American Islamist Coalition Launches with Empty Rhetoric

CAIR Again Shows It Can’t Stand Other Muslim Viewpoints

IPT, By Steven Emerson:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) waged a new attack Tuesday on anti-Islamist Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, asking that a federal commission investigate Jasser’s financial supporters.

Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, also serves on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). CAIR and other Islamist groups tried to block that appointment in 2012. Now, CAIR wants the USCIRF to investigate Jasser’s donors, who also give to other groups CAIR doesn’t like. The AIFD received $45,000 from the Abstraction Fund from 2010-12, a letter from CAIR’s Corey Saylor said.

The New York-based fund also gives money to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Middle East Forum and Jihad Watch. All, Saylor claimed, play an “active role in spreading anti-Islam prejudice.”

“At issue here is the reasonable concern that arises regarding Dr. Jasser accepting financial support from anti-Muslim groups while he is serving on a commission advocating for religious freedom,” Saylor wrote.

What a load of nonsense. As we have shown, CAIR and others toss around accusations of “Islamophobia” as a means of stifling criticism and deflecting attentionfrom their own shady records. Jasser is a devout Muslim who repeatedly points out that Muslims are freer to practice their faith in the United States than anywhere else in the world. He calls out the victimization narrative promoted by CAIR and other Islamist groups.

In response to CAIR’s attack Tuesday, Jasser posted a link to a 2011 IPT reportshowing CAIR solicited money from Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad praised Gaddafi’s rambling, 100-minute speech to the United Nations General Assembly for having “an impact in the hearts of many people in the world.” Awad later sought financial help from Gaddafi to underwrite a program to give away 1 million Qurans to government officials and the general public in America and to help start up a new foundation.

In addition, State Department records obtained by the IPT show CAIR solicited huge donations during 2006 trips to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Despite that, CAIR continues to label information about its foreign financial support as “Internet Disinformation.”

“CAIR’s operational budget is funded by donations from American Muslims,” its website says. (To see a debunking of CAIR’s “disinformation” claims, click here.)

Tuesday’s letter was CAIR’s second to the USCIRF about Jasser in the past month. It also took statements Jasser made during a recent television appearance to argue that he would “deny religious rights to Muslim military personnel.” In fact, Jasser – a Navy veteran – said that during his service “I was able to practice my faith, fast, pray, and I never saw the need for” new policies allowing for beards, turbans and other religious garb for active duty military members.

It’s fine to debate that point. But CAIR’s ongoing campaign to strip Jasser of his position shows they don’t want debate. They want a monopoly on determining what is acceptable for American Muslims to believe.

National Park Service Promotes ‘Women’s Rights in Islam’

muslim womenProduced for the National Park Service, the New York-based Women’s Rights National Historical Park’s website has posted a three-video series arguing that Islam is a force for women’s rights.

In one video, we hear that:

“Seventh century A.D. Islam gave women the right to be involved in politics, the right to earn and keep her own money. Islam gave women the right to work outside of the home. Islam gave women the right to own property. Islam gave women the right to divorce. Islam gave women the right to choose who she marries. Islam gave women a whole bunch of rights that western women acquired later in the 19th and 20th Centuries. And we’ve had these rights since the Seventh Century A.D., and it’s just not acknowledged worldwide.”

A Muslim woman states, “People think that Islam oppresses women and there’s no equality, but they’re wrong.”

The first in the three-video series can be seen here. The second can be seen here.  The third can be seen here.

Viewers are left with the impression that the oppression of women in Muslim countries is rare, when it is actually the norm. Needless to say, the presentation leaves out the ideological basis for this oppression.

A look at the videos shows, for example, that viewers don’t learn about the rising problem of Female Genital Mutilation in the United States. The Clarion Project posted this informational video about FGM.

Nor is the problem of honor killings in the U.S. addressed, information that is readily available. Muslim anti-Islamist activist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser documented the honor killing cases of Aiya Altameemi, age 19, of Maricopa County, AZ; and Shaima Alawadi, of El Cajon, CA.  In 2009, Noor Faleh Almaleki, 20, was run down by a car driven by her father, who thought she was “too Westernized.”

Instead, the message of the videos focuses on negative stereotypes of Islam and its adherents.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

ICNA-MAS Linked Professor Attacks Christians on Facebook

by John Rossomando:

Bin Bayyah Statements Underscore Support for Terrorism

by John Rossomando
IPT News
July 12, 2013

Keeping Our Heads in the Sand After Boston

IPT News
May 14, 2013

How American Muslims Radicalize

aggBy Karen Lugo:

Mosques become a state within a state, except for the welfare assistance.

If radicalized means self-segregated, embittered, and angry enough to be ambivalent about the mentorship of jihadists, then America needs to pay close attention to neighborhood Islamic centers. There is a nexus between disaffected Muslims and those who graduate to violence, and two studies point to the American mosque. Now that another plot has been executed rather than foiled, there is finally overdue focus on the imams who foment resentment and alienation.

We have allowed mosques to serve as citadels, cutting Muslims off from the democratic society outside. When Muslim marriages are arranged, then officiated and filed within the mosque; when large and small contract disputes are adjudicated by a sheikh; when marriages are ended and custody determined by the imam, and financial disagreements assessed by mosque officials, observant Muslims might as well be living anywhere.

Certainly, the conditions for those that live under tight mosque control do not reflect anything that resembles America.

Constitutional rights and due process protections do not penetrate many sharia-observant mosque domains. After speaking with several Muslim individuals seeking to reassert constitutional rights after summary judgments were rendered, it is apparent that what purports to be Islamic arbitration is really more akin to kindergarten sandlot refereeing. The documents reveal that there was no semblance of legal process expected in arbitration proceedings, no conflict of interest disclosures, and no provision for structural fairness rules.

Even Muslim legal scholar M. Ali Sadiqi, writing for the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, noted that Muslims would have difficulty bringing internal arbitration standards into conformity with American legal principles, since under sharia inheritance rules women are entitled to only one quarter of the estate — and one eighth if there are children.

In Germany, law enforcement authorities now see the Islamic courts as a competitive “shadow justice system,” and complain that sharia-styled tribunals interfere with the government’s duty to administer both civil and criminal justice.

In Britain, Baroness Cox has been working tirelessly for years to see British law reinstated and sharia jurisdiction reversed. During hearings on her bill, now called the Arbitration and Mediation Services Equality Bill, Baroness Donaghy (Labour Party) called the presumed acquiescence of women to unequal and often cruel treatment as “consensual as rape.” A Muslim woman told Baroness Cox:

I feel betrayed by Britain, I came to this country to get away from all this but the situation is worse here than in my country of origin.

From Britain to the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, France, Germany, and America, it is possible for Muslims to experience no notable difference between life in the West and the conditions that they fled back in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, and Iraq. The only mentionable difference: the generous social welfare programs offered in the Western cultures.

When I inquired of a local imam as to how he identified radicalization and whether he was concerned about it, he tellingly pivoted to accusations that the U.S. government does not do enough for immigrant Muslims.

In contrast, Western-oriented American Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser called out clerics who urge adherents to “focus on their own victimization, patronizingly reminding the rest of America not to be ‘racists’ [or] ‘bigots.’”

Islamic society of Boston

Islamic society of Boston

The unquestionably radical nature of the Islamic Society of Boston mosque and its counterpart the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (called “small one” and “big one” by locals) illustrates the worst of Islamist subversion. Whether the Tsarnaev brothers attended to the degree that the mosque was a key part of their radicalization is unknown, but it could not have been a mitigating influence in their conversion to terrorism. The pedigree of convicted terrorists that have emerged from IBS/IBSCC incubation, the close Muslim Brotherhood connections, the terror group ties, and the criminal convictions of leadership figures lead one to wonder how much more radical activism still seethes within this mosque community.

We also have examples of the poisonous rhetoric purveyed at these two mosques. In just one instance, invited imam Abdullah Farooq was videotaped saying that the Patriot Act “permits [government] to come to your door” and “to come anywhere they want and to come after you anytime.” He went on to urge action in the name of Allah against “oppressors,” by “grabbing on to gun and sword … to step out into this world and do your job.”

A 2004 lesson (active link now disabled) that gave tips on disciplining a wife recommended hanging up a whip in plain sight as a deterrent, but not advocating actual physical punishment unless she really needs it.

Sheikh Ahmed Mansour, an exile from Egypt, said that the ISB mosque “was controlled by fanatics.” He likened the atmosphere to the sharia extremism that he left behind: “I left Egypt to escape the Muslim Brotherhood, but I had found it [at ISB].” When Mansour told Fox News that fiery sermons can spur impressionable young men to violence, even if the speaker doesn’t explicitly advocate it, he was warning America that radicalization comes from the rhetoric that cleverly stops short of illegal incitement to imminent violence.

Read more at PJ Media

 

CAN ISLAM BE REFORMED?

Al-Ghasali: Photo source: Die Welt

Al-Ghasali: Photo source: Die Welt

By Tiffany Gabbbay:

After turning away from Islam and becoming an atheist, young blogger Kassim al-Ghasali became a target in his native Morocco. Following a string of death threats, he sought political asylum in Switzerland, where he now lives and continues to embrace ideals of freedom and tolerance.

Ever-outspoken in his beliefs, al-Ghasali presented a speech at the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy in February. Speaking to the German-language news outlet Die Welt following the event, the young Moroccan shared his views (a translation of the full interview can be found in the Gates of Vienna blog), on the Arab Spring, why he believes Islam cannot be reformed in the same way that Christianity was, and why moderate Muslims should admit that “terror and violence” — or more pointedly, “unmitigated horror” — is part of the Koran.

Al-Ghasali also poignantly added that the Koran is a “politically and historically-determined book and not the word of Allah” and that Islam cannot be reformed as its tenets are anathema to Western enlightenment, which helped to reform Christianity [emphasis added].

In my opinion, there can be no reformation or enlightenment in Sunni or Shiite Islam, because there is no church to be reformed,” al-Ghasali explained to Die Welt.

“In Islam, we are subject to the power of a sacred book and the instructions it gives. Identity and understanding of self come from the Quran. If Muslims could use their reason without the instructions of a book which is recognized as the Word of God, then we could talk about enlightenment. But today most Muslims are against the ideas of the Western Enlightenment.

Read more at The Blaze

 

Zuhdi Jasser and Robert Spencer debate Islamic reform:

 

A Nasty Neologism – The term Islamophobia treats political ideology as akin to race.

OB-VX147_bkrvph_DV_20130107195332By JONATHAN SCHANZER

“The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends,” President George W. Bush declared soon after the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Bush’s statement set the tone for the tumultuous decade to come, one in which the nation prosecuted a war on terrorism in two Muslim lands while taking great pains to protect the rights of Muslim Americans.

Yet if the author Nathan Lean is to be believed, Americans today are caught in the grip of an irrational fear of Islam and its adherents. In his short book on the subject, Mr. Lean, a journalist and editor at the website Aslan Media, identifies this condition using the vaguely medical sounding term “Islamophobia.” It is by now a familiar diagnosis, and an ever widening range of symptoms—from daring to criticize theocratic tyrannies in the Middle East to drawing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad—are attributed to it.

In reality, Islamophobia is simply a pejorative neologism designed to warn people away from criticizing any aspect of Islam. Those who deploy it see no difference between Islamism—political Islam and its extremist offshoots—and the religion encompassing some 1.6 billion believers world-wide. Thanks to this feat of conflation, Islamophobia transforms religious doctrines and political ideologies into something akin to race; to be an “Islamophobe” is in some circles today tantamount to being a racist.

American Islamophobia, Mr. Lean claims, is fomented by a “small cabal of xenophobes.” “The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims” is less a book than a series of vignettes about some of these antagonists, who are “bent on scaring the public about Islam.” His Islamophobic figures and institutions range from political leaders like Mr. Bush, Sen. John McCain and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who, Mr. Lean says, have “harnessed Muslims and Islam to terrorism”; to the pro-Israel community, which is alleged to be animated by a “violent faith narrative” and funded by magnates who inject “eye-popping cash flows into the accounts of various fear campaigns”; to pretty much everyone who campaigned in 2010 against the construction of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks in lower Manhattan.

Mr. Lean tars with the same brush the likes of the scholar Daniel Pipes and the Muslim activist, physician and U.S. Navy veteran Zuhdi Jasser. Mr. Pipes, the author writes, is “deeply entrenched in the business of selling fear.” He
portrays Dr. Jasser as a puppetlike figure, “a ‘good Muslim,’ one that openly and forcefully denounced various tenets of his faith.”

These are crude and uncharitable caricatures of these men. Mr. Pipes was one of the first Western commentators to raise the alarm about the subterranean spread of extremist attitudes in both the Middle East and among some Muslim communities in the West. Dr. Jasser, a devout Muslim, is the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, an organization that advances the notion that “the purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.” Both men argue that the real contest is the serious war of ideas raging within Islam itself, between the forces of liberalism and pluralism and those of obscurantism.

To Mr. Lean, though, any such distinction is simply a false perception manufactured by Islamophobes. Thus the author fails to grapple with the fact that, unlike average Muslims, Islamist terror groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah do commit unspeakable acts of violence in the name of Islam—actions that surely help account for why many Americans (49%, according to a 2010 poll) hold an unfavorable view of Islam, even when they view favorably Muslims that they personally know.

Read more at WSJ

 

Also see: The Monstrous Moral Inversion of the “Islamophobia” Industry
by Robert Spencer

State Department’s Continued Outreach to Radicals

788_largeby Abha Shankar

The Obama administration’s efforts to conquer hearts and minds in the Muslim world as part of its broader strategy to battle Islamist terrorism may be a laudable goal. But the administration’s continued pandering to radical Islamists both at home and abroad continues to baffle and frustrate opponents of political Islam and Islamist organizations.

The administration has been swift to embrace newly-elected Islamist regimes in the Middle-East despite their violent and pro-jihadi rhetoric. Last month for example, it heaped praise on Egypt’s new Islamist leader Mohammed Morsi for helping broker a truce between Israel and Hamas after eight days of fighting. In lauding Morsi, the U.S. government overlooked statements supporting Hamas issued by Morsi’s colleagues in the Muslim Brotherhood and their celebration of rocket attacks on Israel. Morsi was a senior Brotherhood official for years before seeking office.

This international outreach to authoritarian Islamist regimes bestows undue legitimacy on Islamists and renders democratic and secular opposition and dissident groups voiceless. The same flawed outreach is being pursued domestically.

The latest example comes from a State Department-sponsored delegation last year of five Bulgarian Muslims who came to discuss the role of religion in the United States. Details of the trip, funded by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs under its International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP), were obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism via a Freedom of Information Act request.

The delegation hoped to “learn about the environment of religious tolerance in the U.S. and how religious groups function in a democratic society with a separation of church and state,” records in the 379-page FOIA release show. It described meetings the delegation had with leading Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and individuals in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Salt Lake City and Chicago from Sept. 26-Oct. 14, 2011.

This is a problem that has been detailed before. Rather than seeking views from the broader, more diverse Muslim American community, government officials grab at “the lowest hanging fruit,” said Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix-based doctor who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. “But they ignore ideological diversity and instead take the shortcut of generally allowing those Muslims who are part of a national and global political Islamist movement to represent our faith community.”

“When confronted the White House and State Department will say that the ideological positions of Muslim groups is not their concern,” added Jasser, whose appointment this year to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom sparked ire among Islamists.

Jasser also blamed political correctness for the government’s flawed outreach policy:

“In part this also happens out of an absurd degree of political correctness and in part because these organizations have been very successful at branding themselves as the ‘voice of the Muslims.’ Even our National Strategy on Counterterrorism has been hijacked by this behavior, where it references the word ideology over 20 times but never names the ideology. The truth is that there is not and will never be one Muslim voice. We are a very diverse community….”

Jasser’s views were echoed by Qanta Ahmed, a New York-based physician and ardent critic of radical Islam.

The government’s failure to distinguish “Islam” from “political Islam” and its “willful engagement with non-violent Islamists” has resulted in the Islamists “owning the narrative,” she said. In congressional testimony given in June, she also highlighted the threat Islamist ideology poses to the American democracy:

“While we have been pursuing conventional international warfare and in fact have assassinated the leader of Al Qaida for instance, we have remained dangerously vulnerable because of our delayed realization of the political science aspects of Islamist ideology and the very serious threat this poses to our democracy,” Ahmed said. She described threats to free speech in the debate over radical Islam due to threats of litigation and false claims of bigotry that are used to stifle other points of view. Already, due to Islamist influence, the U.S. government has stopped using words like “Islamist” and “radical Islam.”

“This sanitization of our lexicon reveals a shocking and perhaps specious reluctance to engage with the problem or worse, a foolhardy embrace, unintentional or otherwise, with the Islamist stance,” Ahmed said.

“These are vulnerabilities which cannot be safeguarded by drones, or gunships but instead must be secured by counter ideological warfare which begins here, by widening the debate, discussion and scholarship in the area.”

Read more at IPT

See also:

Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood (counterjihadreport.com)

Daniel Pipes: Islamists are worse than dictators

Who is worse, President Mohammed Morsi,  the elected Islamist seeking to apply Islamic law in Egypt, or former President Hosni  Mubarak, the dictator ousted for trying to start a dynasty? More broadly,  will a liberal, democratic order be more likely to emerge under Islamist  ideologues who prevail through the ballot box or under greedy dictators with no  particular agenda beyond their own survival and power?

Mr. Morsi’s recent actions provide an  answer, establishing that Islamists are worse than dictators.

Intelligence Squared debate in New York City on Oct. 4, 2012.

Intelligence Squared debate in New York City on Oct. 4, 2012.

This issue came up in an interesting debate for Intelligence Squared U.S. in  early October when Reuel Marc Gerecht of the  Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Brian  Katulis of the Center for  American Progress argued, “Better elected Islamists than dictators,” while Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum  for Democracy and I made the counter-argument. Well, no one really argued “for” anyone. The other team did not endorse Islamists and we certainly did not  celebrate dictators. The issue, rather, was which sort of ruler is the lesser of  two evils, and can be cudgeled toward democracy.

Mr. Katulis blamed dictatorships for  fostering “the sorts of ideologies” that led to Sept. 11, 2001, and Mr.  Gerecht insisted that military juntas, not Islamists, generally are “the  real danger.  The only way you’re going to get a more liberal order in the  Middle East is through people of faith” who vote Islamists into office. Mr.  Katulis argued that elected Islamists change and morph, becoming less  ideological and more practical. They evolve in response to the rough and tumble  of politics to focus on “basic needs” such as security and jobs.

In Iraq, Mr.  Gerecht professed to find that “a tidal wave of people who were once  hard-core Islamists  have become pretty profound democrats, if not liberals.” As  for Egypt, he noted approvingly but inaccurately  that “the Muslim Brotherhood is having  serious internal debates because they haven’t figured out how to handle [their  success]. That’s what we want. We want them to fight it out.”

Mr. Jasser and I replied to this catalog  of inaccuracies (military juntas led to Sept. 11?) and wishful thinking (true  believers will compromise on their goals? a tidal wave of Iraqi Islamists became  liberals?) by stating first that ideologues are “dictators on steroids” who  don’t moderate upon reaching power but dig themselves in, building foundations  to remain indefinitely in office. Second, ideologues neglect the very issues  that our opponents stressed — security and jobs — in favor of implementing  Islamic laws. Greedy dictators, in contrast, short on ideology, do not have a  vision of society and so can be convinced to move toward economic development,  personal freedoms, an open political process and rule of law (for example, South  Korea).

Mr. Morsi and the Muslim  Brotherhood have followed our script exactly. Since taking power in August, Mr. Morsi sidelined the military, then  focused on entrenching and expanding his supremacy, most notably by issuing a  series of orders on Nov. 22 that arrogated autocratic powers to himself, and  spreading Zionist conspiracy theories about his opponents. Then he rammed  through an Islamist-oriented constitution on Nov. 30 and called a snap  referendum on it for Dec. 15. Consumed with these two tasks, he virtually  ignored the myriad issues afflicting Egypt,  especially the looming economic crisis and the lack of funds to pay for imported  food.

Read more at the Washington Times

Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser, Hamas, and “Human Rights”

Zuhdi Jasser

By Andrew Bostom:

Mo’ than enough of his immoral equivalences

Last night (9/2/12) I was sent (unsolicited) the video link to a conference held 3-months ago at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), entitled, “Rescuing Human Rights.” During his talk, one of the featured speakers, Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser, much ballyhooed as a “brave Muslim reformer,” opined (at 11:00 to 11:25) that Hamas’s openly declared annihilationist jihad against Israel was merely

…a tool for Hamas [and Hamas alone] to create a faith-based conflict…Us versus. them…Collectivist thinking which exploits human rights to oppress its own [ i.e., Palestinian Arab Muslim] people

Despite having been subjected to Jasser’s personalized immoral equivalences (he claimed in 2007 my extensive analyses of Islamic Antisemitism effectively made me the moral equivalent of “exploiters” of his noble faith—such as Osama bin Laden!), even I found his UCSD statement shocking. Jasser blithely ignores that Hamas was elected by a landslide vote in Gaza during 2006, and due to its prevailing popularity, would likely dominate any proposed Hamas-Fatah “reconciliation government” for all the Palestinian Muslim enclaves in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.

Regardless, last July, 2011, data were released from an analysis by American pollster Stanley Greenberg who performed what was described as an “intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

The salient, pathognomonic findings, were as follows:

First, 73% of the Palestinians surveyed agree with the annihilationist dictates of this canonical hadith (the words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad which have a weight often equal to the Koran), quoted in the Hamas Covenant.

As characterized in the hadith, Muslim eschatology—end of times theology—highlights the Jews’ supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl – the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ – or according to another tradition, the Dajjâl is himself Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions maintain that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan, or Jerusalem, wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered- everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree, as per the canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985) included in the 1988 Hamas Covenant (in article 7). The hadith– which ¾ of those surveyed agree should be acted upon—is cited in the Covenant as a sacralized, obligatory call for a Muslim genocide of the Jews—:

…the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985)

Second, 80% agreed with the quoted sentiments expressed in article 15 of the Hamas Covenant (subtitled, “Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is a Personal Duty”) elucidates classical jihadist theory—including jihad martyrdom (i.e., homicide bombing) operations—as well as its practical modern application to the destruction of Israel by jihad,  and the need to recruit the entire global Muslim community, or “umma” in this quintessential Islamic cause:

The day the enemies conquer some part of the Muslim land, jihad becomes a personal duty of every Muslim. In the face of the Jewish occupation of Palestine, it is necessary to raise the banner of jihad. This requires the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses, locally [in Palestine], in the Arab world and in the Islamic world. It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad in the nation, engage the enemies and join the ranks of the jihad fighters. The indoctrination campaign must involve ulama, educators, teachers and information and media experts, as well as all intellectuals, especially the young people and the sheikhs of Islamic movements…

It is necessary to establish in the minds of all the Muslim generations that the Palestinian issue is a religious issue, and that it must be dealt with as such, for [Palestine] contains Islamic holy places, [namely] the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is inseparably connected, for as long as heaven and earth shall endure, to the holy mosque of Mecca through the Prophet’s nocturnal journey [from the mosque of Mecca to the Al-Aqsa mosque] and through his ascension to heaven thence. “Being stationed on the frontier for the sake of Allah for one day is better than this [entire] world and everything in it; and the place taken up in paradise by the [horseman’s] whip of any one of you [jihad fighters] is better than this [entire] world and everything in it. Every evening [operation] and morning [operation] performed by Muslims for the sake of Allah is better than this [entire] world and everything in it.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Ibn Maja). “By the name of Him who holds Muhammad’s soul in His hand, I wish to launch an attack for the sake of Allah and be killed and attack again and be killed and attack again and be killed.” (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim)

Third, 72% backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem.

Fourth, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage

Fifth, 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.

Moreover, Jasser’s immoral equivalence at UCSD exculpates the “non-Hamas” Palestinian Muslims, and the rest of the Arab and non-Arab global Muslim umma incited for almost a century by mainstream, institutional Islam to a hydrophobic, annihilationist Islamic Jew-hating fury.  Particularly edifying examples of this incitement were two fatwas produced by Sunni Islam’s Vatican, Al-Azhar University, 9-months before the 1956 Sinai war when Israel was a rump state of 1949 armistice borders, and fully 32-years before Hamas was founded in 1988. Issued at the height of so-called secular Arab nationalism, these two complementary fatwas, one written on January 5, 1956, by then grand mufti of Egypt Sheikh Hasan Ma’moun, and another dated January 9, 1956, signed by the leading members of the Fatwa Committee of Al Azhar University and the major representatives of all four Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence, elaborated the following key points, indistinguishable from Hamas’s current Weltanschauung (from my forthcoming Sharia Versus Freedom):

Muslims cannot conclude peace with those Jews who have usurped the ter­ritory of Palestine and attacked its people and their property in any manner which allows the Jews to continue as a state in that sacred Muslim ter­ritory.[As] Jews have taken a part of Palestine and there established their non-Islamic government and have also evacuated from that part most of its Muslim inhabitants. . . . Jihad . . . to restore the country to its people . . . is the duty of all Muslims, not just those who can undertake it. And since all Islamic countries constitute the abode of every Muslim, the Jihad is impera­tive for both the Muslims inhabiting the territory attacked, and Muslims everywhere else because even though some sections have not been attacked directly, the attack nevertheless took place on a part of the Muslim territory which is a legitimate residence for any Muslim. Everyone knows that from the early days of Islam to the present day the Jews have been plotting against Islam and Muslims and the Islamic homeland. They do not propose to be content with the attack they made on Palestine and Al Aqsa Mosque, but they plan for the possession of all Islamic territories from the Nile to the Euphrates.

At UCSD, Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser deliberately ignored—as is his wont—Islam’s annihilationist jihad against the Jews, animated by its mainstream conspiratorial Jew hatred. Jasser compounded that offense by pretending Hamas—still resoundingly popular amongst the masses of Palestinian Muslims who share Hamas’s Weltanschauung—is somehow “denying” the Palestinians, not the Jews they seek to annihilate via jihad in accord with Islam’s canonical hadith,  etc.—their “rights”

Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser’s UCSD comments were emblematic of the reprehensible moral inversions he must create to remain in his disingenuous state of denial.

Andrew G.  Bostom is the author of The  Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The  Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ”  (Prometheus, November, 2008)

Radical Islam Joins the DNC

by Breeanne Howe

Starting at the end of this month the Democratic National Convention will open with a focus on Islam.  20,000 Muslims are expected to attend according to the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the national Muslim American non-profit coordinating the two days of events they claim are non-political.  ”Jumah at the DNC” begins August 29 and will start with a Friday afternoon jummah prayer followed by other unnamed programs and events, leading up to the Islamic Regal Banquet. The following day will be an all day Islamic Cultural and Fun Fest which will include discussions on the topics of Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act and more.  The purpose, according to BIMA, is to attract national and international attention to the plight of American Muslims and to hold political parties accountable for issues that affect them.  However, not all Muslims feel that BIMA represents them and M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D., Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has expressed serious concerns.

It is troubling that the Democratic National Convention has decided to promote and lend its name and national political platform to the organizers of the “Jummah at the DNC”. The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

A quick Google search by the DNC would have shown them that Hough and Wahhaj are leaders in the separatist American Islamist movement. While they may be able to get a few thousand Muslims to attend the event, they are NOT going to be mainstream Muslims.  Most will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement.

This is not about their right of assembly; this group under a different name pulled the same stunt at the US capitol in 2009 claiming 20k and getting 2-3k. THIS IS ABOUT the DNC calling this an “official function” listing these radicals as typical of the DNC community and more importantly about this organization speaking out AS representing supposedly typical American Muslims (or “Mainstream”).

If that is who the DNC is consorting with then all Americans, Democrats should be concerned. There are many patriotic Muslims who are part of both parties, and when radical ideologues like this do a demonstration of “solidarity” in the name of our faith and choose an imam like Siraj Wahhaj who I saw with my own eyes in 1995 seditiously say it his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran- then we need to speak up!

Their jummah (group) prayer is supposedly against the Patriot Act, the NYPD, and Islamophobia and is actually NOT about our democracy but about empowering their Islamist and MB (Muslim Brotherhood) sympathetic groups into the very fabric of the political system so that Americans become anesthetized. We need American Muslims to speak up and marginalize these radicals. The DNC needs to understand and reject them because of their radical history and ideas.

They use our American Muslim identity to speak as “one community” as a political unit or as a “bloc vote” – a political Islamist party when in fact most us Muslims don’t want that political unity and seek reform against their ideology that seeks to hijack our community. They do not represent us. (emphasis mine)

In fact, Zuhdi Jasser is correct, Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj have said and done radical things in their past.  Which means either the Democrats failed to utilize due diligence or they simply didn’t care.  In addition to the Muslims being misrepresented, Democrats and Charlotteans also have a right to know how the DNC has failed them before they even arrive in Charlotte.

Read more at Redstate

BENADOR: Islam, Ambushing America

 

By ELIANA BENADOR:

Ever since Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and Representatives Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney, launched their initiative to alert America from Muslim infiltration at the highest levels of the Obama Administration, all hell has broken loose.

As a result, we find ourselves thrust in the middle of an unspoken battle between the defense of the spirit of America and the overwhelming liberal complicity with an increasingly growing Muslim population whose goal is world domination, with America as the most coveted prize.

The current national discussion has been taken over by defenders and detractors, alike, of the rights of Muslims in our country.

Mosques in the USA: New York City, Dearborn, Fresno, Los Angeles, and almost 2,000 mosques nationwide varied in size and impact.

 

 

 

 

The famous letter Bachmann et al sent requesting an inquiry on Huma Abedin, has been at the origin of hundreds of articles written within only a few days about Ms Abedin both, stating the truth and giving evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile some events must be taken in consideration. They concern the following Muslim characters: Zuhdi Jasser, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, Keith Ellison, James Zogby and, last but not least, Nidal Malik Hasan.

This cast of characters demonstrates with clarity how far this visible, observant Muslims are slowly infiltrating our society -and the extent of it.

Very shrewd, very subtle, very effective. ·And very powerful.

Zuhdi Jasser

Jasser is a medical doctor, specialist in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology, and he is also aformer Lieutenant commander in the United States Navy, where he has served as staff internist in, of all places, the Office of the Attending Physician of the United States Congress.

In 2003, Jasser and some like minded Muslim friends, founded his organization, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. This begs the question if the notion of “democracy” per se, [from the Greek demos, which means 'people' and kratos, which means "power"] is ever mentioned, let alone accepted, by the prophet Mohammed in the Koran, or if it would ever be accepted by the absolute totalitarian Allah.

Some of Jasser’s fallacies are:  (1)  What he calls “separation” of mosque and state, even though there is no Muslim country in the world that can proof such fantasy   (2)  He fabricates another “separation”, namely, Islam from so-called political Islam   (3) And, last but not least, Jasser insists in the division of Muslims in “moderates” and “Islamists”.

Zuhdi Jasser would do well to substantiate his assertions with quotes from the Koran and quote exactly where his prophet Mohammed indicates that in Islam there is a “separation of mosque and state,” that the prophet mentions also the existence of both, Islam AND political Islam.  Last but not least, Jasser should make sure to quote Mohammed accepting that Muslims are “moderate” and “Islamists.”

This man, who is a pious Muslim, has had key positions within America society, where besides being the president and founder of his organization, American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), is also the current Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.  He is a member of various groups:  the Maricopa County Board of Health, the Area Agency on Aging and the chairman of the board of directors of ElderFriends, the  Transitional Housing Program for Elder Victims of Domestic Violence.   And he also sits, as Muslim representative, on the board of the Arizona Interfaith Movement.

Jasser, a television personality, is the sweetheart of Fox News Channel, where Saudi Prince Alwaleed is among the largest shareholders besides Rupert Murdoch.

Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal

The prince makes no secret that he promotes the study of Islam, and he has funded the following centers throughout the world:

(1) Harvard University: The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Islamic Studies Program;

(2)  Georgetown University: The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, whose director is the well-known American Islamic apologist, John Esposito;

(3) Cambridge University:  The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies;

(4) Edinburgh University: The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre for the Study of Islam in the Contemporary World;

(5) American University in Cairo:  The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Abdulaziz Alsaud Center for American Studies;

(6) American University in Beirut: The Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud Center for American Studies and Research.

Besides, the prince is known for funding terror through donations to families of suicide bombers.

In 2007, the prince received at his office in Riyadh, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and his accompanying delegation from the Palestinian Authority.  Abbas was treated as “president”.

Keith Ellison

Robert Spencer recent and detailed article describes Ellison’s allegiances and activities:

“…as for the Muslim Brotherhood itself, in 2008 Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. What is the Muslim American Society? The Muslim Brotherhood. “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” So reported the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb. The Muslim American Society, according to Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, “is the de facto arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. The agenda of the MAS is to … impose Islamic law in the U.S., to undermine U.S. counterterrorism policy.”

James Zogby

Founder and president of the Arab American Institute, he is also the author of “Arab Voices.”  His organization, AAI, serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community.

It is thanks to Zogby’s efforts that Muslim-Arab Americans have been able to secure their political empowerment in the U.S.

Using means such as: registration, education and mobilization, Zogby’s AAI has been successful bringing Muslim Arab Americans into the political mainstream.

Zogby, has been a co-founder and chairman of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign in the late 1970s, he later co-founded and served as the Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and, in 1982, he co-founded Save Lebanon, Inc., a private non-profit, humanitarian and non-sectarian relief organization which funds health care for Palestinian and Lebanese victims of war.   His entire bio can be read here.

In his most recent article on Bachmann vs Huma Abedin, he explains:  “Having been by Mrs. Clinton’s side since her days as First Lady, Huma Abedin is known and deeply respected in Washington and beyond.”

A few paragraphs later:  “In the end, the loony Members of Congress who co-signed the Bachmann letters were left stripped of supporters -save for crackpot fringe groups and real haters of Arabs and Muslims.”

And, writes that, bottom line:  “We must commit to changing the way we talk about Islam and the Arab World, and our nation’s Muslim and Arab communities and join Senator Scott Brown in making it clear that hate-filled personal attacks “have no place in our national discourse.”

As such, James Zogby finds nothing wrong with his correligionaries.  It’s rather patriotic Americans who are wrong.

Instead of performing some introspection to find out why Islam and Muslims are, after all, not innocent, especially when their prophet Mohammed instructs in their daily book, the Koran, that they have to perpetrate jihad to reach their goal of world domination, and it is, therefore, with a valid reason that a large part of Americans worry of the Muslim presence within the highest ranks of the Administration.

Read more at Right Side News

Goodwill Ambassador Eliana Benador is a national and international global strategist and founder of Benador Associates.

Visit Eliana’s blog at www.elianaschoice.blogspot.com Follow her on twitterwww.twitter.com/ElianaBenador

 

Terrorism Denial from Dhimmi Democrats

By Daniel Greenfield

There are topics that aren’t supposed to be discussed in polite society. Islamic terrorism has become one of those topics.

After September 11, it was put forward to us that the problem was not Islam, but the radicalization of some Muslims.  And yet the defenders of that formulation also refuse to discuss Muslim radicalization as a tangible reality, rather than a convenient excuse for shelving the topic.

Congressman Peter King’s attempts to hold hearings on Muslim radicalization have been met with attacks from the very people who should be welcoming the hearings. If the problem really is a minority of extremists, then why not hold hearings that delve into how this radicalization occurs and what can be done about it?

Instead Congressman King has been smeared and his hearings have been hijacked on the most ridiculous pretexts. During the latest hearing, Democratic Congressman Cedric Richmond complained that while Muslims might be responsible for 90 percent of the terrorist attacks. “The problem see is that we’re only talking about the 90 percent. It’s the 10 percent that we’re not talking about that keeps me up at night.”

Democratic Congresswoman Janice Hahn began rambling about being troubled by “radical Christians” and her colleague, Democratic Congressman Al Green said that he didn’t oppose hearings on radicalization, just hearings that didn’t “focus on the entirety of radicalization”.

“Christians who become radicalized, they become a part of Islam,” Green stuttered. “Why not have a hearing on the radicalization of Christians?”

Well why not? The answer to the question is as apparent as the reason for the hearings. The United States is not suffering from a plague of Methodist suicide bombers. Terrorism Denial is a refusal to deal with the question. And at the hearing, it came in many forms.

Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson insisted that Islamic terrorism was no longer a factor because Osama bin Laden, Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, a minor figure, had been killed. “Despite a changing world which requires us to look forward, this committee seems to want to look back.”

Islamic terrorism was now something in the rearview mirror and there was no reason to look back at it. But the highlights of the hearing came from the only witness called by the Democrats whose Terrorism Denial broke new ground.

Faiza Patel denounced the hearings for perpetuating “the notion that it is what American Muslims believe that leads to terrorism” and insisted that, “You cannot look at ideology as a predictor of violence.” Not only did Patel reject the very idea of Muslim radicalization, but she insisted that terrorism somehow exists apart from religion and ideology. And added that Muslim terrorists are actually secular.

Committee Democrats insisted on treating Patel as an expert, while belittling and denigrating Muslim witnesses like Asra Nomani and Zuhdi Jasser who, unlike her, actually came to talk about the subject under discussion.

When King suggested that there had been enough experts and that perhaps the committee might want to hear from actual people, Congresswoman Laura Richardson announced that she was offended. Richardson has made a small career out of being offended. When she was investigated for ethics violations, she was offended and claimed that it was only due to her race.

But there is an entire industry dedicated to being offended. Some of the professionally offended are Muslims, some are Dhimmis, but all are ready and waiting to be offended at any hour of the day. When the 3 AM phone call comes in, they can be out of bed and dictating a press release to convey the full measure of their ‘offendedness’ in the blink of an eye. And what offends them is any discussion of the intersection between Islam and terrorism.

Their arguments run as follows. Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, which they prove by pointing out that the majority of Muslims in America have never killed anyone. Talking about terrorism offends and alienates Muslims, which they imply may radicalize them into becoming terrorists. Therefore we shouldn’t talk about Muslim radicalization because it doesn’t exist and because by doing so we risk radicalizing Muslims.

What the Democratic assault on the hearings really showed is that Muslim radicalization, once the fallback position on Terrorism Denial, has now been placed outside the realm of discussion. You cannot talk about it, unless you take a TSA position, that the hearings should involve the radicalization of absolutely every religious group under the sun—so long as they aren’t Muslim.

Read more at Front Page