaque, “it is more important that the subject matter of our film be recognized and discussed. And that is the subject of radical Islam, something that touches everyone’s life whether they realize it or not.”
Audience members from a screening in Myrtle Beach called the film “very powerful” and “a smack in the face.” “People really need to see this,” said another.
The Grand Deception is a follow-up to Emerson’s 1994 documentary “Jihad in America,” which won the George Polk Award for outstanding documentary and the Investigative Reporters and Editors’ Tom Renner Award for investigative reporting.
The documentary has impressed other viewers, with Orange County Register editorial writer Rory Cohen calling it a “must see” for showing “how far the Muslim Brotherhood has reached within our own political fabric in less than three decades.”
“‘The Grand Deception’ exposes radical Islamists in their own words,” wrote Muslim physician Qanta Ahmed, calling that something “shattering to any Muslim in America – and is exactly why our communities invite unwanted scrutiny. In their own voices, American Islamists demand violent jihad against the United States.”
Producers say they want the film to start a debate about the political application of Islam – or Islamism – as anti-Islamist Muslim activist Zuhdi Jasser explains in this outtake:
Additional clips from can be seen here.
After the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera was announced earlier this year, Cenk Uygur, one of Current TV’s political pontificators, told POLITICO that he wouldn’t mind staying with the network when the dust settles:
Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks told POLITICO that unlike some of his Current TV colleagues, he’s open to staying with Al Jazeera America.
In theory, this should pose a problem for Uygur because Al Jazeera is essentially a media arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is extremely fundamentalist. Uygur, on the other hand, is a Muslim apostate by his own admission. In a 2008 op-ed by Uygur that appeared in the Huffington Post, he explained…
I am a fervent agnostic. I have argued vehemently against religion… Worse yet, I was born Muslim. I went to school in Turkey until I was eight (that will be translated as “attended a madrasa” by Fox “News” Channel).
Note how Uygur is not just an agnostic but a “fervent” one. This makes him a Muslim apostate, does it not? Assuming the Current TV sale to Al Jazeera goes through, what should we make of things if Uygur is retained? After all, it would mean that a fundamentalist Arab Muslim network will be prominently featuring a “fervent agnostic” who used to be a “Muslim”.
Perhaps the answer might lie in the teachings of a prominently featured Muslim Brotherhood scholar on Al Jazeera – Yusuf Al Qaradawi. Qaradawi is a “fervent” proponent of Muruna, an Islamic practice that is similar to taqiyya but is far more stealthy in nature.
On the other hand, if Uygur is let go, it will mean that Al Jazeera is being true to Islam instead of to Muruna. Then again, according to Qaradawi, Muruna is true to Islam.
Then again, consider that the “fervent apostate” Uygur, in 2010, mocked Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia legislation. Why on earth would a “fervent agnostic” come to the defense of Islam in Oklahoma?
Read more at Shoebat.com