CAIR Forms an Outpost at Georgetown U

American Thinker, by Andrew Harrod, Sept. 3, 2017:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “will always hold a very, very special place in my heart until the day I die,” declared Arsalan Iftikhar on April 1 at CAIR-Oklahoma’s annual awards banquet in Oklahoma City.  The commentator’s affection for the Hamas-derived, Islamist CAIR has now landed him a position at Georgetown University’s fount of Islamist propaganda, the anti-“Islamophobia” Bridge Initiative.

Iftikhar will fit right in at Bridge, a “multi-year research project” of Georgetown’s Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).  Bridge’s claim “to fulfill Thomas Jefferson’s dream of a ‘well-informed citizenry'” is laughable to anyone familiar with ACMCU’s Potemkin village of academic integrity.  Past ACMCU speakers have included 9/11 Truthers, while the center disinvited an Egyptian neo-Nazi only after public outcry.

With Iftikhar’s hire, Bridge/ACMCU becomes effectively a branch of CAIR, as this self-proclaimed “Muslim Guy” worked with CAIR beginning in 2000 while in law school and then served as CAIR’s national legal director until 2007.  At CAIR he formed relationships with other organizational leaders, including his fellow banquet speaker and “dear brother” Hassan Shibly, a radical Israel-hater and Hamas- and Hezb’allah-supporter.  Such are the less than pacific associations of Iftikhar, a “proud American Muslim pacifist.”

Reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s savvy spokesman Vladimer Pozner, Iftikhar has functioned as an Islamism apologist whose sophistic excuses mask threats with a benign visage.  He strains to suggest that disproportionate attention to terrorism exaggerates jihadist violence, which he claims are merely isolated acts.  There is a “double standard that exists today where terrorism only applies to when brown Muslim men commit an act of mass murder,” he stated at a 2016 Newseum panel in Washington, D.C.

Thus, Iftikhar asserted without evidence that Robert Dear, a bizarre man who killed three in a 2015 assault on a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic and was later declared incompetent at trial, had a “Christianist ideology.”  Iftikhar himself had earlier written that Dear was “deranged,” even while wondering why his crime “was never called Christian terrorism or domestic terrorism.”  Similarly, following the 2015 Paris Charlie Hebdo jihadist massacre, Iftikhar, speaking to CNN’s Don Lemon, employed the canard that the Ku Klux Klan is a “Christianist organization.”  He also falsely claimed that 2011 Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik described himself in his deranged 15,000-word manifesto as a “soldier of Christianity” while omitting that Breivik hoped to enlist “Christian atheists” in his cause.

By contrast, Iftikhar sought to disabuse Lemon of any association of Islam with the Charlie Hebdo killings, stating that “bringing religion into it at all is actually serving the purposes of the terrorists.”  Despite numerous worldwide precedents of lethal Islamic blasphemy doctrines, he laughably claimed that the killings were “against any normative, mainstream teaching of Islam” and involved “irreligious criminals.”  Iftikhar maintained that Islam’s seventh-century prophet Muhammad “was attacked and defamed many times in his life and there was not one time that he told people to take retribution,” notwithstanding contrary Islamic accounts.

Iftikhar’s whitewashes extend beyond Charlie Hebdo.  To Lemon’s citation of a surveyed sixteen percent of French citizens sympathizing with the genocidal Islamic State, Iftikhar contradictorily claimed that “you can have sympathy for an ideology and not support the mass murder of people.”  He has previously praised the radical Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi as “one of the most famous Muslim scholars in Cairo, Egypt” while denying his documented support for suicide bombing.

Furthermore, Iftikhar utilized the ubiquitous, deceptive, out-of-context interpretation of Quran 5:32 to claim that “murder has no religion” in the wake of the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas jihadist massacre.  Responding to the 2014 abduction of Nigerian Christian girls by the jihadist group Boko Haram, he asked, “Boko Haram, have you read the Quran lately?” and asserted that Islam has no well documented doctrine of sex slavery (yet see here and here).  His ignorance would surprise his Bridge Initiative Steering Committee colleague, Georgetown professor Jonathan Brown, who has scandalously justified Islam’s history of sex slavery.

Iftikhar’s biases encompass Israel, against which he made the usual baseless charges of “war crimes” during the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead Gaza military campaign.  He equivocated while perfunctorily condemning the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza that precipitated Cast Lead: “This catastrophic strategic blunder should bring utter shame upon the house of Hamas for needlessly picking a fight with ‘the neighborhood bully.'”

Nothing can top Iftikhar’s racist derision of former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal.  He “might be trying to scrub some of the brown off of his skin as he runs to the right in a Republican presidential exploratory bid,” Iftikhar ranted in a statement that got him banned from MSNBC.  Meanwhile, he has impugned conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer for the completely fact-based “ridiculous assertion” that “no one is starving in Gaza.”

Iftikhar adds a trophy to the Bridge/ACMCU rogue’s gallery of Islamism’s “honor brigade.”  ACMCU’s director, the humorless Brown, is a genuine Islamist surrounded by fellow travelers among his Georgetown professor colleagues, such as Jocelyne CesariJohn Esposito, and Tamara Sonn.  ACMCU is thereby transforming from a nest of apologists for Islamists worldwide to an active cell of Muslim Brotherhood-connected apparatchiks.

In Georgetown, CAIR has secured a prized spot in the heart of the nation’s capital for exerting an outsized influence on lawmakers, policymakers, and the national media.  America’s national security will weaken proportionally.

Andrew E. Harrod is a Campus Watch Fellow, freelance researcher, and writer who holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a J.D. from George Washington University Law School.  He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project.  Follow him on Twitter at @AEHarrod.

Georgetown University and Radical Islamists: It’s a Family Affair

IPT News
March 28, 2017

Georgetown University’s Qatar campus is set to host Sami Al-Arian for a lecture tonight in Doha. According to a news release from the school’s Middle Eastern Studies Student Association, Al-Arian is a “civil rights activist” who hopes to challenge students to “make it a better, and more equitable and peaceful world.”

Those are charitable descriptions for Al-Arian, a documented member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Majlis Shura, or board of directors. According to the Islamic Jihad’s bylaws, which law enforcement agents found during searches of Al-Arian’s home and offices, there can be “No Peace without Islam.” The group’s objective is to create “a state of terror, instability and panic in the souls of Zionists and especially the groups of settlers, and force them to leave their houses.”

It’s an agenda Al-Arian took to heart. Following a double suicide bombing in 1995 that killed 19 Israelis, Al-Arian solicited money from a Kuwaiti legislator. “The latest operation, carried out by the two mujahideen who were martyred for the sake of God, is the best guide and witness to what they believing few can do in the face of Arab and Islamic collapse at the heels of the Zionist enemy…” he wrote.

“I call upon you to try to extend true support of the jihad effort in Palestine so that operations such as these can continue, so that the people do not lose faith in Islam and its representatives…” he wrote. Four years earlier, he spoke at a fundraiser in Cleveland, introduced as the head of the “active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine.”

Why, then, is a Jesuit university, albeit at a campus in Qatar, hosting a leader of a designated terrorist group’s “active arm”?

There’s a family bond between Georgetown University and the Al-Arians. Son Abdullah is an assistant professor at Georgetown’s Qatar campus, teaching history in its School of Foreign Service. He earned his Ph.D. at Georgetown, writing his dissertation about the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood during the 1970s, a time his father acknowledges being part of the global Islamist movement.

Jonathan Brown, Al-Arian’s son-in-law, also works at Georgetown, as the [Saudi] Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization. Brown recently drew criticism for a lecture in which he argued that slavery isn’t inherently “morally evil” if the slave is treated well. He also minimized sexual consent as a recent social more, arguing no one is really free enough to grant consent anyway.

Property records show Brown and his wife Laila Al-Arian bought a modest house just outside Tampa in 2015. Brown also owns a $1.1 million house in Mclean, Va.

Brown’s boss, Georgetown University Professor John Esposito, has been a staunch Al-Arian defender. Al-Arian is “an extraordinarily bright, articulate scholar and intellectual-activist, a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice,” Esposito wrote in a letter to a federal judge.

Brown’s slavery and sexual consent lecture was hosted by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Herndon, Va. The IIIT was a prime financial supporter of a think tank Al-Arian founded in Tampa called the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE). It provided cover for at least three other members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Shura Council, including his brother-in-law Mazen Al-Najjar, an academic named Basheer Nafi and Ramadan Abdullah Shallah – the Islamic Jihad’s secretary general since late 1995.

Federal prosecutors wanted Al-Arian to tell a grand jury what he knew about the IIIT’s financial support for terrorists. He refused. Al-Arian was charged with criminal contempt after maintaining that stance even after a judge granted him immunity for his truthful testimony.

The case never went to trial. Al-Arian was deported to Turkey in 2015, pursuant to terms in his 2006 guilty plea connected to his Palestinian Islamic Jihad support. He now works as “director of the Center for Regional Politics at Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University,” the Georgetown Middle East students group’s news release said.

Al-Arian is a computer scientist.

Sabahattin Zaim opened in 2010 and claims to have about 1,100 undergraduate students.

While the Georgetown University program is organized by a student group, promotional material lists Mehran Kamrava as moderator. Kamrava directs the Georgetown School of Foreign Service’s Center for International and Regional Studies.

His presence adds the university’s imprimatur to the Al-Arian event. In addition, the School of Foreign Service posted the news release promoting Al-Arian’s lecture.

Qatar has supported Hamas, the Islamic Jihad’s rival Palestinian terrorist group, providing money and refuge for Hamas leaders. In that light, Al-Arian’s invitation doesn’t seem out of place. But it is still an event hosted by a Georgetown University campus, moderated by one of its prominent faculty.

While Al-Arian has tried to deny his Islamic Jihad activities, or at least minimize them, his work to advance the group’s bloody ambitions is undeniable. He self-identified as the Shura Council’s secretary. In his plea agreement, he admits lying about Shallah’s prominent role in the Islamic Jihad.

During his 1991 remarks in Cleveland after his “active arm” introduction, Al-Arian urged donations for jihad. “Your brothers in Palestine are struggling with their beings,” he said, “so let us struggle here with our money.”

“This is the way of giving,” he said earlier. “This is the way of struggle. This is the way of battle. This is the way of jihad. This is the way of martyrdom. Thus is the way of blood, because this is the path to heaven.”

The student association’s news release failed to mention this background as a convicted felon, describing the former University of South Florida professor as a “civil rights advocate.” It fails to mention Al-Arian’s guilty plea, and whitewashes his resulting deportation to Turkey by saying “Al-Arian relocated.”

The federal judge who saw all the evidence against Al-Arian, who watched him lie about his true identity and violent ambitions, called him a “master manipulator.” Old habits die hard, apparently. The question in this case is whether Georgetown and its student groups are being duped or are witting accomplices in whitewashing a terrorist into a “human rights advocate.”

“It’s Not Immoral for One Human to Own Another Human”: Georgetown Prof Defends Islamic Slavery, Rape

brown

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, February 12, 2017:

Two things

1. This comes from the account of Umar Lee, a Muslim student who was offended by how far Jonathan Brown went in defending slavery and rape.

2. In the era of the campus trigger warning, rape culture and renaming buildings named after slave owners, Brown offered a spirited defense of slavery and rape.

“Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex” said Professor Jonathan Brown of Georgetown University.

Shortly after I asked Brown my questions about his defense of slavery a woman seated in front of me asked about the permissibility of sex with slaves. Brown emphatically stated consent is a modern Western concept and only recently had come to be seen as necessary (perhaps around the time feminism began to take root and women decided they wanted autonomy over their bodies). Brown went on to elaborate consent wasn’t necessary to moral and ethical sex and that the morality of sex is dependent on the lawfulness of the sex-partner and not consent upholding the verdict that marital-rape is an invalid concept in Islam.

That’s certainly an Islamist view. Not one that is considered remotely acceptable in modern society. And yet the odds of Brown being forced out for airing is virtually nil.

“It’s not immoral for one human to own another human” Brown stated in his clearest defense of slavery. Brown went onto state that being an employee is basically the same as being a slave…

Abraham Lincoln would beg to differ. But this is the logical end result of the various attempts to explain how slavery and sex slavery under Islam were really much nicer than in the West. Brown just took the deranged apologetics to their logical horrifying conclusion.

Umar Lee posted this screenshot from Brown’s Facebook page in which he declares that

“it’s not possible to say that slavery is inherently absolutely categorically immoral in all times and places since it was allowed by the Quran and the Prophet”

and

“Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them.”

Brown’s problem here is obvious. If Mohammed allowed slavery, it can’t be wrong. Ditto for rape. He has to find a way to justify an Islamic practice by attacking our value system.

(Bonus points for spotting which global symbol of Islamist oppression and hate is being used by Brown in this screenshot.)

There’s apparently more from him on this Reddit AMA

” Slave rape’ is a tough term to decipher from a Shariah perspective. A male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her. Though he could not physically harm her without potentially being held legally accountable if she complained, her ‘consent’ would be meaningless since she is his slave.”

You can expect feminist protests on campus around roughly… never.

A professor at Georgetown University is teaching his students that men do not need consent to have sex with women, and that slavery is justifiable under Islamic teachings.

Islamic Studies professor Jonathan Brown recently lectured at the International Institute of Islamic Thought, where he shared his alarming beliefs with students in attendance in his lecture, “Islam and the Problem of Slavery.”

IIT is an Islamist Brotherhood project. It’s utterly unsurprising that Brown expected a compliant and friendly audience there. Or that this would be the kind of material presented there.

IIIT is a prominent endorser of the book Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, an authoritative compendium of sharia written by an eminent 14th-century Islamic jurist. By IIIT’s reckoning, the English translation by Umdat al-Salik is “a valuable and important work” that is highly successful in “its aim to imbue the consciousness of the non-Arabic-speaking Muslim with a sound understanding of Sacred Law.” According to Andrew McCarthy, Reliance “denies freedom of conscience, explaining that apostasy from Islam is a death-penalty offense”; contends that “a Muslim apostatizes not only by clearly renouncing Islam but by doing so implicitly — such as by deviating from the ‘consensus of Muslims,’ or making statements that could be taken as insolence toward Allah or the prophet Mohammed”; “approves a legal caste system in which the rights and privileges of Muslims and men are superior to those of non-Muslims and women”; “penalizes extramarital fornication by stoning or scourging”; endorses the death penalty for homosexuals and for people who make interest-bearing loans; venerates jihad; and exhorts Muslims “to strive to establish an Islamic government, ruled by a caliph.”

So that is what we’re dealing with here. And the various promoters of it are complicit in it. Georgetown has been ground zero for Islamist apologetics.

Brown is using the standard intellectual tools of the left to legitimize the unacceptable. He deconstructs what slavery is.

If we are searching for the phenomenon of slavery, what are we really looking for?  Is it the label ‘slave’ that matters? Or is it the reality of the condition behind it?

Never mind the persistent use of the term “Slave”. All Brown has to do is argue that slaves were well off under Islam. Better off than some people in America today. This argument rather resembles that of some advocates for the Confederacy.

But never mind that.

After the scandal broke, Brown declared on Twitter, “Islam as a faith and I as a person condemn slavery, rape and concubinage.”

Of course.

All Brown has to do is redefine slavery, rape, etc and then he can safely condemn it. If Islamic slavery and rape no longer mean owning another human being and non-consensual sexual acts, then Brown isn’t rejecting them.

“And this obsession with thinking of slavery as property it’s [unintelligible]. I think that’s actually a really … odd … and … and … and unhelpful way to think about slavery, and it kind of gets you locked in this … way of thinking where, if you talk about ownership and people … that you’ve already transgressed some moral boundary that you can’t come back from. But I don’t think that’s true at all. Uh, [unintelligible] I’m trying to think about what slavery actually means, and to show that it doesn’t really … the term doesn’t really mean anything. Uh, that it … it that there’s … so many different phenomena that we would lump under this”

” So … the idea of someone who is a by-definition non-consensual sexual actor in the sense that they have been entered into a sexual relationship … in a position of servitude. That’s … sort of … ab initio wrong. The way I would respond to that is to say that … as … I mean this is just a fact. This isn’t a judgment, this is a fact, okay? For most of human history, human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of moral … of morally correct sexual activity. And second … we fetishize the idea of autonomy, to the extent that we forget … again, who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people? And what does autonomy mean?”

We’re just so obsessed with autonomy that we think of rape as being wrong. But what does autonomy mean? Does anyone have free will? Let’s define free will before we condemn slavery and rape.

This is the sort of sophomoric garbage that Brown is peddling as justification for rape and slavery. It’s another symptom of how our society can now justify anything as long as it’s politically correct.

Slavery and rape are considered the worst modern evils. But play a little word game and suddenly Islamic rape and slavery are okay. Because they’re not really rape and slavery. Because who are we to say that autonomy even exists.

The final comment goes to Umar Lee who exposed this.

It seems many in progressive media are too PC to call out a Musim professor even when he’s advocating rape and slavery? Wrong is wrong and this is why I have a limited amount of respect for the white-liberal at times. My piece has went viral and unfortunately it’s mostly conservative media that has picked it up. If there is no opportunity to virtue-signal within popular narratives or get a cute selfie it seems the paperclip heroes are MIA. So, just to put a little cherry on top this is from Jonathan Brown of Georgetown Facebook page

Deconstructing Nathan Lean’s “Islamophobia Industry”

nathan lean
by Andrew E. Harrod
Special to IPT News
April 4, 2016

“Islamophobia…is sort of like the ocean. It is working, it is churning, it is ebbing, it is flowing, even when we are asleep. There are larger systems of power and structures of power in place,” warns Georgetown University researcher Nathan Lean. Such conspiracy-mongering typifies the thesis of his book, The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims, of an inherently innocuous Islam slandered by the American military-industrial complex and Zionist Jews.

Lean is a perfect fit for his employer, the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU). Amid ACMCU’s exclusion of opposing views, Lean rails against a vague “Islamophobia” as “discrimination against Muslims” but never defines what remains acceptable “[r]ational criticism of Islam or Muslims.”

Lean’s “Islamophobia” radar is especially sensitive when Muslims are the voices raising concern. He castigates former radical Maajid Nawaz, as a tool of bigoted neoconservatives. He has also called former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Nomani an “anti-Muslim hate enabler” and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali someone “dangerously close to advocating genocide.”

Lean’s oceanographic observations occurred during a discussion of Islam and American military conflicts Feb. 23 at Washington, D.C.’s Rumi Forum, an entity in the empire of the shadowy Turkish Islamist Fethullah Gülen. “Islamophobia has really long been connected to American foreign policy and America’s military engagement with Muslim enemies real or perceived,” he said. “America’s first military engagement as a newly formed republic was with a Muslim enemy,” the Barbary Pirates, and “narratives emerge from the Barbary Wars about Muslims and Islam…very similar to a lot of kinds of things we hear today.”

At both the Rumi Forum and  a subsequent March 10 presentation at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill, Lean elaborated on a “foreign enemy domestic, threat phenomenon.” At St. Marks he presented “Islamophobia” as “necessary to soften military intervention” in terms of gaining American public support, and stated that “since 1980 we’ve invaded, bombed or occupied 14 Muslim majority countries.” He thereby ignores Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and John Adams writing as diplomats in London in a March 28, 1786, letter (available in the National Archives) of a Barbary representative justifying piracy of American ships with jihad.

Lean’s presentation emphasized the “influence of fervently Zionist groups and individuals” in pushing Islamophobia, an accusation “very controversial and provocative in many quarters…really taboo.”

“Israel,” he said, “relies on Western Islamophobist pretenses” that “some lives are more important than others.” This serves in “leaving the occupying state’s colonization untouched” along with Israel’s “historical crimes committed against the Palestinians, such as ethnic cleansing, collective punishment and apartheid.”

Lean accused groups like the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) of portraying Muslims as “even subhuman,” saying it “uses its annual gab fest to stoke anti-Muslim narratives.” Lean’s discussion of the “Islamophobia”-funding Shillman Foundation prompted one St. Mark’s listener to note that the foundation’s founder, Robert Shillman, “is a huge donor to Northeastern University,” her alma mater. There Shillman Hall, with its Shillman statue, along with a Raytheon amphitheater, symbolizes “bombs and Zionist donors,” apparently for her two equivalent evils. The “pernicious feature” of such “Islamophobic Zionist, hateful donors” is “totally normalized on campus,” she said. Lean told her she was “right on the money.”

By contrast, Lean trivialized Islamic terrorism and other human rights violations as resulting from individual misdeeds, not theological doctrine, implying that all religious groups have equal problems with miscreants. “We can certainly talk about violent Muslims, no one should have a problem with that, because there are violent Muslims, there are violent Christians, there are violent Jews, there are others,” he said. Criticizing a government emphasis on Islamic extremists, he mentioned “white guys that look like me that come from the South that go into movie theaters with automatic weapons and blow away 40 people.”

Lean rejects terms like “radical Islam,” saying it “reinforces the idea that there is something inherently violent about Islam.” Words like sharia have “been usurped by people that would want to advance some form of prejudice against Muslims,” he said. Similarly, he tells audiences that jihad primarily represents a “pious struggle to do good,” contrary to the all-too violent understanding of this term by former jihadists and the Palestinian Authority, to say nothing of Hamas or the Islamic State.

Lean similarly rejects the term “moderate Muslims” and asks “who decides what the good Muslims are…and what the bad Muslims are? What are their criteria?” That is ironic considering Lean’s attacks on Nawaz, Nomani and other Muslims who advocate for reform.

He has no problem dismissing Muslim physician Zuhdi Jasser as an “anti-Muslim activist” because he opposes Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood with their theocratic agenda. He even refused to answer Nomani’s question at the Rumi Forum and answered with insults when she challenged Lean’s personal attacks against those he believes unjustly attack Muslims.

Like Nomani, “there are an awful lot of people on the left side of the political spectrum that are very problematic when it comes to Islamophobia,” Lean said at St. Marks.  “Bill Maher said a lot of things that I like, and I enjoy laughing at his show, but quite frankly I haven’t been able to watch it recently,” he said of the comedian’s questioning of Islamic doctrine.  “He’s such a virulently anti-Muslim fellow.”

Yet now and then even Lean cannot ignore reality of legitimate doubts with respect to Islam. A questioner described her anxiety about seeing a Muslim woman on the D.C. Metro completely covered by a niqab except for her eyes. “I don’t think that you are prejudiced for having those feelings,” he responded. “We live in the society where we for the most part expect to interact with one another on a face to face level.”

Lean’s “Islamophobia” sophistry may please his radical friends but has little relation to a world with far more serious concerns about Islam than veil-impaired facial contact. “Islamophobia” hardly influenced, for example, America’s 1991 liberation of Kuwait, 1980s arming of Afghans against the Soviets, 1990s rescue of Balkan Muslims from Serbian genocide, and various 21st century overthrows of dictatorship. Lean’s thesis also offers no explanation for “Islamophobia” in Europe, where countries have far less military involvement than the United States, including neutral countries like Switzerland, noted for its minaret ban. Lean’s alternative imputation of “Islamophobia” to Zionists raises old prejudicial stereotypes of often wealthy Jews conniving to suborn others, as seen in the 2007 book The Israel Lobby and Charles Lindbergh’s isolationist speeches.

Lean’s catch-all accusation of “Islamophobia” simply limits vital public debates over Islam in academia and beyond. Yet the Islamic State’s genocide against Christians, documented in a report released the very day of Lean’s St. Mark’s appearance, shows that jihadist threats are hardly a Jewish invention and appropriate for minimization.

Following last month’s terror attacks in Brussels, Lean’s initial statement lamented anticipated media coverage. He said nothing about the attack or the terrorists’ motivation. Even as ISIS’ statement claimed credit for the attack made repeated references to God supposedly enabling it, the charlatan Lean remains preoccupied with “Islamophobia.”

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School.

“Ikhwan-101” – Georgetown Profs Team Up With Suspected MB Front

1326by Abha Shankar
IPT News
January 7, 2016

Two of Georgetown University’s top faculty in religion are partnering with a private Virginia think tank long suspected of serving as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

The think tank in question, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), twice has been the subject of law enforcement investigations, once during the 1980s and again starting in 2003. Its senior leaders were listed among “members and leaders of the IKHWAN [Muslim Brotherhood]” in the United States in records obtained by the IPT from a closed FBI investigation through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Georgetown professors John Voll and Jonathan Brown each are listed as faculty members at the Fairfax Institute, an IIIT school. Voll and Brown also occupy senior faculty positions at Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).

The center received a $20 million gift from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in 2005.

The Fairfax Institute offers certificates in Imam and Muslim Community Leadership and in Islamic Thought. That may sound benign on its face, but the Institute’s parent, the IIIT, long has touted the “Islamization of Knowledge,” a program which makes Islam the key to solving society’s ills.

In implementation plans, IIIT co-founder Ismail al-Faruqi made it clear his institute’s outreach was not about teaching Westerners about Islam. Rather, its purpose is to infuse superior Islamic principles to add revelation to Western academic pursuits which are based solely on “reasoning.”

While the Muslim community in the undeveloped world “is in many respects backward,” Faruqi wrote in 1982, “…in the respect of possessing the truth, the ideological statement of it which is most conducive to religious, ethical, and material prosperity at the same time, the ummah is second to none. Because of Islam, the ummah alone possesses the vision required for the felicity of humankind, for history to be as Allah (SWT) has desired it to be.”

During a 2010 lecture, Voll described Faruqi, a Muslim Brotherhood luminary who was murdered in 1986, as “a good case of the modern intellectual who is a believer and provides a good example for thinking about what it means to be a ‘believing intellectual’ in the modern era.”

ACMCU founding director John Esposito was a student of Faruqi’s at Temple University.

IIIT, located about 22 miles from Washington, D.C. in Herndon, Va., also was investigated for possible terror financing. A 2003 search warrant affidavit alleged that the think tank was part of a network of up to 100 non-profit and for-profit organizations, inter-related through corporate officers and holding companies that facilitated terrorist funding. Financial records reviewed by law enforcement officials exhibited “a convoluted web of multiple transactions between related corporations and charities that made it virtually impossible for federal investigators to ascertain where the money … ultimately went.”

Some of the money that was clearly traceable included direct payments to a Florida think-tank which then was home to at least four members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad‘s Shura Council, in effect, its governing board. One of those directors, Ramadan Shallah, has led the terrorist group since late 1995.

Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor who created the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), self-identified as the PIJ board’s secretary. Al-Arian also ran a charity called the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP) which wasdescribed as “the active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement Palestine” but was called ICP in America “for security reasons.” ICP rallies routinely featured PIJ spiritual leader Abdel Aziz Odeh and PIJ imagery.

IIIT President Taha Jaber Al-Alwani “spoke at ICP conferences with Al-Arian, Shallah, Sheik Odeh (spiritual leader and co-founder of PIJ) and Sheik Rahman (the ‘Blind Sheik’ convicted of conspiracy to blow up New York tunnels and the United Nations in New York in October 1995). Inasmuch as ICP conferences were, in essence, PIJ conferences, Alwani has long been a supporter of PIJ,” the 2003 affidavit said.

In a 1992 letter to Al-Arian, Al-Alwani referred to WISE as “a part of us and an extension of us.” Records also list Al-Alwani as chairman of the WISE board of trustees.

In a 2014 IIIT promotional video, Voll says the institute helps American academics "have a more global view of Islam."

In a 2014 IIIT promotional video, Voll says the institute helps American academics “have a more global view of Islam.”

A look at past statements by Voll and Brown shows their consistent pattern of embracing and defending Islamists, including Al-Arian, who was deported from the United States a year ago and is believed to be in Turkey.

A 2007 article Voll co-authored with Esposito described Al-Arian as “a proud and committed American and Palestinian professor and activist” and claimed that both Al-Arian and the American justice system has become “casualties of the erosion of civil liberties post-9/11.”

Brown, likewise, has played down the threat from radical Islamists, and has alleged rising Islamophobia to have led to wrongful convictions in a number of federally-prosecuted terrorism cases.

Muslims care about a lot of issues, Brown said last May at a conference organized by the Islamist groups Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America. That includes events in Kashmir, the Palestinian cause and more. “Or whether it’s here in America, whether it’s Muslims targeted for entrapment by the Justice Department or whether it’s Muslims who are convicted of crimes that they didn’t commit because the justice system is biased against them. Because racism and stereotypes against Muslims are allowed to influence the outcome of trials.” (8:15 in the video)

This, he claimed, has a chilling effect on free speech.

“It’s scary to get up and speak out about Palestine, it’s scary to get up and speak about how Muslims who are accused of terrorism might not be guilty and we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.” (8:40 in the video)

In a July 2011 interview with The Egyptian Gazette, Brown dismissed any danger from Islamists gaining power in the Egyptian elections following the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak: “I do not think life in Egypt will dramatically change if the president or ruling party are self-proclaimed ‘Islamists.’ Egypt is already a very Islamic society: no-one drinks in the street, people dress conservatively, even the financial system has to justify its operations in terms of Islam.”

“The country is too important to write off and this is not 1979,” he added. “The ‘Islamic threat’ so often touted by Western pundits has been undermined by factors like AK Party rule in Turkey, and it will be less frightening when people see that Egypt is not much different from before.”

But once in power, the Brotherhood moved to amend the Constitution to entrench its hold on government, and violently suppressed public protests. Brown was right to distinguish Egypt from Iran in 1979, though. Egypt, unlike the Islamic Republic, still had an independent military which forced the Islamists from power after spontaneous street demonstrations attracted millions of people demanding change.

Voll and Brown already enjoy ample interaction with Islamists through their Georgetown faculty posts.

The ACMCU had to postpone a program on “Egypt and the Struggle for Democracy” in the fall of 2013, after it was revealed that the only Coptic Christian panelist invited was a member of Egypt’s Nazi Party.

At a 2012 IamY (Inspiring American Muslim Youth) convention, Brown claimed Muslims were falsely implicated in terrorist cases and blamed Islamophobia for this. As an example, he cited the case of a Staten Island man who was “tried for including the Hizballah channel in a cable package he’s offering.” The Staten Island man, who Brown claimed was “not even doing anything…just offering a cable channel,” in factpleaded guilty to providing support to the terrorist group Hizballah and was sentenced to 5½ years in prison.

Brown further asserted that al-Qaida operative Tarek Mehanna was convicted “because he simply put up on his website some al-Qaida videos with translations.” Mehanna was sentenced to 17½ years in prison in 2012 on terrorism-related charges that included travel to the Middle East to obtain military-type training at a terrorist camp to prepare for jihad against U.S. interests, including American and allied troops stationed in Iraq.

He also criticized the long prison sentences meted out to several senior officials tied to the Holy Land Foundation for funneling millions of dollars to the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas: “You have people now, people who ran the Holy Land Foundation charity organization in this country in prison for 60-80 years. Underground, for what? Feeding orphans?” In 2008 a federal jury found all defendants in the trialguilty on all counts of helping finance Hamas.

Brown’s boss at Georgetown University, John Esposito, testified as an expert witness for the defense.

In comments provided to the IPT, Jeffrey Bale, an expert on violent political and religious extremism at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS), California, expressed concern at “the affiliation of Professors Voll and Brown with a school linked to the IIIT, a well-known component of the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S.”

“Both students and other observers who recognize the essentially anti-democratic agendas of such Islamist groups should be concerned about this formal affiliation with the Fairfax Institute because it is another indicator of the pro-Islamist biases of these particular academics,” Bale said.

Despite its known radical ties, IIIT continues to operate ostensibly as a legitimate academic institution that seeks to “bridge the intellectual divide between the Islamic tradition and Western civilization” through various funding and outreach programs with mainstream American universities and colleges and government-funded institutions.

In 2005, in line with its funding of WISE at USF in the 1990s, the Virginia think tank offered to endow a chair in Islamic Studies at the University of Central Florida outside Orlando. IIIT also made a $1.5 million grant to George Mason University in 2008 to help expand its Islamic studies program.

IIIT tax records list similar grants, including $25,000 to Georgetown University in 2010; $597,000 to Nazareth College in Rochester, N.Y. between 2008-2012 as well as an additional $500,000 gift for Nazareth to fund the IIIT Chair of Interfaith Studies; $25,000 to Clarion University Foundation in 2009; $5,000 to Binghamton University(The State University of New York) in 2009; and $10,000 to the Eastern Mennonite University in 2010.

In addition, IIIT signed a memorandum of agreement with Shenandoah University in Winchester, Va., to promote academic exchanges that included hosting a program on Islam in collaboration with the radical Muslim Student Association and Student Life’s Intercultural Programs at Shenandoah University.

Not every university has taken IIIT’s money, however. In 2008, Temple University – where Faruqi once taught Esposito – refused $1.5 million in funding from IIIT for a chair in Islamic studies after concerns were raised about IIIT’s alleged ties to terrorist organizations.

In addition to Georgetown professors serving on the faculty of the Fairfax Institute, the IPT investigation found that the Institute recently offered a course taught by instructors from Georgetown University’s The Bridge Initiative titled, “Understanding Islamophobia in America.”

“Students will learn about the history of the term ‘Islamophobia’ and its earliest manifestations; its parallels with similar prejudices that have affected other groups through time; the primary mechanisms that drive Islamophobia in the United States; its emergence in both liberal and conservative discourse; its manifestations in mainstream and social media; and creative ways to counter it,” a course syllabus posted on the institute’s website reads.

It comes as little surprise that the Initiative’s project director is John Esposito.

The Betrayal Papers – Part I of V – Under Obama: The U.S. Captured by the Muslim Brotherhood

pres sealThe Betrayal Papers will trace the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama administration’s foreign and domestic policies.  The five-part series will present a picture of a conspiracy that is manipulating the American government to the benefit of a totalitarian, genocidal movement that seeks to establish a global Islamic State.

  • The Muslim Brotherhood is an international political, financial, terrorist and movement whose goal is to establish a global Islamic State (Caliphate).
  • They have and continue to exert tremendous influence of the American government’s foreign and domestic policies under President Barack Hussein Obama.
  • The violence in the Middle East and across North Africa is a direct consequence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s effective control over American foreign policy in the region.
  • They operate through various “civic” front groups, as well as through American institutions who take their money as operational funding (Georgetown University, Brookings Institution).

In America, we have a weak and struggling economy, growing public and private debt, and millions are un- and underemployed.  While a weaponized IRS targets Tea Party groups and other voices of liberty, and military veterans are labeled as “domestic terrorists” by the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government refuses to secure the southern border.  Educational policy now includes the teaching of Arabic and visits to mosques for schoolchildren.

Internationally, America is in retreat.  The Middle East is in ashes, and in the midst of an ongoing genocide replete with daily horrors, the likes which have not been seen for centuries.  Former allies have been abandoned and are embittered.  Under the present leadership in the White House and State Department, Israel is considered the aggressor and Hamas the oppressed.

In sum, the world is at its most volatile point since the outbreak of World War II.

If you think that this is a result of something other than an “incompetent,” “stupid,” or “clueless” President, words regularly used by those who sense something is wrong but, can’t quite bring themselves to own up to the ugly truth, you’re not alone.

Millions of Americans are realizing that the Obama administration is not merely “misguided.”  It is actually and consciously anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and broadly anti-Western.  Yet , the American public does not yet fully appreciate why and how the administration always finds itself square against everything this country is based on – religious freedom, capitalism, and justice under law.

This series of articles will explain the force and mechanics behind Obama’s anti-American global agenda: the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon: The Root of Today’s Islamic Evil

Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood (aka, the Society of Muslim Brothers, or Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon in Arabic) is an international movement (some would argue an international conspiracy) that seeks to establish a worldwide Islamic State (or Caliphate).  When it was created in the late 1920s, the Brotherhood was a contemporary of the Nazi Party of Germany.  Indeed, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, Amin al-Husseini, is considered by some as the man who catalyzed the Holocaust; for it was only after Husseini visited Hitler in Berlin in 1941 that the systematic extermination of Jews and other minorities began with industrial efficiency.

husseni-hitlerAfter the war, despite the insistence by many wartime leaders (Churchill included) that he be brought to justice, Husseini escaped to the Middle East.  He lived there until his death in the 1970s, serving as a mentor to a young Yasser Arafat.  Husseini and the Nazi Party are the connection points between the Holocaust and today’s Middle Eastern genocide.

The Allies conscious failure to arrest and prosecute Husseini haunts us today.

A Terror Hedge against Stalin and Soviet Russia

At the beginning of the Cold War, working with former Nazis, the American CIA began to court the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally against Soviet Russia.  This calculus may have made sense when facing down Josef Stalin, a totalitarian tyrant hell-bent on world domination, but it has proved a costly strategy in the long run.

In the years and decades that followed World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved into a modern day Nazi International, not unlike the old Comintern (Communist International).  It has a vast network of financial and business interests across the world; it has agents, supporters, and apologists within western governments; and it has a support network of “civic” organizations in the West.

These all serve as a cover for its darker and insatiably violent ambitions.

For despite all their intrigue and political gamesmanship, the Muslim Brotherhood is not strictly a political movement, nor a financial cabal.  It’s also the mothership of virtually all Islamic terrorist groups operating in the world today, including Al Qaeda,

ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and many more.  Such groups, all children of the Muslim Brotherhood’s fanatical Islamic ideology, are today ethnically cleansing countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria of all traces of Christianity.  No less than the President of Egypt, Muslim Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a devout Muslim, has said as much.

Considering how the Muslim Brotherhood and their terrorist pawns treat fellow Muslims in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq, butchering them by the bushel including women and children, it should come as no surprise that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have declared the them a “terrorist” organization.

It should also come as no surprise that the United Arab Emirates has designated Muslim Brotherhood front groups operating in the United States “terrorist” entities.  In November, the UAE effectively declared that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim-American Society (MAS) were no different than Al Qaeda.  Why?  It’s because they share a common origin in the Muslim Brotherhood.  One could add to this list of domestic terrorist collaborators and enablers the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

A New HQ in America

Equally alarmingly, all-American institutions such as Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution have accepted so much money from the Muslim Brotherhood government in Qatar, that their political positions are virtually indistinguishable from the Muslim Brotherhood’s domestic front groups!

Yet, the United States government does not see these organizations and their employees as the enemy, as apologists for the worst kinds of barbarity.  In fact, the highest profile people from these organizations advise the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Security Council.  In January, the Department of State actually welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting, and shortly thereafter Egypt exploded in jihadi violence.  This is no magical coincidence.

To the detriment of our safety and well-being, the domestic Muslim Brotherhood front groups help dictate counterterrorism policies.  It is their influence which leads to the farcical idea, recently expressed by Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, that the Crusades have something to do with ISIS and the mass murder of innocents in the Middle East today.

These front groups shape our foreign policy, which since the Arab Spring and continuing to this day is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So-called “moderate Muslims” employed at these front groups have made the country of Qatar, a totalitarian sharia-based society, and an “ATM for terrorists,” the closest ally of the United States under Obama’s Presidency.  With enthusiasm from Obama and Eric Holder, they have us emptying Guantanamo Bay of the most vicious killers and sending them to Qatar, with only the vaguest of security assurances.

The remaining four articles will explore the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American policy, both foreign and domestic (including in Common Core, Obama’s position on illegal immigration and amnesty, and the hostility of the administration toward police officers).  The exposé will also detail the operatives in the government who work to advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions for a worldwide Caliphate.  And it will put into context the mysterious influence that George Soros and Valerie Jarrett have over Barack Hussein Obama, his administration, and the policies that affect every American.

The Betrayal Papers is a collaborative effort by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, which includes: Andrea Shea King, Dr. Ashraf Ramelah, Benjamin Smith, Brent Parrish, Charles Ortel, Chris Nethery, Denise Simon, Dick Manasseri, Gary Kubiak, Gates of Vienna, IQ al Rassooli, Jeff Bayard, Leslie Burt, Marcus Kohan, Mary Fanning, General Paul E. Vallely, Regina Thomson, Scott Smith, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, Trever Loudon, Wallace Bruschweiler, and William Palumbo.

Harvard Prof: “Islam is not the major obstacle . . . for democratization in Muslim societies”

Cesari-300x174Jihad Watch, By Andrew Harrod, Feb. 6, 2015:

“Islam is not the major obstacle . . . for democratization in Muslim societies,” declared Jocelyne Cesari, a Harvard and Georgetown University professor of Muslim politics, on January 27 at George Washington (GW) University. Cesari’s presentation of her book, The Awakening of Muslim Democracy, before an audience of about thirty failed to justify her overconfident contention that the Muslim world’s authoritarianism has no basis in Islamic doctrine.

Opening her discussion of Islamic religion and rights, Cesari warned correctly that “political Islam is not going to die.” Muslims worldwide view the separation of religion and politics “as something that doesn’t fit . . . their national identity or culture.” She added that, “Islam is . . . appealing as a form of political mobilization” as opposed to other “alternative ideologies” such as that of “socialists.”

Cesari noted how the “politicization of Islam” extended to “so-called secular states” within Muslim-majority societies. She described a “certain brand of Islam” as having a “hegemonic status” in the “state institution” and a “central element of the new national identity,” such that “being a citizen is also being a good Muslim.” Even post-Ottoman Turkey, having “removed Islam from the public space,” sought to “nationalize Islam” by controlling religious institutions, a “breakdown with the Islamic tradition” that established Muslim scholars’ independence from rulers.

She pointed out a similar “institutionalism of Islam” in the areas of education and law in states such as the oft-touted “moderate” Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Other than Turkey, these states “did not let go of sharia,” but “changed” or “reduced” it to domains such as family law. “You cannot learn calculus without having references to Islam” in Pakistani schools, she added. Saddam Hussein also “paid a lot of attention to” a “completely instrumentalized” Islam in which he “built a fiction” that “never, never touched upon” Shiite-Sunni differences.

Strangely, Cesari’s commentary on the omnipresence of political Islam did not impel her to question the compatibility of Islamic faith with freedom.   She asserted counterfactually that, for legitimating liberty under law, the “resources in the Islamic tradition are the same” as “in the Jewish tradition or the Christian tradition.” Contradicting Islamic history, she stated that, “nothing in Islam” demands an “Islamic state” and that “not even one part” of the “totalitarian project” in the current Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) “existed historically.” “The idea that Islam subsumes everything is a modern . . . not a traditional idea,” she later elaborated. In her imaginary conception of Islam, the “role of religion is not about state institutions,” but “improving the common good of the people.”

In her analysis of numerous national school curricula, Cesari found a “very intolerant” Islam, but “not because the Islamic tradition is intolerant” with any uniform theological “genetic or DNA deficit.” “The problem,” she declared, “is the lack of the Islamic tradition.” Thus, Europeans seeking to counter Islamic radicalism “need more Islam.”

Much of Cesari’s skewed perception of Islam stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Ottoman Empire, the only Islamic regime she viewed positively. She praised the alleged “built-in . . . pluralism” that gave Muslim legal schools “thought provoking, critical” debate at a time of European Protestant-Catholic strife, a “pluralism” that, in fact, included brutal Ottoman oppression of Christians and other non-Muslims. Contrary to Islamic doctrine, she claimed that non-Muslims counted under the Ottomans as “part of the umma” or Muslim community. Invoking this mythology of Ottoman multicultural coexistence, she described the oppressive empire as “very decentralized” among its various millet semiautonomous yet subordinate religious communities.

Cesari’s own statements contradicted her advocacy of governmental “equidistance” among all faiths for majority-Muslim countries. A “Westernized . . . secularized elite,” she observed, often created polities “more state-nation” than “nation-state” in newly independent Muslim-majority countries throughout history. Pakistan’s founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, for example, represented a “very tiny Westernized, British-ized minority” that, ultimately, had to recognize that “Islam has to play a role in the new nation.” Jinnah, she added, “would have a nightmare to see what Pakistan has become.”

In a conversation following the lecture, Cesari, relying upon her umma analysis, rejected this reporter’s suggestion that states in the Muslim world are weak precisely because widely recognized Islamic doctrine demands allegiance from the faithful to Islam above all others. Thus, governments in Muslim countries must always maintain Islamic legitimacy or face upheaval, as did Iran’s deposed Shah in 1979. Governments can seek this Islamic mandate of heaven through a combination of winning the dedication of the devout or controlling religious institutions, as in Turkey, so as to suppress dissent.

Cesari’s combination of facts and wildly incorrect theories were redolent of cognitive dissonance. She perceived state-sponsored intolerant Islam, supposedly the result of theological misunderstanding, everywhere except in her mythical vision of the Ottoman Empire. Facts, however stubborn, cannot always overcome politically-correct, multicultural delusions.

Thankfully, various audience members retained a more critical view of Islam. One individual caustically described France, with its poorly assimilated Muslim immigrant population, as having been “invaded by a marauding force.” Cesari’s audience gives hope that such academics will not have the last word on Islam.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum