Bazian Uses Islamist Convention to Push “Islamophobia” Scare

by John Rossomando
IPT News
May 5, 2017

University of California, Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian has made a career out of demonizing critics as Islamophobes and flipping the script, arguing jihad is not the problem, but its critics are. He accuses opponents of promoting a type of McCarthyism and a racist clash of civilizations against Muslims.

“…Islamophobia comes in as a way to rationalize a clash of civilizations, using cultural markers as a way of constructing difference,” Bazian said in a speech last month at the Muslim American Society’s  (MAS) joint conference with the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) held in Baltimore. “Let me say the following: Cultural racism is another signpost for biological racism.”

Bazian’s anti-Semitism runs deep. As a San Francisco State University (SFSU) student in the late 1980s and early 1990s he campaigned against Hillel, the student Jewish organization. He allegedly participated in an assault on the SFSU campus newspaper, The Golden Gator, claiming it was filled with “Jewish spies,” a 2011 Campus Watch report said. Bazian also allegedly worked to prevent a Jewish student from being appointed to the Student Judicial Council. He also served as president of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), which was aligned with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Bazian has a long association with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to isolate Israel. He helped found Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in 2001 as an outgrowth of GUPS; SJP is known for its pro-Hamas stance and anti-Semitic acts such as disrupting an on-campus Holocaust remembrance event at Northwestern University. In recent years, Bazian has served as chairman of the national board of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). It is closely connected with groups that comprised the Muslim Brotherhood’s defunct anti-Israel network in the United States called the Palestine Committee. Bazian also raised money for KindHearts, a Hamas front whose assets were frozen by the U.S. government in 2006.

Bazian’s Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project that he founded in 2009 churns out academic papers through its Islamophobia Studies Journal that blames the West for terrorism. He also helped found Zaytuna College, the first Muslim liberal arts college in America.

For Bazian, screaming “Islamophobia” is a way to build a smokescreen against inconvenient truths when debating the facts about Islamist aggression.

Some in the Islamic community, such as California Imam Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad, contend the entire concept of Islamophobia is about shirking responsibility.

“By declaring [Islamophobia], the number one threat to Islam and Muslims in the United States, we effectively bypass the central doctrines of self accountability, and moral fortitude; principles upon which our faith is founded,” Ahmad wrote in The Lotus Tree Blog in 2010. “The sooner we wake up and take an intrepid and honest look at ourselves, the better.”

Bazian’s hosts for his recent speech have their own ties to international Islamist movements.

Prosecutors describe MAS as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., and it has been alleged to have financial ties to Hamas. ICNA retains a strong spiritual connection with Islamist pioneer Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, founder of the radical South Asian Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. In his book Jihad in Islam, Maududi argues that Muslims should destroy “all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.” ICNA’s 2010 Member’s Hand Book advocates the “struggle for Iqamat-ad-Deen,” or the establishment of Islam in its totality, “in this land.”

In his MAS-ICNA remarks, Bazian specifically named Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes as drivers of the “Islamophobic industry” dedicated to preserving Israel’s interests.

Playing off the foundations of Islam, Bazian defined the “five pillars of Islamophobia” starting with the government’s “constant war on terrorism that defines it as a war on Islamic terrorism.” He misleadingly cited data to argue that Muslims are responsible for only 4 percent of terrorism in the United States and Europe. He did not cite a source for his data, but did note that it covered a period ending in 1995 – before al-Qaida, ISIS, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and other Islamist terrorist movements that have recruited westerners and attacked Western targets.

Other “pillars” Bazian mentioned include the counter-jihad movement, neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists. But Bazian’s emphasis on “Islamophobes” is to be expected. One cannot expect to attract funding for an Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project without concocting the frightening specter of “Islamophobes.”

Bazian similarly denounced Emerson, Pipes and Geller following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings for connecting the bombings to jihad before the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the attacks were identified.

“…[The] crime of the terrorist is immediate, while that of the Islamophobes is long-lasting, for it creates and impresses on our collective public mind the logic of hate and racism …,” Bazian wrote in an academic paper called “Boston Bombing, Islamophobia and Sudden Ignorance Syndrome.”

But this was no wild leap of logic. The pressure-cooker bombs used in Boston were just like those recommended by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula’s English language magazine, Inspire. Dhzokhar Tsarnaev later told investigators he and his brother, Tamerlan, got their idea for the bombs from the magazine.

In Bazian’s world, however, it’s Islamophobic and racist to connect violent and imperialistic interpretations of Islam to acts of terrorism today. The Tsarnaevs, indeed, were the bombers, he acknowledged. “But the Islamophobic machine committed crimes against our collective consciousness by exploiting the suffering and pain of our fellow citizens.”

Much of his MAS-ICNA speech was spent attacking Samuel Huntington’s 1993 essay, “The Clash of Civilizations?” which predicted global conflict would be driven more by cultural differences than ideology and economics.

Bazian dismisses this as a “clash of ignorance,” arguing that the past sins of white Western Christians are more important to discuss than jihadist terror.

“Bernard Lewis’ question about Islam of ‘What Went Wrong?’ should be asked in relation to European history with emphasis on the Inquisition, genocide of the Natives in the Americas, the European Trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonization, 8 Apartheid South Africa, WWI and WWII, with the good White Aryan Christian Europeans responsible for the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons against civilians recorded in history to this day,” Bazian wrote.

Then as now, Bazian charged that “Islamophobes” relished in a clash of civilizations.

“It’s interesting that repeated aggressions by Islamists, both violent and non-violent [including Bazian’s speech] don’t count for anything, while criticism of Islamists is used to say that the Bill of Rights is being rescinded,” Pipes told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “That’s highly untenable considering that we’re not the cause of jihad.”

Islamophobia has nothing to do with misunderstanding Islam or Muslims integrating into Western societies, Bazian said at the MAS-ICNA convention. It’s about protecting Western dominance over the rest of the world.

“So often [what] you get with debate and discussion, immediately the Islamophobes who jumps in – ‘well Islam is not a race.’ Well, again, race is a socially constructed category, but the directions of how people are racialized could be for a number of areas,” Bazian said. “You could be racialized because of your language; you could be racialized because of your skin tone; you could be racialized because of your religion.”

Bazian’s cultural racism concept is a flawed one, said American Islamic Forum for Democracy founder and President Zuhdi Jasser. Islam is a belief system. It cannot be treated as a monolithic entity  exempt from criticism.

“If you are going to believe that Islam cannot be debated and cannot be reformed, and cannot be changed, the bottom line is you have to make it into a racial identity,” Jasser said. “That’s why Islamists are wedded … to the idea of Islam as a single tribal identity that is defined by the leaders of that tribe who are imams, clerics or theocrats.”

Islamists then use this tribal identity to depict Christians, Israeli Jews and the West as the enemy, Jasser said.

Fellow Muslims also can be “Islamophobes” if they disagree with Bazian. That’s the word he used to slur Muslims who supported the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, which ended the Muslim Brotherhood’s brief rule. Presumably this included Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand sheikh of Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s most important clerical institution, who blessed Morsi’s ouster.

When it comes to aggressive clash of civilizations rhetoric coming from Islamists, Bazian turns a blind eye. He chose to write for UCLA’s newsmagazine Al-Talib in the late 1990s and early 2000s despite the fact that Al-Talib regularly featured pro-jihadist articles. For example, an article he wrote in the March 1999 issue appeared along with a piece praising Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini.

The July 1999 edition contained an editorial titled “Jihad in America” that criticized calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist. Bin Laden, it said, was a “freedom fighter” who spoke out against oppressors.

By that time, bin Laden had publicly declared war on the United States, “Jews and Crusaders.” That fatwa invoked the Quran to declare that killing Americans “an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…” The al-Qaida suicide bombing attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania took place the year before Bazian’s Al-Talib article.

Bazian could have opted to stop writing for the newsmagazine after the pro-terrorist articles were published, yet he chose to submit articles in Al-Talib’s September 1999 issue and again in Al-Talib‘s March 2000 issue.

“I think he is a classical civilizational Islamist supremacist,” Jasser said, “meaning that until he is caught and exposed on various positions he’ll do whatever possible to advance the concept that where Muslims are a majority that an Islamic state is the best avenue for governance.”

Islamists love clash of civilizations rhetoric because they view the world in terms of the Land of Islam and the Land of War ruled by non-Muslims,  Jasser said.

Bazian’s effort to accuse “Islamophobes” of a racist clash of civilizations at the MAS-ICNA conference and on other occasions distracts from the Islamists’ stated desire to supplant Western civilization.

You can defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but not conservatism

Hamid Mir | Wikimedia Commons

Conservative Review, by Jordan Shachtel,  April 27, 2017:

With UC Berkeley’s unwillingness to provide actual security measures for conservative speakers, the school has made it crystal clear that there is no room for free expression on its campus.

The academic institution has, however, welcomed prominent radical Islamists with open arms. Speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry are granted space at Berkeley, so long as they fit within the accepted political framework.

Since the turn of the century, the California school has become a cesspool of radical indoctrination that is rampant with Islamic supremacists. The school has not only turned into America’s chief promulgator of anti-American ideals, it also has become a breeding ground of anti-Semitism.

April 13 marked the 10-year anniversary of an overtly pro-Osama bin Laden speech hosted by the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Berkeley.

The shocking audio, in which the speaker demands that fellow Muslims not condemn the international terrorist, has been preserved by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“Osama bin Laden … I don’t know this guy. I don’t know what he did. I don’t know what he said. I don’t know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear?” Amir Mertaban, the former MSA West president, said at a MSA conference of the now-dead al Qaeda chief.

“If you sit here and you start saying ‘jihad is only an internal this and that,’ you are compromising on your faith,” he added.

In 2004, a Berkeley MSA conference hosted Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who called for fellowmujahids” (warriors for Islam) to take up arms and form a Muslim theocracy. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has described him as “a charismatic imam who promotes anti-Semitism, violence and conspiracy theories that blame the U.S. government and Jews for attacks by Islamic terrorists.”

Two years later, Mr. Ali spoke at a UC Irvine pro-Hezbollah (which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization) conference and was received by chants of “Allahu Akbar!”

Later that year, to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, Islamic supremacists at Berkeley held an anti-Semitic hate fest, shouting for the destruction of Israel.

The UC’s Islamic supremacy complex is far from a thing of the past.

In 2015, Berkeley hosted Omar Barghouti, leader of the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against the state of Israel. Today, Berkeley continues to be a cesspool of Islamic supremacist indoctrination.

The California school partners with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history, and a suspected Hamas front group – on annual “Islamophobia” reports and conferences.

The annual confab, which took place last week, featured Zahra Billoo. She is the director of CAIR’s San Francisco-Bay Area chapter. Billoo has, in the past, accused U.S. soldiers of engaging in terrorism and has advised her allies to thwart FBI investigations.

The Berkeley-CAIR “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project” was started by Dr. Hatem Bazian, a professor at the school. Bazian is the founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an anti-Semitic hate group that seeks to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. Bazian has, in the past, called for an intifada (violent uprising) in America.

Berkeley’s indoctrination efforts have clearly had an effect on the individuals matriculating there. Check out this shocking video released in 2014 by filmmaker Ami Horowitz. It highlighted how students reacted much more negatively to an Israeli flag than to an Islamic State flag.

Berkeley is no place for conservatism, yet the school seemingly has no issue with radical Islamists who seek to overthrow the country and impose a theocracy on America.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for CR. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

Also see:

The BDS Movement: On The Inside

by Lee Kaplan—DAFKA.org and the StoptheISM.com team April 14, 2016

UNDERSTANDING BDS-DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND

The term BDS refers to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions conducted against the state of Israel, and also a way to attack the Jewish people both in Israel and worldwide. Partially funded by the PLO, the BDS movement grew out of the Arab League boycott of Israel begun in 1950 after Israel’s War of Independence. The Muslim and Arab world and its Arab League, despite tentative agreements with Egypt and Jordan, began the boycott in 1950 and have never signed a peace treaty with Israel even after the cessation of hostilities in 1948. Five Arab armies back then sought to wipe the new Jewish state off the map but failed. The purpose of the Boycott was to starve the Jews out of their new homeland.  The Boycott movement was given new life and recreated as

(left to right) Adam Shapiro, Huwaida Arraf

(left to right) Adam Shapiro, Huwaida Arraf

Arab irredentists expanded the movement later in the academic arena, notably in American colleges and later in churches and through labor movements. The International Solidarity Movement was set up by Yasser Arafat in 2001 with the help of two “camp counselors,” Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, who were employees of Seeds for Peace, a camp set up and funded by the U.S. State Department, to  operate in the U.S. and Europe to promote  BDS and other anti-Israel activities on campuses and elsewhere (see StopthISM.com). The BDS movement is a support mechanism for Palestinian terrorist groups in their efforts to de-legitimize and ultimately destroy Israel. Its leadership calls terrorism that kills Israelis “legitimate resistance.”

THE BEGINNING AND  SOME HISTORY

The Vietnam War produced in American colleges a revolutionary mindset among campus radicals to bring down the capitalist U.S. government as Marxist-inspired self-defined “revolutionaries” sought to promote communism and the downfall of America and American interests both at home and abroad. Israel during the Cold War was considered a staunch U.S. ally that one day might be called upon to protect U.S. interests in the Middle East in the event of war with the Soviet Union. Ho Chi Minh dispatched North Vietnamese intelligence officers to U.S.  campuses to stir up opposition to the War which resulted in campus riots and demonstrations. The PLO leadership, at one time a proxy of the KGB against U.S. interests, learned from North Vietnamese advisors how to expand their support base by linking PLO goals to other popular political movements to swell their numbers and support. The Vietnamese advised the PLO that in lieu of being too vociferous in announcing themselves as a revolutionary movement,  it would be more successful trying to pass itself off as a human rights movement to try and gain universal appeal. Terrorism was thus justified as a human rights necessity to fight against a Jewish state and the Boycott was just another weapon to provide support for terrorism while claiming to be “nonviolent.”  BDS leadership never condemns terrorism using the euphemism “legitimate resistance.” However, the Boycott, despite claims of being “nonviolent” (as if starving Jewish families to support terrorists’ goals could be disguised as such), through its leaders like Paul Larudee openly recognize a right to use violence against Israelis to achieve the Palestinians’ revolutionary goals. This deception, and the insistence that the movement is “Palestinian-led,” v voiced in the recordings are the two main mission obligations always mentioned.

Arab-American college radicals such as Jess Ghannam (a professor of psychiatry today at UC San Francisco), Zahi Damuni ( a biochemist, formerly of St. James University in Canada), and Mazen Qumsiyeh (a geneticist from Yale, fired for anti-Semitic emails), some of whom were born in the West Bank, went on to graduate university and with their professional incomes started the group Al Awda (Arabic for “the Return”), an organization set up to promote PLO and later Hamas goals against Israel’s existence. During this time, Al Qaeda was also founded by a Palestinian named Abdullah Azzam, the mentor for Osama Bin Laden. This was the Muslim jihadist link behind the BDS Movement to this day. Today, the leadership of Al Awda helps promote BDS along with myriad other groups and clubs that have sprung up to promote starving out the Jews in the Middle East and, by extension, linking to the worldwide jihad. Al Awda is still very active in the USA and in promoting BDS. BDS was launched in Israel in 2005 by Palestinian Jamal Juma and later Omar Barghouti, an Arab student from Kuwait attending Tel Aviv University helped to specifically launch the academic boycott in Israel and worldwide with the help of Jess Ghannam, Manzar Foroohar (an Iranian Muslim) and some other Arab professors in the USA in 2007 that comprised a steering committee.

bds activists

In 2001, right after the attacks on 9/11, the Students for Justice in Palestine was created by Hatem Bazian and Snehal Shingavi, two Muslim lecturers at U.C. Berkeley who openly support Hamas and the so-called “Palestinian revolution.” The BDS Movement became a consortium of these groups promoting BDS.

(Left to right) Hatem Bazian, Snehal Shingavi

(Left to right) Hatem Bazian, Snehal Shingavi

Bazian, an activist with American Muslims for Palestine, a Hamas affiliated group, began the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) while calling for an “Intifada in America.” In a classic Rico-style conspiracy, American and Canadian college campuses were used to create satellite operations largely funded by the American and Canadian taxpayers funding campus clubs that promote BDS.  This was in part the Palestine Solidarity Movement network that was part of the International Solidarity Movement network worldwide. Both movements are part of that same network.  Conferences that promote BDS in the past have been funded through the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine as a primer to use taxpayer money from college clubs to promote BDS and the goals of Hamas. At a UN Conference on Racism held 2001 in Durban, South Africa, BDS was further promoted worldwide as a method to bring down the Jewish state. The U.S. government was forced to withdraw from that conference because of the blatant misrepresentation and promotion of BDS and anti-Semitism.  Nevertheless, the dye was set and BDS became a national and even international movement.

The BDS Movement was not limited to just Arab-American or even American student radicals on the campuses.. As an outgrowth of the war in Vietnam, many radical revolutionary activist retreads from that era also organized to promote BDS off campus as well. This was done by approaching labor unions, libraries, environmental groups, any place there were groups of people among whom BDS could be promoted. . California is a hotbed for BDS with its large college network but the BDS movement has found non-campus locations and groups throughout the entire U.S., from Washington State to Florida, from New York to New Mexico, where tactics, information and direct actions are organized. Affiliated chapters abound of Al Awda, such as Students for Justice in Palestine, SUSTAIN (Stop US Taxpayer Aid to Israel Now) and many other names.  The Marxist group ANSWER, started days after 9/11 to promote anti-U.S. bigotry, also became a large backer of BDS through cooperation in bringing large numbers of activists to demonstrations and sharing resources. The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation was later created as a lobbying group in Washington, D.C. that consolidates over 100 chapters of the BDS movement according to their website.

BDS Groups such as Norcal ISM (the Northern California chapter of the International Solidarity Movement, a Marxist inspired group), 14 Friends for Palestine in Marin, Santa Cruz’s Resource Center for Nonviolence (some call it the Resource Center for No More Israel), South Bay Mobilization in the San Jose area and others emerged as off campus organizations promoting BDS “by any means necessary”. Many of these groups are made up of older people still pursuing their revolutionary dreams from the 60’s with an assault on Israel as a U.S. ally being at the top of their Marxist or anarchist agendas.

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND COLLEGES ALLOW THE MOVEMENT TO GROW

A major part of the problem as surrounds these groups is that they are almost always given 501 c3 nontaxable status despite their goal being to destroy a U.S. ally and attack Jews worldwide. An interview with an IRS officer this reporter had reveals they are able to get this status by lying on their applications saying they are educational groups promoting human rights. They are, in fact, support groups for terrorists such as in Hamas and the PLO. What is even more alarming is they usually get this designated tax status in as little as thirty days while legitimate groups promoting human rights for real may have to wait for up to a year for the same status. These groups send money overseas that goes to aid the likes of Hamas and in the long run comes back to bite the United States and its ally, Israel.

Norcal ISM is one of the most active of these BDS promoting groups and is headed by a man named Paul Larudee. Larudee operates his Norcal ISM out of his home in El Cerrito, California where he has set up nine non-profits to promote BDS and anti-Israel goals, including one called the Free Palestine Movement. Larudee generally holds meetings at Grassroots House, a building in downtown Berkeley that is shared by myriad radical groups for organizing and planning anti-U.S. and anti-Israel activities like BDS.

Larudee once wrote an article about his joy at sleeping in the bed of a suicide bomber during one of his subversive trips to the West Bank to show support for Hamas. Stop the ISM actually got Larudee deported from Israel in 2006 after uncovering he entered the country under the false identity of Paul Wilder with a U.S. passport obtained for fraudulent purposes. Radical elements in Israel tried taking his deportation order to Israel’s Supreme Court, but articles such as this one persuaded the court to deport him immediately. Larudee, never losing a moment, next went to Lebanon as a volunteer and human shield for the terrorist group Hezbollah. He returned to later participate in the Gaza Flotilla boat that sailed to support Hamas. Larudee is one of the BDS movements main leaders in the U.S. and yet the government, even the FBI, look the other way at his antics.

Read more with undercover videos of  BDS Board of Directors meetings

Also see:

The Iran Nuclear Deal’s Islamist Supporters

IPT News
September 11, 2015

The White House is claiming victory in the fight over the Iranian nuclear deal following Thursday’s Senate vote which fell short of cloture on a Democratic filibuster blocking an up or down vote on the deal.

Critics continue to express concerns that the agreement paves the way for Iran to eventually develop its own nuclear weapons. And it is beyond dispute that the agreement fuels the Islamic Republic with as much as $150 billion in relief from what had been crippling economic sanctions. That money can be used to fund terror proxies seeking to attack Israel.

Those concerns prompted the U.S. House on Friday to reject the Iran deal by a vote of 162-269.

It is little surprise, therefore, that the deal enjoys strong support from prominent American Islamists with a history of support for Iran or who espouse rabid anti-Israel rhetoric, including radicals who see Zionist conspiracies at nearly every turn.

Imam Hassan Qazwini

At the forefront of support for the nuclear deal is radical Shia cleric Imam Hassan Qazwini who serves as scholar and religious leader at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich. During a July 17 sermon at the Az-Zahraa Islamic Center in Detroit, Qazwini hailed the Iran nuclear deal as a “victory for Muslims” and a “victory for Iran.” While he applauded the patience of Iranian nuclear negotiators and commended President Barack Obama “for taking this courageous stand,” he rebuked Israel and Saudi Arabia for opposing the deal.

1231“Israel was extremely upset,” he said. “[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] was hysterical, was fuming, he was furious over last few days because of this agreement. He was so upset why the United States and the other five superpowers accepted a peaceful solution to this problem. Why? Because Mr. Netanyahu is not interested in peace, seeks war.”

Further, Qazwini claimed that Israel would benefit from a war between the U.S. and Iran: “So, basically Netanyahu wants the United States to go to war with Iran while Israel stands idle, watching. Netanyahu wants the United States to pay the price, a heavy price, to send its troops, and to get involved in a messy war, so the Israeli interest are [sic] protected. I’m not surprised by Netanyahu because Netanyahu is nothing but poison and poison does not generate [anything] but poison.” He called Saudi Arabia, a Sunni majority country, “traitors to the interests of the Muslim Ummah” and accused the Sunni nation of spending millions of dollars “to sabotage Iran and to attack the Shia school of thought.”

Qazwini has a long history of support of terrorists and other radicals. In a 2004 speech that is still publicly available on his personal website under “Speeches/Friday Sermons,” Qazwini praised Shia Muslims for “carrying the banner of resistance against the evil forces in the Muslim ummah” and claimed “that the majority of Muslim governments have submitted to the will of the United States and the Zionists.”

Qazwini has also proclaimed the supremacy of Sharia over Western law: “You have to respect the laws of the land in which  you live, however  when it comes to a point where Allah is publically being disobeyed or challenged, then you should have no respect to any law. Allah’s law comes first… Allah comes first, no government comes before Allah …”

Hatem Bazian

Hatem Bazian, another deal proponent, is founding chairman of a radical anti-Israeli organization, the American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), and co-founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a group with many campus chapters, that campaigns for divestment from Israel.  In an opinion piece in the Turkish national daily,Daily Sabah, Bazian blamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other pro-Israel groups, “including the same neo-conservative groups that pushed for the Iraq war” for “whipping the American public into shape to oppose President Obama’s Iran deal.”

In 2004, Bazian called on Americans to create a violent uprising at home similar to the Palestinian intifada.

“Are you angry? …Well, we’ve been watching intifada in Palestine, we’ve been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don’t have an intifada in this country,” Bazian said. “It’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every – They’re gonna say some Palestinian [is] being too radical – well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet.”

More recently, at an AMP event at the University of California, Santa Cruz in November, Bazian seemed to justify Palestinian terrorism: “Palestine is the victim that is being victimized once again by actually blaming them for the fact that they respond. Palestinians’ response to settler colonialism has been identical to every colonized people’s response when they are confronted by the colonization process.”

Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT)

In a recent article in the Crescent International, a publication of the pro-Iran, Washington-based Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT), Zafar Bangash praised Iran’s leadership for striking a deal that grants Iran relief while still holding the line against the West.

“The Rahbar [Islamic title meaning ‘Leader’ and is in reference to Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei], however, has made clear that even if — a big if — the JCPOA is approved, there would be no opening of Iran for US penetration. ‘We will firmly block their way. We will not allow the US to make economic, political or cultural inroads into the country. We will counter such infiltration with all our power.’ The Rahbar went on, ‘We should first identify the enemy’s intentions and then counter their objectives through planning.’

This is the wisest course of action to pursue with the US that the late Imam Khomeini had described as Shaytan-e Buzurg (the Great Satan). This was not an emotional outburst but an accurate understanding of the true nature of the US.”

Another article in the ICIT’s Crescent International by Tahir Mustafa noted that the nuclear deal marks Iran’s recognition “as a leading regional power that cannot be cowed by military threats or sanctions.” He added: “After the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, Islamic Iran had become the leading edge of the Islamic movement. Those without blinkers on their eyes had recognized this a long time ago. Others have just woken up to this fact. The US, the leading imperialist and militarist power in the world, has also had to eat humble pie and admit to this reality.”

Mustafa, however, warned that “American and European officials are notorious for breaking promises, even signed before the entire world.” He also describes Saudi Arabia and Israel as “pariah regimes [that] cannot live in peace with others, especially Islamic Iran that refuses to surrender its rights to any worldly power.”

“Not surprisingly the two illegitimate regimes, one occupying the holy land of the Arabian Peninsula and the other the holy land of Palestine, are clinging to each other for solace. Both can see their end clearly on the horizon,” he added.

ICIT is affiliated with extremist clerics Mohammed al-Asi and Abdul Alim Musa. In a February interview marking the 36th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Al-Asi said: “It only takes us a short memory of the decades and the centuries preceding this Islamic revolution to recall the almost pathetic conditions that Muslims have been in.  I mean they’ve been suffering from colonialism and imperialism, occupation armies and all sorts of setbacks.  The Islamic Revolution took place in that context.  It broke out of decades and centuries of foreign hegemony and control and became the first independent area in the Islamic hemisphere of the world.” Abdul Alim Musa is founder and Imam of Masjid Al-Islam in Washington, D.C. and founder of the radical As-Sabiqun Movement.

Muslim Students Association-Persian Speaking Group

A flyer distributed at the Muslim Students Association—Persian Speaking Group’s (MSA-PSG) 38th Annual Conference on December 26, 2008, titled “Message to 2008 MSA-PSG Conference Attendees,” quotes Musa saying: “At this current stage, our quest is to emulate the life of our hero in contemporary times, Imam Khomeini, as we strive to establish the Islamic State of North America. His story is a story of ultimate success and unbelievable odds.” The MSA-PSG has strong connections to the Iran’s clerical regime. A message posted on the student group’s website states: “MSA-PSG has been dedicated to the global Islamic movement since its inception over 45 years ago. With the Islamic Revolution in Iran, we became doubly committed to unity and brotherhood among all Muslims.” According to declassified FBI documents, at a December 1987 conference hosted by MSA-PSG, also known by its Farsi name Anjoman Islamie, “all attendees had to pledge allegiance to their Muslim faith and loyalty to the Government of Iran.”

Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)

The nuclear deal  was lauded  as proof that the U.S. should only use  diplomacy to achieve foreign policy goals  by the more influential Washington, D.C.-based Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) in a Sept. 3 press release.

“Long seen as the option of the weak in the days of the Bush administration, diplomacy is now seen as a viable strategy that can achieve the same results, if not better, than military strikes do,” the release said. “And apart from its effectiveness, it’s shown that it can be achieved without the cost of military action … The US has shown that it is a strong diplomatic force, and that it can negotiate to advance its most pressing interests.”

MPAC also touted the high road of America negotiating peacefully with “nations it mistrusts, but also to resist the easy route of immediately giving into hawks who call for war. It may have been tempting to heed the calls of war against a nation that took our citizens hostage and is perceived as a threat to multiple allies in the region.”

But MPAC took the exact opposite tact just two years ago in opposing diplomacy and vigorously calling for U.S. and coalition military air strikes against Syria. “We … support decisive and quick military action in Syria with important conditions,” an MPAC position paper said.

Any military “intervention must go hand in hand with empowering the moderate segment of the opposition to ensure a future for Syria that is democratic, pluralistic, and inclusive,” the MPAC paper said.

An additional rationale MPAC offered for advocating bombings in Syria could just as easily apply to the situation involving Iran’s dictatorial brutal regime: “At this point there is no incentive for the Assad regime to agree to any type of political transition due to their military superiority over opposition forces.”

So MPAC was willing to use military might to force Syria to change its policies, but when it comes to  Iran,  the world’s largest state sponsor of  terrorism,  MPAC suddenly became pacifist.

In past years, the MPAC-affiliated publication The Minaret repeatedly published articles in support of Iran’s proxy terrorist group, Hizballah. One June 2000 article praises “freedom fighter” Hizballah’s efforts in coercing Israel to withdraw from Lebanon:

“[The Israeli withdrawal] is a clear sign that determination and will lead to the liberation of an occupied homeland. Hezbullah, the Lebanese freedom fighter group that led the effort to drive Israel out, is being widely praised through the world.”

MPAC’s president Salam al-Marayati also described Hizballah attacks as a “legitimate resistance” in a 1999 PBS interview. He added that, “when a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, we stand very loudly and clearly against that Muslim that committed that act of violence.”

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded as part of a Hamas-support network in the U.S., supported the interim nuclear deal in November 2013. “We welcome the agreement signed in Geneva and hope it will reverse the counterproductive decades-long push toward conflict between Iran and Western nations,” CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a press release. While the press release applauded the deal, it “also called on Iran to drop its ongoing support for Syria’s brutal dictatorship.”

Ignoring Iran’s behavior

American Islamists who advocate the nuclear deal with Iran have, in the past, willfully turned a blind eye to human rights violations and terrorism-related crimes of the Iranian government and have appeared on the country’s state-controlled Press TV to allege rampant Islamophobia in the U.S. or berate government counterterrorism measures.  “We live in a free society,” CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said in an August 2011 interview. “There are many good things about being an American Muslim, but there is also a sense of being under siege from these hate mongers that are constantly trying to demonize our faith.”

During a 2011 Press TV appearance at the time of the Arab Spring demonstrations, Al-Asi supported a statement by Iranian Supreme Leader Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei advocating for “a leadership that gives direction to this movement. Otherwise, and this was probably left out of the discourse, but putting the pieces of the puzzle together, otherwise the forces of imperialism and even Zionism will hijack these uprisings. …They don’t want these countries to quote-unquote ‘break loose’ from American hegemony, the same that happened in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In other words, they don’t want to see another Islamic Republic in Egypt, or in Yemen, or in these other countries that is independent of their influences and their diktats.”

Similarly, these Islamists have also routinely supported violence and terrorism at the annual Al-Quds Day rallies commemorating the 1979 Islamic Revolution. For example, at the 2012 rally Musa said, “If you love America, you love lying, you love rape, you love murder, you love killing.”

“And then, the Zionist, diabolical, sinister Israeli. Nobody in history, they cry about some Holocaust, we had five or ten people get killed.”

Support for the Iranian deal among Islamists includes fringe cranks like Musa and Al-Asi, but also supposedly mainstream outlets like MPAC and CAIR. That alone should have given anyone pause about supporting the agreement.

The Profs Who Love Obama’s Iran Deal

Middle East Forum, by Cinnamon Stillwell
FrontPage Magazine
August 10, 2015

University of California–Riverside professor Reza Aslan believes the JCPOA will create "an Iran that is a responsible actor on the global stage."

University of California–Riverside professor Reza Aslan believes the JCPOA will create “an Iran that is a responsible actor on the global stage.”

Who supports the Obama administration’s increasingly unpopular Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aimed ostensibly at curbing Iran’s nuclear program? Many of its strongest proponents come from the field of Middle East studies, which boasts widespread animus towards the U.S. and Israel along with a cadre of apologists for the Iranian regime determined to promote ineffectual diplomacy at all costs.

University of California–Riverside creative writing professor Reza Aslan concedes that his generation of Iranian-Americans “feel[s] far removed from the political and religious turmoil of the Iranian revolution” before falling in line with the Iranian regime’s propaganda: the deal will “empower moderates in Iran, strengthen Iranian civil society and spur economic development,” and create “an Iran that is a responsible actor on the global stage, that respects the rights of its citizens and that has warm relations with the rest of the world.” “Warm relations” are the least likely outcome of the increase in funding for Iran’s terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah that even President Obama admits will follow the easing of sanctions.

Middle East studies academics appear determined to promote ineffectual diplomacy at all costs.

Flynt Leverett, an international relations professor at Pennsylvania State University, whitewashes these terrorist groups as “constituencies” and “communities” which the Iranian regime “help[s] organize in various ways to press their grievances more effectively,” effective terrorism being, for Leverett, a laudable goal. Characterizing the regime as “a rising regional power” and “legitimate political order for most Iranians,” he urges the U.S., through the JCPOA, to “come to terms with this reality.”

Diablo Valley College Middle East studies instructor Amer Araim‘s seemingly wishful thinking is equally supportive of Tehran’s line: “it is sincerely hoped that these funds will be used to help the Iranian people develop their economy and to ensure prosperity in that country.”

University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole insists that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “is sincere about not wanting a nuclear weapon.”

Meanwhile, Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American international relations professor at Rutgers University, attempts to legitimize the regime by delegitimizing the sanctions: “The money that will flow to Iran under this deal is not a gift: this is Iran’s money that has been frozen and otherwise blocked.”

Others deny the Iranian regime intends to build a nuclear bomb. University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole has long argued that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “is sincere about not wanting a nuclear weapon” because of his “oral fatwas or legal rulings” indicating that “using such weapons is contrary to Islamic law.” His unwarranted confidencein the regime leads him to conclude:

[T]hey have developed all the infrastructure and technical knowledge and equipment that would be necessary to make a nuclear weapon, but stop there, much the way Japan has.

Evidently, Cole has no problem with a tyrannical, terrorist-supporting regime that seeks regional hegemony on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.

Likewise, William Beeman, an anthropology professor at the University of Minnesota, maintains that, “It was . . . easy for Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program that never existed, and that it never intended to implement.” Like Cole, he uncritically accepts and recites the regime’s disinformation: “Iran’s leaders have regularly denounced nuclear weapons as un-Islamic.”

Beeman—who, in previous negotiations with the Iranian regime, urged the U.S. to be “unfailingly polite and humble” and not to set “pre-conditions” regarding its nuclear program—coldly disregards criticism of the JCPOA for excluding conditions such as the “release of [American] political prisoners” and “recognition of Israel,” calling them “utterly irrelevant.” No doubt the relatives of those prisoners and the Israeli citizens who live in the crosshairs of the regime’s continued threats of annihilation would disagree.

A number of academics have resorted to classic anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering to attack the deal’s Israeli and American opponents, calling them the “Israel Lobby.” Muqtedar Khan, director of the Islamic Studies Program at the University of Delaware, accuses “the Israeli government and all those in the U.S. who are under the influence of its American lobbies” of obstructing the deal, claiming that, “The GOP congress is now being described as the [Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin] Netanyahu congress.”

Hatem Bazian rails against “neo-conservative warmongers.”

Hatem Bazian, director of the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project at the University of California, Berkeley, takes aim at “pro-Israel neo-conservatives,” “neo-conservative warmongers,” “AIPAC,” and (in a mangled version of “Israel-firster”) “Israel’s first D.C. crowd” for “attempting to scuttle the agreement.” Asserting a moral equivalence between the dictatorial Iranian regime and the democratically-elected Israeli government, Bazian demands to know when Israel’s “pile of un-inspected or regulated nuclear weapons stockpile” will be examined before answering, “It is not going to happen anytime soon!” That Israel has never threatened any country with destruction, even after being attacked repeatedly since its rebirth, is a fact ignored by its critics.

The unhinged Facebook posts of Columbia University Iranian studies professor and Iranian native Hamid Dabashi reveal inlurid language his hatred of Israel:

It is now time the exact and identical widely intrusive scrutiny and control compromising the sovereignty of the nation-state of Iran and its nuclear program be applied to the European settler colony of Jewish apartheid state of Israel and its infinitely more dangerous nuclear program! There must be a global uproar against the thuggish vulgarity of Netanyahu and his Zionist gangsters in Israel and the U.S. Congress to force them to dismantle their nuclear program–systematically used to terrorize and murder Palestinian people and steal the rest of Palestine!

Elsewhere, Dabashi attacks adversaries of the JCPOA, including “Israel, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Neocons, and their treacherous expat Iranian stooges masquerading as ‘Opposition,'” calling them a “terrorizing alliance,” a “gang of murderous war criminals,” and “shameless warmongers.”

Willful blindness to Iran’s brutal, terrorist-supporting regime, moral equivocation, and an irrational hatred for Israel and the West characterize the fawning support enjoyed by the mullahs from these and other professors of Middle East studies. In place of objective, rigorously researched plans for countering Iran’s aggression and advancing the safety of America and its allies, they regurgitate the crudest propaganda from Teheran. Until their field of study is thoroughly reformed, their advice—such as it is—should and must be utterly ignored.

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Legitimizing Censorship: ‘Islamophobia Studies’ at Berkeley

392Jihad Watch, by Cinnamon Stillwell and Rima Greene, May 23, 2015

“Islamophobia studies” is the latest addition to the academic pantheon of politicized, esoteric, and divisive “studies” whose purpose is to censor criticism of differing views by stigmatizing critics as racist or clinically insane. The University of California, Berkeley’s recent Sixth Annual International Islamophobia Conference—organized by the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP)—was titled, “The State of the Islamophobia Studies Field.” The fact that this “field” doesn’t yet formally exist in the U.S. may explain why speakers the first day of the conference barely mentioned it. As in years past, the conference featured victimology, academic jargon, and anti-Western rhetoric.

The audience, including a number of women in hijabs (headscarves), ranged from twenty to fifty students and faculty members. Because the conference was preempted by another event, it had to shift between two venues. Adding to the confusion, the schedule was made available online only days before. While IRDP director and Near Eastern studies lecturer Hatem Bazian bragged at the outset that the conference livestream had garnered “seven thousand” viewers in 2014, this year, visual and audio problems often rendered it unwatchable.

In his introduction, Bazian apologized for these mishaps before launching into a glowing report about the alleged state of “Islamophobia studies,” which, according to the IRDP website, “has witnessed rapid expansion in the past fifteen years.” He claimed that the field had “come of age” in that there is “no longer . . . a debate over whether we should use the term or not” or if “it is real or not,” except for “those who really don’t want to confront Islamophobia” or “don’t want to deal with the reality of what has taken place.”

In fact, there is no consensus on the existence of “Islamophobia” in the U.S., particularly in light of FBI statistics showing Jews experiencing the highest number of religiously-motivated hate crimes, with Muslims a distant second. Conflating legitimate criticism of Islam and the myriad human rights abuses occurring in its name all over the world with an irrational fear or prejudice towards all Muslims further obfuscates the matter.

Undeterred by such concerns, Bazian proudly noted the “broad range of fields” represented at the conference in order:

[T]o create as large a conversation as possible about Islamophobia with the intention of expanding the academic material that is available for individuals and classrooms.

He alleged that, “This is part of a series of conferences taking part internationally,” including Paris, London, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Switzerland, and eventually India. Then again, he said as much at the 2014 “Islamophobia” conference and, at the time, IRDP did in fact co-organize a number of such international ventures. However, at this juncture, a search yields no evidence for IRDP-connected international conferences this year.

Munir Jiwa, founding director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Islamic Studies and assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Graduate Theological Union, followed with the talk, “Frames and Scripts of Islamophobia.” Jiwa maintained that the U.S. and the U.K. view Islam through the “frames” of the September 11, 2001 and July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks, respectively, and lamented that, “This forgets the long history of Muslims in the West” and “Muslim contributions to Western civilization.” Referring to the alleged shortcomings of the latter—including, ludicrously, the Enlightenment—he made the ahistorical assertion:

Much like Colonial and Enlightenment ways of dividing the world: us and them. It’s as if the West just came up with all these great ideas on its own.

Jiwa complained that Americans see terrorism as “barbaric,” “out of the blue,” and “related to Islam, rather than the most warring nation in the world”—i.e., America. He was perplexed that, “the violence that Muslims do” is viewed through the prism of “religion rather than the socio-political context,” despite the fact that this perspective merely takes Islamic terrorism at face value. As for the Islamic State (ISIS), he found it “amazing that they think it has nothing to do with our being in Iraq,” as if every GOP candidate for president isn’t required to state his opinion on the invasion. He never mentioned ISIS’s atrocities, only “our responsibility in creating the context for that violence.”

Jiwa then denied the systemic problem of “Islamic patriarchy” by claiming that the “oppression” of Muslim women was viewed as “not because of geo-politics, [but] because of Islam.” He bemoaned that, “millions of our dollars are going into saving Muslim women,” an outdated allusion to the war in Afghanistan. Rehashing a joke he made at the 2012 “Islamophobia” conference, he suggested Afghan women save American women from the perils of the “beauty industry.” Turning to gay rights, he decried “how sexual minorities are deployed” as a test to determine “if Muslims are regressive or progressive.” Nowhere did he acknowledge the responsibility of Islam for the sorry state of women’s and gay rights in Muslim-majority nations, but rather blamed the West.

Later, Jasmin Zine, an associate professor of sociology at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, spoke about “‘Embedded Academics’ and the Construction of Islamist Youth Radicalism.” Based on her work “studying the 9/11 generation of Muslim youth in Canada,” Zine concluded that it was not jihadist ideology that led to their “radicalization,” but the “politics of empire,” “Islamophobia,” and the “racialized security industrial complex.” Engaging in a moral equivalency, she added the disclaimer:

I’m saying this not to create a space of innocence for violence or terror perpetrated by Muslim bodies, but rather to situate these acts within a broader historical context . . . such as the racial violence of colonialism, genocide, slavery, occupation, and apartheid.

On the subject of “embedded academics,” or those whose research aids the military or intelligence services in counterterrorism, Zine stated, “I’m interested in how academic research is used in service of neo-imperial goals.” Such goals, she contended, include “racial and religious profiling” and “using culture to apprehend for the purposes of domination and annihilation.”

Employing a term coined by Columbia University Iranian studies professor Hamid Dabashi in his book, Brown Skin, White Masks, Zine asserted that, “This work is supported by the ‘native informer,” adding that, “In Canada, we have Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, Raheel Raza who fall into that category.” Singling out liberal Muslim-Canadian writers and activists for condemnation revealed the radicalism of her core beliefs.

So, too, did Zine’s avowal not to become an “embedded intellectual.” Referring to the Canadian government’s Kanishka Project which, as noted at its website, “invests in research on . . . terrorism and counter-terrorism,” including “preventing and countering violent extremism,” she admitted that:

I’ve been asked to apply for this funding and I generally haven’t because it’s offered by Public Safety Canada [the national security branch of the Canadian government], the same people who are profiling our youth, who are keeping migrants away from our borders, who are limiting immigration.

If contributing to the public safety of one’s own country constitutes an “ethical dilemma,” as Zine described it, her conception of citizenship is profoundly flawed.

While this year’s conference may have failed to usher in the dawn of an officially recognized “Islamophobia studies,” it wasn’t for lack of effort. Soon after, IRDP announced the latest edition of its politicized bi-annual publication, the Islamophobia Studies Journal. Perhaps following UC Berkeley’s lead, Georgetown University recently launched the Bridges Initiative, a project of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding devoted to “protecting pluralism – ending Islamophobia.”

The subject is all the rage in the field of Middle East studies and throughout academe, which is doing its utmost to silence critics of the Islamic supremacism, systemic social problems, and total chaos plaguing the region. If and when “Islamophobia studies” becomes a reality, we can’t claim we didn’t see it coming.

Berkeley resident Rima Greene co-wrote this article with Cinnamon Stillwell, the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. Stillwell can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Investigation Exposes AMP Leaders’ Ties to Former U.S-Based Hamas-Support Network

1186IPT News, June 24, 2015:

Federal investigators shut down a massive Hamas-support network in the United States between 2001 and 2008, prosecuting some elements and freezing the assets of others.

But the Investigative Project on Terrorism finds that many of the same functions – fundraising, propaganda and lobbying ­– endure, now carried out by a group called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). The IPT investigation identified at least five AMP officials and speakers who worked in the previous, defunct network called the “Palestine Committee.” It was created by the Muslim Brotherhood to advance Hamas’ agenda politically and financially in the United States.

Last year, AMP joined a coalition of national Islamist groups in forming the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is among the other founding members (for more on that coalition, click here). CAIR and its founders appear in internal Palestine Committee records admitted into evidence during the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history.

Several Palestine Committee entities were created by Mousa Abu Marzook, who remains a top Hamas political leader. One branch, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), was convicted in 2008 along with five senior officials, of illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas. HLF’s role in the Palestine Committee was the chief fundraising arm for Hamas in the United States, prosecutors say.

“The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas,” said U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis during a sentencing hearing.

A flow chart of other Palestine Committee entities includes the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and a Northern Virginia think tank called the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). IAP served as a propaganda outlet, organizing rallies and publishing magazines with articles supporting Hamas. CAIR was added to a Palestine Committee meeting agenda shortly after its 1994 creation.

UASR published an academic journal and, prosecutors say, was “involved in passing Hamas communiques to the United States-based Muslim Brotherhood community and relaying messages from that community back to Hamas.”

Today, AMP routinely engages in anti-Israeli rhetoric, sponsors conferences that serve as a platform for Israel bashers, and openly approves “resistance” against the “Zionist state.” One AMP official acknowledged the goal is to “to challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel.”

An April 2014 AMP-sponsored conference in Chicago, for example, hosted Sabri Samirah, the former chairman of IAP, as a speaker. There was little to no talk about how to achieve peaceful coexistence.

“We are ready to sacrifice all we have for Palestine. Long Live Palestine,” Samirah said. “We have a mission here [in the U.S.] also to support the struggle of our people back there in order to achieve a free land in the Muslim world, without dictators and without corruption.”

The U.S. government had earlier deemed Samirah a “security risk” and he was barred from reentering the country for several years following a trip to Jordan in 2003. While in Jordan, he served as a spokesman for the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Islamic Action Front. The charges against Samirah were subsequently dropped and he returned to the U.S. last year.

Read more

Also see: