Obama’s Dubious Mosque Choice

Mehmet Kaman / Anadolu Agency/AFP

Mehmet Kaman / Anadolu Agency/AFP

IPT News
February 2, 2016

1345Barack Obama is scheduled to visit the Islamic Society of Baltimore (ISB) Wednesday, his first visit to a U.S. mosque since becoming president.

ISB leaders have amassed a record of support for radical Islamic causes over the years, including endorsing the Chechen jihad and Palestinian suicide bombings. Its former imam was active in a charity later linked to terror financing including Hamas, the Taliban, and for providing “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to Osama bin Laden.

More recently, a resident scholar described homosexuality as a threat to societal health, in stark contrast to the president’s views on the issue.

It’s safe to assume the White House vetted the ISB and found it an acceptable venue for a presidential appearance despite this history. And that is not surprising. The Obama administration has repeatedly embraced contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, repeatedly meeting with its officials during and after the Arab Spring while ignoringsecular democracy advocates. It praised the early tenure of Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi when he briefly served as Egypt’s president. The administration also helped a Brotherhood delegation skip routine screening by U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon landing in America.

And, as we reported in December, a White House meeting also aimed at standing by the Muslim-American community featured representatives of Islamist groups, including some with consistent records of opposing U.S. law enforcement counter-terrorism efforts.

ISB officials have worked closely with one of those groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In 2014, two ISB officials joined with CAIR in a news conference blasting Israeli military actions in Gaza. The conflict, known as Operation Protective Edge, started when Hamas operatives kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teens and continued its incessant campaign of firing rockets with the hope of killing Israeli civilians.

Those rockets were fired from densely populated areas, including near schools andhouses of worship.

But Hamas’ murders and ongoing efforts to carry out more were never mentioned by the CAIR and ISB officials. Instead, they blamed Israel when raids aimed at rocket launchers and other Hamas targets inadvertently killed and injured civilians.

ISB President Muhammad Jameel recklessly invoked “genocide in the name of self-defense” and said that, “as an American I am ashamed to stand here.”

Abid Husain, the ISB’s general secretary, joined Jameel in calling for the U.S. to pressure Israel into opening Gaza’s borders, ending an embargo that was enacted to stop the flow of weapons and materials used to make them.

“The U.S. government must not remain silent about Israel’s indiscriminate assault and unjust use of force,” Husain said. “The right of a nation to defend itself does not extend to unrestrained aerial bombardments of civilian populations and must be condemned.

Far from genocide, which is the systematic elimination of a people, and from an indiscriminate attack, Israel campaign against Hamas “went to extraordinary lengths” to minimize civilian casualties, said Gen. Martin Dempsey, then-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Israel dropped leaflets and called residents of buildings targeted for bombing in hopes the residents would heed the warnings and seek safer locations.

After the conflict ended, Dempsey sent a team of senior officers to learn from Israeli military leaders to study the tactics in Gaza to minimize civilian casualties. “In this kind of conflict, where you are held to a standard that your enemy is not held to, you’re going to be criticized for civilian casualties,” he said.

Another ISB official, resident scholar Yaseen Shaikh, sermonized against homosexuality as a mental disorder and “something which we despise.” The talk is dated May 2013, just weeks before he joined the ISB.

The Quran says “harm them” to those who engage in homosexuality, he said. “What does this mean? If it was not an aberrant act, if this was not a despised act, why would Allah … say, ‘Harm them’? Allah then says, ‘[Several Arabic words],’ ‘If they repent and they reform and they transform themselves and change, then let them be.”

As the Daily Caller reported, a past ISB imam worked with an Islamic charity latershuttered by the Treasury Department for supporting terrorists.

Mohamad Adam El Sheikh was a regional representative for the Islamic Africa Relief Agency (IARA) in Baltimore the same time that he was an ISB imam and director.

1346

An archived ISB action alert says that the “Islamic Society of Baltimore was recently visited by an IARA representative who brought the attached pictures of atrocities committed by Russians against the Muslims in Chechnya.”

Although links to several pictures from the Chechen jihad are still available on ISB’s archived web page, the actual pictures are no longer accessible.

“Despite all of this, by the grace of Allah, the Mujahidin in Chechnya have been able to defend themselves and remains a formidable threat to heavily armed Russian Army. However, it is also our responsibility as Muslims all over the world to help them in their Jihad effort,” the action alert added.

The action alert further solicited donations “to help the Refugees and Mujahidin in their struggle.”

In 2004, El-Sheikh justified Palestinian suicide bombings, saying they are acceptable when “certain Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means, and their local religious leaders issued fatwas to permit that.”

Another page on the ISB’s archived “Official English Site” links to a feature on the “Jihad in Chechnya” on the Azzam Publications website. Azzam publications was an al Qaida-tied website that was “one of the most well-known supporters of jihad, or holy war, on the internet.” The site is replete with material promoting jihad and martyrdom operations and includes a photo and link to a biography of Osama bin Laden’s mentor,Abdullah Azzam.

Just after 9/11, the ISB hosted speakers who would become prominent advocates of jihad, including American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a 2011 U.S. drone strike. Awlaki’s online sermons remain some of the most watched, most effective terrorist recruiting material online.

A page from ISB’s archived website links to the homepage of Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi. Qaradawi has issued fatwas or religious rulings in support of terrorism and described suicide operations as “heroic martyrdom operations.” In a 2004 fatwa, Qaradawi called abducting and killing Americans in Iraq is “a [religious] duty.”

At a 1995 conference held by the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA) in Toledo, Ohio, Qaradawi called for the “conquest” of Europe and America through Dawa, or proselytizing. “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Dawa,” he said.

The ISB’s leaders have had connections with radical Islamists and espoused extreme viewpoints throughout its history. Like a lot of mosques, it continues to segregate men and women during prayer, something American-Islamic Forum for DemocracyPresident Zuhdi Jasser called “gender apartheid.”

During an appearance on Fox News Monday, Jasser said he was insulted by the president’s choice of the ISB. It continues an administration policy of working with Islamist groups and ignoring Muslims like him who stand against theocracy.

“It’s disgraceful that this is one of the mosques – or the mosque – that he’s picked to be the first visit,” he said. ISB’s website looks like “a covert operation. There’s no name on it. It basically has pictures of individuals, but no names.”

For an event that is expected to focus on tolerance, diversity and inclusion, Obama made a puzzling choice in the ISB. Its leaders sympathize with terrorists, hate homosexuals and treat women as less than equal.

Obama White House Turns To Islamists Who Demonize Terror Investigations

by John Rossomando
IPT News
December 28, 2015

Jihadist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris have Americans on edge. Yet part of the Obama White House’s response to the attacks has been to invite Islamist groups that routinely demonize the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to the White House to discuss a religious discrimination. “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away,” President Obama said in his speech following the San Bernardino attack.

But partnering with such organizations sends the wrong message to the American people, said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AFID).

“I think it says a lot when the president uses those organizations that have an ACLU-type mentality. They should have a seat at the table. That’s fine,” Jasser said.  “But not to include groups, which have completely different focuses about counter-radicalization, counter-Islamism creates this monolithic megaphone for demonization of our government and demonization of America that ends up radicalizing our community.”

A White House spokesperson acknowledged to the Investigative Project on Terrorism that the Dec. 14 meeting on countering anti-Muslim animus included Hassan Shibly, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Florida chapter. The same forum – attended by Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes – also included Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates; Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI); Mohamed Magid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS); and Hoda Hawa, director of policy and advocacy with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) among others.

The White House guests, or the organizations they represent, have long histories of criticizing counter-terror investigations. CAIR leads the pack. Its Philadelphia chapter is advertising a workshop, “The FBI and Entrapment in the Muslim Community,” which features a spider with an FBI badge on its back, spinning a web of entrapment around an image of a mosque. The workshop “provides the tools needed to prevent entrapment of community members to become terrorists in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Since 9/11, CAIR has repeatedly taken the side of defendants accused of financing or plotting attacks, calling their prosecutions a “witch hunt” against the Muslim community.  For example, CAIR denounced the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, who turned out to be the secretary of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing board, as “politically motivated” and a result of the “Israelization of American policy and procedures.”

A year ago, CAIR similarly protested the incarceration of Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady Al Qaeda” – convicted in 2010 of trying to kill two FBI agents. The protest came after the Islamic State (ISIS) offered to spare the lives of executed American photojournalist James Foley and aid worker Kayla Mueller in exchange for Siddiqui’s release.

CAIR also denounced the December 2001 shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation for Hamas support, saying, “…there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam.”

Demonizing law enforcement and spreading “the idea that America and Western societies [are] anti-Muslim – the whole Islamophobia mantra is part of the early steps of radicalization so that Muslims get separated out of society,” Jasser said. “These groups certainly aren’t on the violent end of the Islamist continuum, but if there’s a conveyer belt that goes towards radicalization then it certainly starts with this siege and separatist mentality.”

CAIR has used such inflammatory imagery and rhetoric for years, with its San Francisco chapter removing a poster urging Muslims to “Build a Wall of Resistance – Don’t Talk to the FBI” in 2011 after the IPT reported on it.

Later that year, a CAIR-New York official told a Muslim audience that FBI agents would break the law to force them to talk. That includes threats and “blackmail, seriously blackmail; that’s illegal,” Lamis Deek told the audience. “But they’ll do it.”

Jasser blames CAIR and others which spread similar rhetoric for the increased fear of Islam and Muslims in America since 9/11 because they refuse to discuss Islamic extremism and the role Muslims have in fixing the problem.

1324“This creates a climate where people don’t trust us to be part of the solution,” Jasser said. “People say that if you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem, which creates more fear and distrust.”

Neither Jasser nor the AIFD, which advocates for “liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state,” were invited to the White House meeting. Also shut out were Jasser’s colleagues in the new Muslim Reform Movement, whose members “reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam” and stand “for secular governance, democracy and liberty. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights.”

The White House did not reply to a request for comment about Jasser’s characterization of these groups; however, it previously said it engaged CAIR because of “their work on civil rights issues” despite the group’s Hamas ties.

Former FBI Associate Deputy Director Buck Revell also finds the White House’s choice of Muslim groups troubling.

“It’s a very confusing time and circumstance when you have the White House dealing with people who have fronted for the Muslim Brotherhood and are the spokespeople for Hamas in the United States and you bring them in for a conference at the White House and say they are supposed to speak for the Muslim community in America,” Revell said. “It’s unhelpful to have the White House essentially fronting for groups that want to make it harder to reach the jihadists in our society and in effect flush them out.”

Khera’s group Muslim Advocates has a pending lawsuit against the New York Police Department regarding its surveillance of mosques and other Islamic institutions using undercover police officers and informants.

“One of our key priorities at Muslim Advocates is ending racial and religious profiling by law enforcement,” Khera says in a YouTube video supporting the suit. “We’ve done work to combat profiling by the FBI, by Customs and Border Protection and now more recently we’ve had concerns about the way the New York Police Department – the nation’s largest police department – has been conducting itself.”

Like CAIR, Khera has called the FBI’s sting operations and informants against potential jihadists “entrapment operations” that rope in individuals who might otherwise never engage in terrorist activity.

CAIR’s Shibly also used the entrapment narrative in a June 2014 blog post in which he argued that the “FBI entrapment program targeting the Muslim community” was an example of tyranny. Many other CAIR representatives, such as Michigan director Dawud Walid, previously alleged the FBI has “recruited more so-called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves.”

AAI stops short of embracing the entrapment narrative but labels surveillance programs by the NYPD and other government agencies “unconstitutional, ineffective, and counterproductive.” New York’s Mayor Bill De Blasio disbanded the NYPD unit responsible for infiltrating the city’s mosques and Muslim gathering places looking for potential terrorists in April 2014 under pressure from Muslim groups.

Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which counts Magid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatem al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, giving religious justification for not cooperating with authorities. Al-Haj wrote it was “impermissible” for Muslims to work with the FBI because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims.”

However, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which formerly accused the FBI of entrapment, conceded in 2013 that informants can be useful detecting terror cells and keeping them off balance.

“To be fair, informants at times can be effective in counterterrorism investigations even against cellular structures. Because terrorist groups are concerned about their operational security, fear of informants can create and increase tensions within a terrorist cell. As a result, it may generate enough paranoia that a cell may abandon a planned operation,” MPAC said in its 2013 report “Building Bridges to Strengthen America.”

Looking for jihadis before they strike is a bit like looking for a “needle in a haystack,” so sting operations are useful in finding them before it’s too late, according to Revell.  He says such operations can be useful in preventing the next San Bernardino.

“If you don’t find them when they are talking jihad and you have to wait until they take an action then it’s too late to be able to prevent casualties and ensure that the public is safe,” Revell said. “There certainly is knowledge among those looking to do any type of jihadi activity that there is a force out there that is countering them and that they need to try to cover their activities to the greatest extent possible.”

In the past year, the Islamic State (ISIS) has published at least two documents instructing its jihadis how to evade being lured into stings by the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies.  The ISIS manual “Safety and Security guidelines of the Lone Wolf Mujahideen” devotes a chapter to evading FBI stings by testing the weapons they receive prior to using them in an attack.

Khera’s organization stood front and center in 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive.  Shecomplained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter that counterterrorism materials then being used to train FBI agents about Islam used “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims.” Such allegedly misinformed statements included characterizing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat” and that “Accommodation and compromise between [Islam and the West] are impermissible and fighting [for Muslims] is obligatory.”

Yet numerous Muslim commentators, including from the Herndon, Va.-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an” published with editorial assistance from IIIT, says that zakat can be used among other things to help “(4) those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”

The AMJA issued a fatwa in August 2011 stating that zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”

Top Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi similarly states in his book, Fiqh of Jihad, that zakat may be spent to finance “the liberation of Muslim land from the domination of the unbelievers,” particularly against Israel and India in Kashmir.

Numerous Islamic charities have been cited or closed down in connection with terrorist financing since the September 11 attacks. Qaradawi’s actions back up his words. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Union of Good, a network of charities headed by Qaradawi, for Hamas fundraising. That same year a federal court jury convicted the founders of the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF) for illegally financing Hamas.

“The government’s policy has inflicted considerable harm,” MPAC’s Salam al-Marayatiwrote in 2001 after federal authorities closed the Benevolence International Fund (BIF). “By effectively shutting down these charities, it has given Americans the false impression that American Muslims are supporting terrorists. It has also given the Muslim world a similarly false impression that America is intolerant of a religious minority.”

Representatives of MPAC, CAIR and Muslim Advocates each condemned the HLF prosecution or its subsequent verdict.

In the end, the White House’s decision to empower these groups sends a mixed message to the American people that it isn’t fully interested in rooting out the causes of jihadist terror and preventing future attacks.

#ExMuslimBecause Trend Stands Up To Extremists

1317by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
December 18, 2015

Is this the real Arab Spring?
Shortly after the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, Maryam Namazie, director of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain(CEMB), created the hashtag “#ExMuslimBecause” on Twitter. The result was a firestorm, through which tens of thousands of ex-Muslims across the world declared their apostasy, many gathering courage from the brave and often poignant words of others.

But just as quickly as their courage spread, the words of these former Muslims were soundly condemned by many others who remain within the faith.  Tweeted someone calling himself @hammamovic, whose avatar shows a clean-shaven young man in a black T-shirt, “I’m Muslim, I’m not a terrorist, but you, the #exmuslims who left Islam, must be killed. You make Terrorism.”

His words speak directly to the impetus behind Namazie’s movement, and behind the founding of the CEMB, which, according to its website, was formed “in order to break the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam.”  That taboo is as powerful as it is perverse: For Muslims, leaving the faith is punishable by death.

Yet apparently, that risk of death is one many are prepared to take in order to continue with life on their own terms. And the number of such courageous ex-Muslims seems to be more than anyone anticipated. “By early Friday morning,” reported Ali A. Rizvi, an #exMuslim himself who wrote about the phenomenon for the Huffington Post, “#ExMuslimBecause was the UK’s top trending hashtag. We heard from secret LGBT Saudis; women who had been forced into marriages; closeted atheists in Egypt and Pakistan tweeting under pseudonyms young women disowned by their families in the US; and more.”

Among them were “@Yas” from Canada, who wrote: “#ExMuslimBecause my own mother told me I should be killed because I didn’t believe the same things she did”; “@SamSedaei, who tweeted: “#ExMuslimBecause I was told I was a Muslim. But then I learned that religion is not a gene and being born to believers doesn’t make you one”; and Rizvi himself, who posted, “#ExMuslimBecause No REAL God should need protection from bloggers and no REAL prophet should need protection from cartoons.” Other notable posts include @LibMuslim’s “#ExMuslimBecause misogyny, homophobia, stoning ppl to death and killing apostates don’t suddenly become ‘respectable’ when put in a holy book” and Heina Dababhoy‘s “#ExMuslimBecause I got tired of suppressing my compassion twds LGBT+ people in the name of a deity claiming to be most compassionate.” For her part, Maryam Namazie, who has been busy adding to the conversation, also observed, “#ExMuslimBecause my being unveiled is NOT the cause of earthquakes or other calamities.”

But many Western Muslims who share their views have refused to take part, insisting that one can be Muslim and still support liberal ideals. “I do think that a lot of the questions that are coming out of the #ExMuslimBecause are issues that Muslims need to take on – such as gender equality and gay rights,” says Ayesha Akhtar, a Bangladeshi-American artist and activist living in New York.  The phenomenon is “complicated,” she says, but adds, “I think that this hashtag and all the tweets, posts, stories that come out of it deserve a round of applause, especially from Muslims, who want religious freedom to dress and live according to their faith – because the right to religious freedom must correspond with the right to be free from any religious affiliation. In a truly liberal, tolerant society, one cannot be one without the other.”

Ibn Warraq, a particularly outspoken Muslim apostate and the author of Why I Am Not A Muslim, agrees, though he is skeptical that one can remain Muslim and still hold such secular, humanist viewpoints. The hashtag, he says, “will help those who think along similar lines. It will give them moral support, reassure them that they are not completely depraved, mad, or evil. They are not alone.”

In other words, while it may seem like a mere Twitter trend, it’s a trend that potentially has very real political punch. True, 25 years after the Salman Rushdie affair, Warraq observed via e-mail, “it is still impossible to avow one’s atheism in public. All the atheists in the Islamic world keep their atheism online. But I think that is beginning to change.”

This is of greater importance in the Muslim world than in the West where, for people like Akhtar, it is possible to consider oneself a practicing Muslim while maintaining Western ideas.  That ability, in fact, is allowing many Western Muslims to start trying to change the narrative – one that, until now, has largely been led by conservative Islamic organizations such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and by Muslim fundamentalists. Earlier this month, M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, established the Muslim Reform Movement in concert with 13 other practicing Muslims, including activist Asra Nomani and Farahnaz Ispahani, a former member of the Pakistani Parliament. The group published a nine-point “declaration,” confirming their shared belief in free speech, freedom of religion, equal rights and condemning violent jihad.

But such secular, contemporary viewpoints – let alone outright apostasy – would be impossible in an Islamic country, notes Warraq, who is also the founder of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society (an organization that ironically bears the acronym ISIS). While it works in the West, ultimately, he says, “There is no Islam a la carte.”

Yet even for Muslims in the West, there are risks. Some are excommunicated from their families. Others are attacked by Muslims in their communities, either physically, verbally, or emotionally. When Namazie spoke at Goldsmiths, University of London on Nov. 30 at the invitation of its Atheist, Secularist, and Humanist Society, for instance, the school’s Islamic Society (ISOC) repeatedly disrupted. Making matters worse, Goldsmiths’ LGBT and feminist societies  defended the Islamic Society’s actions.

Never mind that the ISOC supports the wearing of burqas and other garments that many claim oppress women. Never mind that Namazie, a woman, was bullied by (mostly male) Muslims in the audience. Never mind that the Islamic Society itself has invited speakers who defend jihadists, including Zara Faris, who frequently refers to events like 9/11 as “So-called ‘Muslim’ terrorist attacks.'” Never mind its support for the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement against Israel. Never mind that the Society accused Namazie of depriving its members their right to free speech in their efforts to protest against her, but failed to see an assault on free speech in their own efforts to silence her.

Ironically, it is exactly Namazie’s movement, says Warraq, that puts the lie to the concept of “Islamophobia” in the first place. “The unwritten subtext of such a charge is, of course, that the person so accused is ignorant, racist, and bigoted,” he wrote in an e-mail. “But the existence of millions of Middle Easterners, and South Asians, who are now atheists refutes the claim that all those critical of Islam must be racists. Islam, in any case, is not a race. Second, the young Egyptians, Saudis, Iraqis and others who have firmly rejected Islam, have had experience of Islam from the inside; many of them have studied Islam to a very advanced level, and hence cannot be guilty of ignorance. And yes, they did read the Koran in the original Arabic.  They know the social consequences of imposing Islam on the general populace: lack of freedom, those freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and which we in the West take so much for granted. The charge of Islamophobia is an effective way of curtailing all rational discussions of Islam.”

Goldsmiths notwithstanding, the response to #ExMuslimBecause suggests that Warraq may be right. If so, this would be an important step in the fight against Islamic extremism, because only if we can talk about the subject openly and frankly, debating the issue from all angles with the freedom that Western, enlightened culture holds as its core value, can we ever defeat those who would take that freedom from us.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Glazov Gang: Choudary, Spencer and Jasser Battle It Out On “Jihad in Chattanooga.”

free-672x372By Jamie Glazov July 31, 2015:

This special episode of The Glazov Gang was joined by Anjem Choudary, a London Imam, Robert Spencer, the Director of JihadWatch.org, and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

The three guests came on the show to discuss “Jihad in Chattanooga.”

Don’t miss the fireworks:

The Lure of Fantasy Islam

CPAC – Conservative Political Action Conference discovers Islamic terrorism

J.D. Gordon speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

J.D. Gordon speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

Religious Freedom Coalition, March 6th, 2015, by Andrew Harrod, PhD.

“Radical Islamic terrorism” is the “new existential threat” to free societies after Communism’s Cold War demise, declared political commentator Deroy Murdock on February 28 at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).  Murdock’s panel “America’s Security in the Age of Jihad” on CPAC’s center stage demonstrated that vitally important Islamic aggression and authoritarianism were finally receiving CPAC’s attention after past neglect and uninvited analysts.

The preceding noon panel “The Middle East:  The 30 Years War” packed a standing-room only crowd of about 80 into a conference room near the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center ballroom where Murdock spoke.  Among others in attendance was the ubiquitous Muslim grandstanding gadfly Saba Ahmed, whose participation drew afterwards obscene comments from individual audience members.  Moderating the panel, defense consultant Van Hipp critiqued its title by describing a “war that’s been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years” and involving issues that “need to be on the main stage,” as indicated by the large audience.  Hipp’s statement that “radical Islam is really the challenge of our time” foreshadowed Murdock, but Hipp criticized policymaker reticence in naming this threat as equivalent to “refusing to call Nazi fascism Nazi fascism” during World War II.

Making his CPAC debut, Middle East analyst Walid Phares discussed the “very specific ideology” of “jihadism,” something that is “not yoga,” although jihad in Islam can have nonviolent meanings.  He was “very firm” in claiming that jihadists seeking Islamic political rule with various means including violence were a minority among Muslims.  He cited the 33 million Egyptians whose June 30, 2013, protests helped bring down the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) government of Mohammed Morsi.  In his estimation a truly liberating Arab Spring “could have been possible” if President Barack Obama’s administration had supported “all sorts of peaceful people” in Arabian civil society.  Since Obama’s June 4, 2009, speech in Cairo, however, he has taken the “wrong side” in the MB.

Phares’ Powerpoint “Catastrophes in the Middle East” indicated jihadism’s growing global dangers.  He mocked how some American policymakers were “on a different planet.”  They believed in things like the nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran, “nothing but a maneuver” for nuclear weapons development “to gain time.”  Chastising Obama’s flawed historical understanding, Phares noted that the “Crusaders were in a confrontation with another empire,” not “Boy Scouts.”  Looking beyond the Middle East, he worried about Nigeria’s Boko Haram, the “ISIS of Africa,” and how Afghanistan unaided by foreign troops is “not going to be left to Social Democrats.”

Similarly debuting at CPAC, former CIA agent and international security analyst Clare Lopez agreed with Hipp that warfare with and among Muslims “goes a little farther back” than the panel title suggested.  She described modern jihadist behavior being “almost directly taken from the life of Muhammad,” Islam’s prophet and the “first jihadi.”  “Jihad rises again now,” she added, “because the West has fallen back” under an Obama who entered office with an “agenda already formed” for the United States “to be more on the level of Greece.”

Under this agenda, diminished American influence would concede the North Africa region to Sunni Muslims under MB influence and the Persian Gulf area to Shiite-majority Iran.  This strategy entailed abandoning dictators like Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi and Egypt’s Hosni Muburak.  They were “never going to be a choirboy” but had aided the West against Al Qaeda (AQ) and in keeping peace with Israel.  American acquiescence in Iran’s rise, meanwhile, could involve in the future nuclear weapons that are “not just for Israel,” but could strike the United States as well on Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Lopez focused on Iran’s Islamic Republic.  Since its 1979 creation, this “jihadist state” has sought “export of the revolution” as expressed by Quran 8:60 in the Iranian constitution’s preamble.  Among other things, nuclear weapons acquisition would help Iran “seize the leadership of the global jihad” from Islam’s Sunni majority. Yet Shiite Iran has also cooperated with Sunni groups like AQ, with which Iran and its Lebanese Shiite proxy militia Hezbollah have had a relationship involving training and logistics since a “jihadi jamboree” in 1990s Sudan.

Likewise, Iran currently aids its Shiite allies fighting against the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  ISIS’ top target, Lopez however notes, are the Sunni “hypocrites” who rule Saudi Arabia.  The eastern provinces of this Iranian archrival are oil-rich and Shiite-populated, making them a tantalizing prize for an Iran that would be a secondary beneficiary to any ISIS attack on the Saudi kingdom.

Joining Murdock at CPAC’s central venue, former Department of Defense spokesman and career navy officer J.D. Gordon echoed Lopez.  The “radical Islamist threat is a two-headed” among both Sunnis and Shiites, he observed, but “Iran long term is the greatest threat.”  Gordon meanwhile noted a “de facto alliance” between the “international left and the Islamists” in areas such as an “anti-colonial movement” condemning Israel.  Such dangers were “not about jobs” he mocked while criticizing an Obama administration that had more to say about climate change than jihad in its Quadrennial Defense Reviews.

Army officer veteran and political analyst Pete Hegseth also dismissed such socioeconomic root cause analysis of Islamic violence.  “The age of jihad,” he analyzed, presents the “Nazism or Communism of our time” in a “particular interpretation of the Quran.”  “The only way to defeat an enemy like this is to put many, many, many of them into the ground.”  Yet Obama’s Iraq withdrawal showed that he “was more interested in ending wars than in ending them properly.”

Former army intelligence officer and military analyst Anthony Schaffer, also in his first CPAC appearance, emphasized “déjà vu all over again” feelings in discussing Islamic threats.  In his own career he had helped protect American troops in Germany during the Cold War against Libyan plots.  “Fighting Islamic jihadists,” he noted, “goes back to Jefferson” as the “shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Corps hymn recalls.  Obama’s current “refusal to define the Islamic threat” is dangerous and his “high school debate team in charge of national security” shows official “criminal neglect.”

Navy veteran and Muslim political activist Zuhdi Jasser also stressed clear definitions for freedom’s “battle…within Islam.”  “You have to name it to tame it” and describe explicitly political Islam or Islamism, political correctness notwithstanding.  Not just ISIS, but Islamic states plural and the “neo-caliphate” of the 57-member state (including “Palestine”) Organization of Islamic States form a multifaceted Islamist “continuum” in an “evil empire today.”  “We can only win this if we empower reform-minded Muslims” willing “to die for liberty,” yet Obama had supported an “Islamic mafia” of “Islamists ideologues” both domestically and abroad.  In contrast to voluminous Cold War government Communism studies, today’s government Islamist scholars can be counted “on one hand” and fear losing their jobs.

The presence of Jasser and other panelists at the center of CPAC indicated that Islamic issues will in the future receive the attention it deserves at America’s premier conservative gathering.  Conservatives, who pride themselves as national security experts, will not be AWOL concerning these various ongoing, increasingly important faith-based threats to freedom.  This welcome development could not come sooner, for a long, hard road leads to Murdock’s laudable goal for Islamism:  “Let’s throw it next to Communism on the ash-heap of history.”

***

While the “The Middle East: The 30 Years War” panel video has not been made available, (I wonder why?) here is the “America’s Security in the Age of Jihad” video:

President Obama: Jihadists Have No Legitimate Grievances

obama31CSP, by Fred Fleitz, February 20, 2015:

Did President Obama really say at the “countering violent extremism summit” yesterday and in his recent LA Times op-ed that jihadist terrorist groups are winning recruits by exploiting economic, political and historic grievances that are “sometimes accurate.”

Yes he did.

This incredible claim begs two questions.  What kind of legitimate grievances could possibly justify beheadings and burning people to death?  And what type of people are being motivated to join Jihadist groups because of such atrocities?

Mr. Obama’s statement reflects his continuing refusal to acknowledge that the global jihad movement is motivated by a unifying ideology: radical Islam and its doctrine of imposing shariah worldwide through violence.

It also is impossible to square President Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda and ISIS are attracting recruits for political and economic reasons with the fact that thousands from Western countries are buying plane tickets to fly to Turkey to join ISIS.  And let’s not forget that al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was not poor; he was the son of a Saudi billionaire.

Moreover, the president’s claims that ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists are perverting or exploiting Islam are at odds with radical Islam’s long historical legacy and its basis in the Koran.

The president also is ignoring growing radicalism in mainstream Islamist theology.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, confirmed this last week at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit when he said that to combat ISIS and al-Qaeda, the United States must avoid aligning with Islamist organizations which may currently be non-violent but sympathize or endorse violent jihadist groups.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said at the Defeat Jihad Summit that these groups are waging a “pre-violent’ campaign to advance a jihadist agenda in the West which the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”  Click HERE to read a Center for Security Policy analysis of this issue, “Civilization Jihad: the Muslim Brotherhood’s Potent Weapon.”

Jasser also took issue with “countering violent extremism,” the term President Obama uses to describe America’s efforts to oppose al-Qaeda, ISIS and other radical groups.  Jasser said “Stop the nonsense of ‘CVE’.  We’re not countering violent extremism.  I can’t help you as a reform-minded Muslim with my book The Battle for the Soul of Islam if you say this is a battle for the soul of violent extremism.  That’s nonsense.”

In short, President Obama is dead wrong.  Jihadist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS are recruiting followers by promoting the anti-Western, anti-modern ideology of radical Islam.  They are recruiting people who hate modern society, Western civilization and the United States.  These disgruntled and disturbed individuals are not going to be dissuaded by a new U.S. jobs program for youth in Muslim countries or President Obama making excuses for their decision to join terrorist groups that are the face of evil in the modern world.

French Premier Manuel Valls had it right when he said after the Paris shootings by French jihadists last month, “It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”

This is what President Obama needs to say about the threat posed by the global jihad movement.  Until the president stops denying this threat, he is signaling American weakness and lack of resolve which will allow this threat to continue to spread and grow.

Bostom Discusses Obama’s Nat’l Prayer Breakfast Speech, Islam as a ROP, Iran, Muslim Reformer M.Z. Jasser, and More

 

110912_dobbs_bostom

By Andrew Bostom, Feb. 7, 2015:

Audio link (just under 40 minutes): https://soundcloud.com/blazebooks/islam-scholar-dr-andrew-bostom-on-whether-islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-iran-and-much-more

Again, I referred to this two part essay “Jihad Begot the Crusades”, from 2005: Jihad begot the Crusades (1); Jihad begot the Crusades (2)

As for “Slavery”, since the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, see this comparison of U.S. and Ottoman Slavery: Sesquicentennial Comparisons: Black Slavery in America and Ottoman Turkey

The Inquisition and its (Prototype?) Antecedents The Muslim Mihna (an intra-Muslim Inquisition imposed by the inappropriately “lionized” Mutazilities), and more immediately (i.e., to the Inquisition) the Almohad Persecutions are discussed in these essays: Mutazilite Fantasies: Dross in Islam’s “Golden Age of Reason” (The Muslim Mihna); Maimonides and the “Meshugga” Prophet; & The Cordoba House and the Myth of Cordoban ‘Ecumenism’ (the Almohad Persecutions)

For additional understanding of my brief discussion of Muslim reformer Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser, see these essays: Sharia Über Alles (polling data of Muslims across the globe, and within the U.S., Jasser uniformly ignores) Blog: Zuhdi Jasser’s Predicament — And Ours (his apologetics, which, when challenged, devolve into angry lashing out)

These recent discussions of Iran (in print and video), and certainly my book Iran’s Final Solution For Israel, cover aspects all of what I alluded to on Iran: Jihad, Najis, & Islamic Jew-Hatred, The 3 Pillars of Iran’s Hegemonic Aspirations: My 1/28 Appearance on The Iran Truth Panel; Message to Michael* Ledeen on Mousavi, Montazeri, and the Soylent Green Movement; End the Bush-Obama Fecklessness: Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Now; Updated Author’s Preface to “Iran’s Final Solution For Israel”; A True Iranian Reformer, and His Movement?

****

Update, Feb. 9, 2015 : Benjamin Weingarten gives his synopsis of the interview at The Blaze:

Let me start with the Civil War — I mean this is a president who — we can excuse him for his ignorance of Islamic theology and Islamic history, you know despite his nominal background in Islam as a child. But excuse me, but the abolitionists were Christians, and the United States literally went to war with itself, unlike any other society before, to extirpate the longstanding, thousand year longstanding evil of slavery in virtually every human civilization. It’s just appalling that he doesn’t even grasp that fundamental decency about this country.

…[I]f you look at what he’s [President Obama’s] referring to in terms of the Crusades…if I could just share with you something that I wrote ten years ago [from Bostom’s “Jihad Begot the Crusades,” parts 1 and 2]…

The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Qur’anic revelation itself, whereas the Crusades were circumscribed historical events subjected to (ongoing and meaningful) criticism by Christians themselves. Unlike the espousal of jihad in the Qur’an, the constituent texts of Christianity, the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, do not contain a form fruste [incomplete] institutionalization of the Crusades. The Bible sanctions the Israelites conquest of Canaan, a limited domain, it does not sanction a permanent war to submit all the nations of humanity to a uniform code of religious law. Similarly, the tactics of warfare are described in the Bible, unlike the Qur’an, in very circumscribed and specific contexts. Moreover, while the Bible clearly condemns certain inhumane practices of paganism, it never invoked an eternal war against all of the world’s pagan peoples [for example like Koran 9:5does…].

The Crusades as an historical phenomenon were a reaction to events resulting from over 450 years of previous jihad campaigns.

So I just did what I could back then to put some of this…blather in context. And then of course he [President Obama] goes on and talks about the Inquisition.

Well…Islam too has had its inquisitions. It’s had its inquisitions against other Muslims dating back to the 9th century…and it also had a horrific inquisition…in the 12th century, imposed upon the Jews in particular, who were massacred, pillaged and enslaved by the tens of thousands, and then forcibly converted to Islam. And some practiced crypto-Judaism, and they were subjected to the same practices curiously that were adopted by the inquisitioners in the same region, so you could argue this might have even been a historical prototype, just within a couple centuries later.

Bostom added:

And the big difference Ben, I think, is that we in the West, as religious and non-religious people, criticize all of these ideologies — whether they’re religions like Christianity and Judaism, or whether they’re very, very horrible secular totalitarian ideologies like Nazism and Communism.

All of the baggage that we have accumulated — and we have accumulated a lot of baggage, unlike in Islamdom, is open to criticism. And that is a profound difference Ben.

The Connection Between Sharia Law and an “Islamic Tribunal” in Texas

Published on Feb 5, 2015 by TheBlaze

Dana Loesch talks to Zuhdi Jasser about the first “Islamic Tribunal” in the U.S. – happening soon in Texas – and its connection to Sharia law.

Muslim Scholar Blames Porn for Jihad

by John Rossomando
IPT News
December 17, 2014

509Muslim scholar Hamza Yusuf, president of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif., blamed pornography for the proliferation of jihadist violence during a Georgetown University panel discussion Monday about the status of Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries.

Princeton University law professor Robert George moderated the panel, and Yusuf appeared onstage along with John Esposito, a Muslim Brotherhood defender who heads the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Christian Muslim Understanding at the university.

After George noted that intelligence agents routinely find sexually explicit materials on laptops belonging to captured jihadists, Yusuf offered a theory in which young men “become deeply defiled” by the pornography habits and blame the West for providing the corrupting influences. They turn to jihad for religious purification and redemption.

“I really think that we underestimate the amount of people that have this experience of wanting to restore some kind of purity to themselves,” Yusuf said, “and the only restoration for them is blowing themselves up and get rid of the part that is the source of my defilement which is my body.”

Esposito disagreed, pointing to polling data showing that jihadists are motivated by politics rather than religion. He argued that those opposed to jihad did so for religious reasons.

“If you look at major polling data, the drivers are usually political,” Esposito said. “People were asked about, say, waging jihad. The people who were against waging jihad cited religion. Those who were swayed by the jihadists cited politics.”

“They’re always going to tell pollsters that crap,” Yusuf said. “They’re not going to say, ‘The real reason I decided to get into terrorism was that I was watching pornography 24 hours a day.'”

Yusuf also downplayed the role that violent Quranic verses play in motivating the jihadist, noting that the Old Testament contains numerous violent verses and that several prophets waged war.

Islamist critic Zuhdi Jasser, president of the America Islamic Forum for Democracy, who attended the event, questioned Yusuf’s rationale during an interview with the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), noting that terrorists have never cited pornography as their motivation. But the theory lets Yusuf give the broader issue of the Islamist ideology a pass.

“Most of the evidence is that the 9/11 hijackers had prostitutes and visited bars before the attacks,” Jasser said. “They had a sense of their going to heaven to be martyrs and that their acts on Earth seemed less important.”

Esposito’s attempt to distinguish between religion and politics is a difference without distinction due to the fact that Islamists believe religion and politics cannot be separated.

“[T]he Quran … showed quite clearly that Islam makes it incumbent on the Muslim community to establish an Islamic system of Government based on divine directives,” noted Islamist Jamal Badawi says in an interview posted on his website. “We can’t simply say the spiritual part is the domain of the Quran and the rest is left to others.

“The Quran made it clear that those who do not rule and judge in accordance with God’s revelation are unbelievers and rebels against God.”

This ideology – whether in the case of non-violent Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Hizb ut-Tahrir or violent Islamists such as Hamas, Al-Qaida or the Islamic State – aims to replace secular rulers with an Islamic theocracy.

All of these groups want to restore an Islamic caliphate, but differ over how that should happen

Yusuf accused jihadists of having a narrow understanding of Islamic law and lamented Islam’s decline since the medieval period.

He took a crack at those seeking to ban shariah in America and the interpretation used by Muslim extremists, arguing that the U.S. Constitution and shariah law were not incompatible.

“The term shariah has become so emotive because it has been framed by a set of people on both sides,” Yusuf said, noting that his mentor Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah had stated that shariah requires American Muslims to obey the Constitution. “The ruling is that to implement the hadd (Quranically mandated) punishment in the United States is against the shariah.

“The problem is the penal code of Islam is a tiny chapter in any – and I’ve studied six formally, six books on Islamic law with teachers,” Yusuf continued. “The penal code is the smallest chapter.”

Quranic punishments such as amputating people’s hands for stealing are outdated and no longer taught in many Muslim countries, Yusuf said.

“The scholars don’t even teach it anymore because it’s not applicable,” Yusuf said.

Jasser, however, expressed skepticism regarding Yusuf’s real views, wondering whether he believes the shariah should be fully implemented in places like Turkey or Egypt where Muslims are the majority.

“Hamza Yusuf will not give up the idea of the Islamic state. The bottom line is they don’t see our legal system with an Establishment clause being exceptional,” Jasser said. “We believe this is a system that is best for all citizens. We don’t want an Islamic State.”

Yusuf’s comments bordered on deception, Jasser said. He noted that Yusuf’s positions are similar to those expressed in The Methodology of Dawah, a 1989 book written by the Islamic Circle of North America’s former dawah chief Shamim Siddiqi. It called for making Islam “dominant in the U.S.A.”

The book also suggested that Muslims work within the framework allowed by the U.S. Constitution to bring this about.

“I’m sure if confronted he’d say that Islam could evolve no different from the U.S., but that would necessitate a clear rejection of Islamism and the Islamist movement – a position that he only avoids but seems to reject,” Jasser said.

Jasser also criticized Yusuf’s connection with Zaid Shakir, his Zaytuna College partner and co-founder, who told the New York Times he wanted to see America become a Muslim nation ruled by Islamic law.

Shakir also criticized democracy, saying: “If Islam is the basis, the kafir (infidel) won’t be equal with the Muslim. The Christian or the Jew will be a dhimmi (second-class citizen). They won’t be equal with the Muslim.”

Yusuf failed to make his broader views known for everyone, Jasser said.

Obama ‘Enabler-In-Chief’ For Islamists

 

Washington Free Beacon:

Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, tore apart President Obama’s claim that “ISIL is not Islamic,” calling Obama both the “excommunicator-in-chief” and “enabler-in-chief” for Islamist groups.

Jasser labeled Obama the “excommunicator-in-chief” for publicly declaring who is and isn’t ‘Islamic’ during his prime-time address on the Islamic State. Jasser argued the Islamic State is indeed ‘Islamic’ and is representative of the dangerous combination of religion and state in Islamic countries:

[The Islamist groups] want nothing more than to suppress the voices of reform. If you talk to reformers, they will tell you that the Islamic State in Iraq now, or out of Syria where it originated, is a clinic in exactly what happens in every one of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation states where you mix religion and state and prevent the reform that the West went through in the American Revolution.

Jasser called Obama an “apologist” for Islamists across the planet, making him the “enabler-in-chief” for groups such as ISIL, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas:

If you take away the word ‘Islam,’ you’re basically allowing the Islamists to monopolize and suffocate reformers from ever having a place at the table because they don’t want us to have a voice. And they do that by saying they control what is and what is not Islam.

Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Jasser to elaborate on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), citing a dispute that erupted online after her interview with CAIR representative Hassan Shibly–who compared Fox News to ISIL.

“I hope Americans understand CAIR is part of a global lobbying operation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an Islamist movement that will do anything to prevent discussion about political Islam,” Jasser said.

“They’re an offshoot of Hamas. they’ve come out of the Muslim Brotherhood legacy group. They don’t want Americans to make the logical conclusion that when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt, the reason majority of Muslims rejected them is they were about to bring something similar to ISIS to the tens of millions of Egypt.”

Brigitte Gabriel and Zuhdi Jasser disagree on the idea of instilling Jeffersonian Democratic Ideals in the Middle East

In the first video they seem to agree on the nature of threat from the rise in Islamic terrorism and lack of moderate Muslim condemnation of it. In the second video however a point of contention arises over why moderates are not speaking out. Zuhdi believes it is due to a lack of committed, sustained American leadership to help Muslims “evolve into a Jeffersonian type Democracy” over a period of generations (nation building) “Brigitte is shaking her head “No”. She says you must first confront the ideology driving radicalization. Watch…

Brigitte Gabriel Explains the Rise of Jihad

 

Why has jihadist threat escalated in last 3 years?

 

 

On Hannity Show Brigitte Gabriel and Ali Sina Agree that ISLAM is the problem

A discussion of Boko Haram led to an examination of the ideology that motivates them. Ali Sina explained that he left Islam when he read the Quran and realized how evil it was. He went on to say that most Muslims have not read the Quran and moderate Muslims such as Zuhdi Jasser are not telling the truth about Islam.

BrigitteBrigitte Gabriel explained that it is Islamic ideology which subjugates women and persecutes Christians that is motivating Boko Haram. She said she goes into Arabic chat rooms online and sees them laughing at us and our twitter hashtag campaign, #BringBackOurGirls.

Ali Sina asserted that political correctness is what prevents us from admitting that the problem is Islam…not radical Islam or Wahhabi Islam or extreme islam…just ISLAM and the example of Mohammed.

When asked if she agreed, Brigitte cited a 2006 Pentagon study that came to the conclusion that Islam was the problem but the media avoided it as if it was” nuclear and harmful to your health” She then asserted that it is the ideology “coming straight from the mouth of Mohammed” that is driving Boko Haram and radicals always win in debates with moderates because they quote doctrine supporting their case. She went on to say that In the Arabic world it is an insult to say “moderate Islam” or “radical Islam”…there is only one Islam. “Moderate Islam is an American verbiage” that we came up because we could not believe that this was coming out of a religion.

This is a departure from Brigitte’s long time use of the term ‘Radical Islam” in her writings and lectures.

Listen to the podcast here:

http://www.iheart.com/talk/show/24392822/?episode_id=26883064

Click on this one:

Tue, May 20th, 2014 Hour 3

May 20, 2014 | 32 min

Air Force Vet Anthony Coleman discusses the poor treatment he received from the VA Hospital in AZ; Brigitte Gabriel and Ali Sina discuss the terrorist group Boko Haram

****

Zuhdi Jasser, seems to negate as historically unreliable anything negative about Mohammed and still professes him to be “the best example for man”. Is this a heartfelt conviction or a political calculation? If you want to know more about Zuhdi Jasser, a very insightful article was written by Andrew Harrod when he reviewed Jasser’s book, “A Battle for the Soul of Islam”.

Watch this 2011 debate between Spencer and Jasser moderated by Andrew McCarthy:

 

Ali Sina actually had an interesting twitter conversation with Zuhdi Jasser recently which he wrote about. Jasser defends his version of Islam with whether it is politically expedient not whether it is true. He seems to be promoting “Jeffersonian Liberty” not Islam.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser: The Deception of Moderate Islam by Ali Sina May 9, 2014

Zuhdi-Jasser1-300x223These days the discussion everywhere is about the 200 schoolgirls kidnapped in Nigeria and offered for sale by the Muslim terrorist group Boko Haram. And guess who the media is turning to for answers! The self-proclaimed “moderate Muslim” Dr. Zuhdi Jasser! He will tell the Americans that slavery has nothing to do with Islam and terrorism is un-Islamic.

He sent a tweet announcing that he had been invited by Fox News for an interview. I sent him a tweet, congratulating him for having another chance to bamboozle the American public. Here is our mini debate on twitter.

Dr. Jasser is under the delusion that if he shows Muslims the superiority of American constitution they will abandon the Quran. Nothing can be further from the truth. Muslims follow the Quran not because it is good, ethical or even logical, but because they think it is the unaltered word of God. That is the end of discussion. If Dr. Jasser really knows Islam and Muslim he should know that for them the Quran is the ultimate authority. It is ridiculous to expect them to turn their back to Allah and his messenger and follow a non-Muslim American president. Is he really this deluded or is he deceiving his audience? But let us see the rest of our tweets.

Dr. Jasser’s says by highlighting the evil teaching of the Quran I am radicalizing Muslims. So for 1400 years Muslims lived peacefully, like angels, until I began pointing out the hate and the violence in the Quran. It is then that they became radicalized.

This is really what he thinks. I heard this argument numerous times. This is the typical Muslim thinking. They blame their victim for their violence. By virtue of following a narcissist, Muslims share his psychosis and reason like their prophet.

I tried to show the fallacy of his argument with the following question.

There you have it. One he saw he can’t defend his absurd argument he ended the discussion. Of course Islam is violent. Of course the Boko Haram is not doing anything that Muhammad did not do. Muhammad made immense fortunes by enslaving women and children and selling them or ransoming them in exchange with money.

The truth is that Zuhdi Jasser and his Canadian counterpart, Tarek Fatah, a closet Ahamdi not even recognized as a Muslim, have no effect on Muslims. Not only are they not converting the radicals to moderates, they will most likely be killed just like any apostate, if they go to a real Islamic country.

Muslims don’t care how others interpret the Quran. They are not illiterate. They can read for themselves. Those who read the Quran and Tafseer know that the so called radicals have the correct understanding of the Quran. The solution to end the Islamic violence is not to lie more and claim Muhammad was a man of peace. The solution is to tell them the truth and show them that the Al Qaida, the Wahhabis and the mullahs of Iran are the real Muslims. The differences between them are superficial. They perfectly understand the spirit and the essence of Islam and follow the examples of Muhammad. It is my belief as well as experience that most Muslims, once see the ugly truth, will leave Islam.

That is how we can put an end to Islamic violence, with truth, not with more lies. But truth is ugly, so most people prefer lies. But lies are only a mask covering the truth. That is why Zuhdi Jasser and Tark Fatah get invited by the Media and ex-Muslims are ignored.

This reminds me of a joke. A man lost his keys in the dark, unable to see anything, he went farther away searching they under the light. When his friend said, but you lost them over there, he replied, “here I can see better”. Our politicians and the media love to interview the “moderate Muslims” even though they have no answers because those who have the answer say things that are not pleasant to hear.

Needless to say that Dr. Jasser’s reasoning that Muslims can’t handle the truth and will become radicalized if they hear is is an insult to Muslims. He basically saying Muslims are stupid, incapable of accepting the truth. Muslims become offended and throw tantrum when their religion is slighted. The solution is not to lie more. They don’t need anyone to patronize them.

Many Muslims are leaving Islam silently. I have received thousands of emails personally. We need to intensify our efforts and spread the truth to everyone. A well written, well documented and well produced movie can bring that change.

Truth is often bitter, that is why people resort to sweet lies. But lies kill us, and truth will set us free

Boko Haram violence explodes; the West struggles to “understand”

Mitigating Religious Conflict in Nigeria
Boko Haram in Focus at Washington, DC, Briefings

by Andrew Harrod:

(Washington, DC) Nigeria’s jihadist group Boko Haram was recently featured in several Washington, DC, briefings, including a presentation by a Nigerian teenager who was the lone survivor of a family massacred by Boko Haram.  These briefings highlighted significant challenges in combating Boko Haram’s brutal terror campaign.

Deborah Wakai Peters was forced to watch the murders of her father and brother at the hands of the Boko Haram.

Deborah Wakai Peters was forced to watch the murders of her father and brother at the hands of the Boko Haram.

Fifteen-year old Deborah Peters appeared at a May 13 Hudson Institute panel to discuss a December 22, 2011, Boko Haram attack on her home near Chibok in Nigeria’s Borno state.  Peters saw Boko Haram assailants, one of whom she knew, shoot her pastor father.  Targeted after rebuilding his church which had been burnt down by Boko Haram the previous November, the pastor suffered martyrdom after refusing to recant his Christian faith.  The terrorists then killed her brother as well, and left the young girl lying between the bodies.

The girl’s mother, described by Nigerian human rights activist Emmanuel Ogebe as a Muslim convert in “one of those strange love stories that doesn’t end very well,” was not in the house at the time.  Nonetheless, she cannot return home as Boko Haram would kill her as an apostate.  Another pastor who helped bring Deborah Peters to the United States was himself a victim of a May 2013 Boko Haram attack.

Boko Haram has perpetrated “massive genocides” of Christian Nigerians in Muslim-majority northern Nigeria in order to establish a Muslim rule, with Taliban-style stadium beheadings in the “old-fashioned way,” Ogebe noted.  The terror group marked Christian dwellings for subsequent nocturnal attacks and had an “MO” of close range “shoot to kill” headshots.  While sporadic killings of Christians are “normal in northern Nigeria,” such as when Muslims blame Christians for an eclipse, Boko Haram presents “persecution on steroids.”  Boko Haram attacks, for example, have “virtually de-Christianized” Nigeria’s Yobe state, Ogebe wrote online, leaving hardly 80 pastors where once over 1,000 churches existed, a percentage loss greater “than the decimation of Christians in Iraq.”

Twice denied an American visa for insufficient family ties (“You can’t make this stuff up,” Ogebe observed), Deborah Peters had a low profile once in the United States.  Ogebe and his colleagues “tactically decided not to put her in a public space” because “we could not sacrifice the mental health of this young child” suffering from trauma.  International outcry over Boko Haram’s April 14 kidnapping of hundreds of mostly Christian girls, however, some of whom Peters had “literally…played with” moved her to “put a face to this travesty,” in Ogebe’s words.

The April 14 attack marked Boko Haram’s transition away from “gentlemen terrorists,” Ogebe noted.  Boko Haram in the past had often spared women, children (in an exception, Boko Haram feared that Peters brother would grow up to be a pastor like his father), and the elderly — in what Ogebe had described online as a “religious gendercide.”  Boko Haram had now moved to “gender-based targeting of women,” though, after the men had left various regions to avoid death.  Girl captives who had escaped Boko Haram horrifyingly related how their captors had forced them upon pain of death to convert to Islam and marry Boko Haram supporters.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalitionn with video

 

National Intel Partners: Islamists In, Muslim Reformers Out

Hooper and Awad

The U.S. gov’t is letting Islamist groups and their global propaganda machines determine who has ‘credibility.’

By Ryan Mauro:

Newly declassified documents obtained by the Clarion Project show that personnel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, or, for the ease of our readers,“National Intel”) were well aware of the work of anti-Islamist Muslim activist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, acknowledged that he was promoting the right message, but chose instead to favor and work with pro-Islamist groups.

As our previous expose showed, when five members of Congress specifically asked National Intel about their relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhoodentity, National Intel falsely told the congresspersons that it did not use Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and individuals for outreach. However, files show that such a relationship existed.

And while National Intel embraced groups with radical histories, Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam, was shunned. This happened even though one of Jasser’s writings was passed around National Intel as an example of the type of messaging that was needed.

***********

Impact on National Security From Embracing Islamists

When MPAC released its counter-terrorism study, Building Bridges to Strengthen America, National Intel was excited and receptive. Multiple emails were exchanged within National Intel to spread word of it. The office staff was invited to a MPAC briefing about it on April 8, 2010.

Then a two-hour meeting was arranged with MPAC’s Governmental Liaison on November 18, 2010.

Unfortunately, information about the Muslim Brotherhood in MPAC’s study is limited to this idea: “Conservative groups like the Muslim Brotherhood pose long-term strategic threats to violent extremists by siphoning Muslims away from violent radicalism into peaceful political activism.” [emphasis added]

The study also disputes the notion that the Brotherhood acts as a “conveyer belt” leading Islamists to engage in terrorism. Instead, MPAC presents the Brotherhood as a “conveyer belt” leading awayfrom violence. The footnote for the sentence references an article titled, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.”

On October 25, 2011, MPAC announced that Building Bridges was cited in the National Intel’s National Counter-Terrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security policy document, “Countering Violent Extremism: Guidance and Best Practices.” It was the sole non-governmental organization source.

Noticeably, the language used by MPAC study about the Brotherhood is similar to the language used by Clapper in his January 2012 testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

During that testimony, Clapper stated: “Al-Qaeda probably will find it difficult to compete for local support with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that participate in the political process, provide social services and advocate religious values. Non-violent, pro-democracy demonstrations challenge Al-Qaeda’s violent jihadist ideology and might yield increased political power for secular or moderate Islamist parties.”

When reading Clapper’s testimony, it’s easy to see the parallels between his opinion and those of the pro-Brotherhood groups that were advising his office.

MPAC also used its relationship with National Intel to complain about materials that it felt promoted “Islamophobia.”

For example, on July 11, 2012, MPAC’s Young Leaders Government Summit delegates met with National Intel and National Counter-Terrorism Center staff, including Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Stephanie O’Sullivan, National Intel’s Civil Liberties Protection Officer Alexander Joel and Matthew Rice of the National Counter-Terrorism Center Directorate of Strategic Operational Planning.

At that meeting, MPAC’s delegates complained about National Intel’s counter-terrorism policy plan titled, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.”

The section they took issue with reads: “…communities—especially Muslim American communities whose children, families and neighbors are being targeted for recruitment by Al-Qaeda—are often best positioned to take the lead because they know their communities best.”

Virtually anyone reading this would view the statement as being pro-Muslim in nature. It states the factual problem — Al-Qaeda recruitment of Muslims — and says that Muslims are the solution. Further,  it assumes that Muslims are also against Al Qaeda.

But for MPAC’s delegates, the mere acknowledgement that Al-Qaeda would like to recruit Muslim-Americans is offensive.

In a follow-up later on July 17, 2012, MPAC again criticized the policy plan because it “assumes that young American Muslims are susceptible to the threat” and that could cause their “marginalization.”

MPAC was also upset with a National Intel calendar that had photos of terrorists on it because it “disproportionately presented terrorists from Muslim majority countries. It also insinuated a problematic message: That only Muslims are terrorists.” The group warned of “unintended consequences” negatively affecting Muslims.

Read more at Clarion Project