“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

George Mason University Creates A “Safe Space” for Terror Supporters; Throws Anti-Jihad Activist in Jail

unnamed-1

After repeatedly searching for weapons, the police slapped handcuffs on them, targeting them for the content of their work.

CounterJihad, by Kyle Shideler, November 16, 2016:

Oleg Atbashian—or “Red Square,” as he is known to fans at the popular satirical website The People’s Cube—knows what it looks like when dictators crackdown on freedom of speech. As a former Soviet dissident who once agitated for the release of Andrei Sakharov, Oleg notes that he doesn’t “scare easily.” But now he faces five years in prison for his latest poster campaign, a fate he never faced in the Soviet Union.

Oleg, whose artwork frequently utilizes soviet-style aesthetics to criticize the totalitarian impulses of leftist and Islamist groups, was working on such a campaign at the campus of George Mason University. His sponsor, The David Horowitiz Freedom Center, sought to use his art to comment on the ongoing National Conference of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a rabidly anti-Israel student group.

But Students for Justice in Palestine isn’t your average student group. It’s organized and supported by American Muslim for Palestine (AMP), a group closely linked to Hamas terror finance groups, according to the congressional testimony of Terrorism analyst Jonathan Schanzer.

This year, the SJP’s early November two-day conference at George Mason was a source of debate between pro-Israel and anti-Israel student groups. The first day art campaign was uneventful, as Oleg placed stickers and handed out flyers.

On the second day, however, they realized that there were problems. According to Oleg, they overheard talk that campus police were on the look out for “suspicious” characters distributing flyers. Concerned but confident in the protection of the First Amendment, he proceeded with the project.

After successfully hanging several posters, utilizing a basic water-soluble wheat and water paste, together with commercially available stickers, Oleg and his partner were suddenly accosted by George Mason campus police, pulled over in their vehicle, detained and arrested.

According to Oleg, after repeatedly searching them for weapons, the police slapped handcuffs on them, and immediately targeted them for the content of their work,

My friend and I tried to be as friendly and cooperative as the situation allowed, but that had no effect. We were ordered to sit on the curb, as Officer Daniels told us that the content of our posters was violent and disturbing to some students, especially the one with the Hamas terrorist standing in pools of blood over his dead victims. Such interpretation flipped our message on its head entirely, turning it from sympathy for the victims of violence into a threat of violence.

Since offending the sensibilities of millennial college students is not yet an actual crime, the officers charged Oleg and his confederate with a Class 6 felony, “destruction of property worth over $2500”. The GMU campus police alleged (incorrectly) that the mixture used to hang the posters and stickers was “superglue,” and thus caused irreparable damage.

Oleg maintains the stickers and posters could be removed with a good rain and perhaps a little “Goo Gone,” solution and gladly volunteered to do exactly that.

Instead, Oleg and his partner spent the rest of the morning in the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center and were brought before a magistrate who ordered the artists’ bail set at $8,000. Now Oleg and his partner face up to five years in prison for the act of hanging protest posters.

It might seem surprising that a university—supposedly the bastion of free speech—would aggressively target an artist trying to get his anti-terrorism message out. But then, when it comes to such issues, George Mason University is no ordinary campus.

Not only did George Mason University host the Students for Justice in Palestine National Conference, but George Mason University was listed as #3 on a list of “The 10 Worst Anti-Semitic Campuses.”

unnamed-4

One of George Mason’s associate professors, Noura Erakat, is a founding member of the Students for Justice in Palestine group. Her husband, Bassam Haddad, is the University’s head of Middle East Studies. Both are active within the Students for Justice in Palestine group.

But George Mason may have financial interests in play as well. Beginning in 2008, George Mason University received the gift of $1.5 million dollars from the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a group whom federal agents say was tied to terror finance. The money was in order to establish an Islamic Studies department within their college of humanities.

The little known International Institute of Islamic Thought was founded by U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood members in the early 1980s to promote the idea of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, and to oversee a renaissance in Islamic thought that would lead to the “Islamization” of western social sciences.

But the group had an even darker side as well. According to the affidavit of a federal law enforcement officer, in 1991 IIIT transferred $50,000 to the World and Islamic Studies Enterprise, a front group established by Sami Al-Arian, the convicted organizer for the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. According to a letter from then IIIT President Taha Jaber Alwani told to Al-Arian:

I would like to affirm these feelings to you directly on my behalf, and on behalf of all my brothers, Drs. Abdel-Hamid [AbuSulayman], Jamal [Barzinji], Ahmad [Totonji], and Hisham [Al-Talib], and, at the same time, affirm to you that when we make a commitment to you, or try to offer, we do it as a group regardless of the party or façade you use the donation for.

Speaking IIIT’s leaders, a federal law enforcement officer wrote, “Based on the evidence in this affidavit, I know that they are ardent supporters of [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] and HAMAS. They have repeatedly voiced their ideological support. I have seen repeated instances of their financial support, and believe that they have acted to conceal many other instances of their financial support.”

Of those named above, Barzinji and Al-Talib were actually present in 2008 to hand George Mason University the $1.5 million check.  Also present was Yacub Mirza, another IIIT member, College of Humanites and Social Sciences Advisory Board Member, and Trustee of the George Mason University Foundation.

An FBI report from 1988 notes Mirza as being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. He played a central role in establishing the network of for-profits and non-profits that federal law enforcement said represented a classic example of money laundering techniques seeking to disguise the origin and destination of the funds the organizations like IIIT received.

Is it any wonder that Oleg Atbashian’s campaign, featuring the hashtag #StopCampusSupport4Terrorism, wasn’t welcome at GMU? Could it be that George Mason University may have monetary reasons for having its students remain blissfully unaware about who’s really behind a viciously anti-Israel student group?

For himself, Oleg lays the blame at the feet of old-fashioned political correctness, saying,

When political correctness comes into play, morality becomes blurry and justice switches the polarity. As a result, terrorist supporters ended up having a safe space and vigorous protection, while their non-violent opponents were subjected to brutal force, thrown in jail, and were robbed blind by the system.

As a satirist, it seems likely that Oleg sees the irony of being arrested for posting political posters and handing out “disturbing flyers” on the campus of a university named after the father of the Bill of Rights.

But as a Soviet dissident, he no doubt also recognizes that the repression of freedom begins when the organs of enforcement are used unequally in order to punish those who raise uncomfortable questions.

unnamed-3

Virginia-Based MB Think Tank To Host Former MIT Imam with Terror Ties

1905797995Center for Security Policy, by Kideler, Oct. 26, 2015:

The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood founded think-tank in Herndon Virginia, has worked assiduously to disguise their founders and employees shadowy past.  IIIT has so in part by touting their association with well respected U.S. Academia including Georgetown University, and George Mason University. IIIT even has a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. But according to federal law enforcement, IIIT’s founders provided both ideological and financial support for terrorist groups including including Hamas, Palestinian Jihad and Al Qaeda.

But IIIT may be letting the mask drop by hosting an October 29th event with Imam Suheil Laher. Laher was once the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Muslim Chaplain, oversaw the MIT Muslim Students Association, and gave sermons as the Islamic Society of Boston, which has numerous documented terror ties. Laher is now an academic dean for Fawakih, which describes itself “one of the United State’s leading and most well respected Quranic Arabic programs.” Fawakih’s Herndon Virginia chapter, where Laher teaches, is held at Fairfax Institute, another name for IIIT.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance this year published a high-quality video about Laher and his history.

While in Boston, Laher served as the President of CARE International, AKA The Kifah Refugee Center, an Islamic charity founded by Al Qaeda Co-Founder Abdullah Azzam. During his time with CARE International, Laher raised funds for the Chechen terrorist group responsible for the Beslan School Massacre. Laher also openly published tracts and sermons where he called for jihad:

When the Muslim lands are being attacked, and the Muslims are being raped and killed, the only solution prescribed by Allah is jihad. Jihad is for all times. […] Jihad does not stop. Those of us who have not yet managed to go and physically help our brothers and sisters should support […] our mujahidin brethren with prayer, with money, with clothes, by taking care of their families, and at some point in person. Otherwise, we must face the wrath of Allah.

Laher would personally endorse Azzam’s call for jihad, according to a document found by the FBI in a raid on a storage facility. In the document Laher wrote:

“The martyred shaykh and mujahid, `Abdullah’ Azzam (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) dispels some common misconceptions/misgivings about the practical realization of jihad today. The extract following is from `Al-Difa’ an `Aradi al-Muslimeen’ (Defence of the Muslim Lands). Please note that the text is copyrighted. With all due respect to other shaykhs, the fatwa of a shaykh living in the midst of a situation must be given priority to someone speaking from the outside. In addition, those who perform ribat and jihad are in a spiritually sharpened state of mind, which makes their fatawa very weighty and valuable. Thus, whenever an issue was ambiguous or enigmatic for people, they would say, `Ask the people of the frontline, for they are the closest of people to Allah.’”

Laher was at MIT at the same  time as convicted Al Qaeda operative Aafia Siddiqui. Siddiqui fired on U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and was found in possession of plans for a mass casualty attack in the United States, including information regarding a radioactive “dirty bomb”. Siddiqui worked together with Laher, both at the MIT MSA and Care International. According to U.S. Prosecutors Siddiqui trained for her jihad in the United States, together with other Al-Kifah members.

Now residing in the Washington area, Laher’s bio for his IIIT presentation proudly notes his work on “The Law of Jihad” in the publication “The State We Are In,” a collection of Islamic scholars writings on terrorism, including Abdullah Bin Bayyah. Bin Bayyah is the former deputy head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, who co-signed a 2004 IUMS fatwa supporting the killing of Americans in Iraq.  Laher’s presence is yet another reminder that the willingness of today’s Western academics to hobnob with the Islamist ideologues of IIIT does not preclude their continued involvement in supporting and indoctrinating for jihad.

2015.10.29_5663

Bush was to Meet Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates on 9/11

bush-nihad-awad-muslim-brotherhood

By Ryan Mauro:

The Clarion Project has received White House documents that show that President Bush was scheduled to meet with Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood on September 11, 2001. In a remarkably ironic turn of events, it was Islamist terrorism that stopped the meeting with Islamist radicals at the White House from happening.

The never-before-published documents substantiate the assertions that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood gained access to the highest levels of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, partly due to the help of Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. The files help tell a shocking story of an Islamist political influence operation that reached the highest levels of the U.S. government.

The Center for Security Policy has a meticulously documented dossier on the topic, including first-hand testimony from the think-tank’s president. The Clarion Project has also told the story, including the history of Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute and its links to Islamists including the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The White House documents show that President George W. Bush was scheduled to meet with U.S.-based Islamists on September 11, 2001 after a previous meeting on March 5 was cancelled.

Bush and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham would meet privately with a select group of six Muslim and Arab “supporters” at 3:05 PM in the White House Oval Office, including two officials from Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute. Every single one of those six has strong connections to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

This would be followed by a larger meeting with 16 activists who are described as representatives of the top 12 Muslim and Arab organizations, including four created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Also in attendance would have been 7 additional White House officials; three of which have served as officials with Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute.

We will examine the activists with this treasured high-level access in a moment. The purpose of the scheduled meetings with President Bush on 9/11 must first be understood to appreciate their significance.

Islamist Engagement with the GOP and Bush Campaign

The topics to be addressed in this meeting and with the larger group were classified evidence, racial profiling and the Middle East conflict. The agenda also emphasized that Muslims and Arabs are victimized by negative stereotypes, showing that the Islamists’ “Islamophobia” strategy was well underway before the 9/11 attacks.

The reference to “classified evidence” is important to be put into context.

Sami Al-Arian and the Islamist lobby successfully pressured the Bush presidential campaign and the Republican party into opposing the Clinton Administration’s use of classified evidence to detain immigrants on national security grounds. Al-Arian was later convicted of being a secret Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operative. The practice was responsible for the detainment of Al-Arian’s brother-in-law and fellow Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative, Mazen al-Najjar.

Al-Arian was described as a “master manipulator” by the judge during his trial. The indictment of Al-Arian says he and his co-conspirators “did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights.”

A document in his possession shows he ordered colleagues to “collect information from those relatives and friends who work in sensitive positions in government.”

Al-Arian’s operation, by his own admission, was essentially one with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity whose offices were raided in 2002 as part of a terrorism investigation. He later refused to testify to a grand jury investigating the group.

[Also see: IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank by Kyle Shideler]

The FBI was warned in 1987 by an informant in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood that IIIT was secretly working through “political action front groups” and planned “to peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.” According to former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, the group decided that accusations of “Islamophobia” would be thrown at opponents standing in their way.

IIIT is linked to the Islamic Free Market Institute founded by Grover Norquist. The St. Petersburg Times observed that “more than 50 targets of the raid were people and organizations connected to Norquist and the Islamic Institute.”

Al-Arian honored prominent Republicans including Norquist for joining his political causes including a ban on the classified evidence practice. Al-Arian repeatedly met with Norquist’s group, had a photo-op with then-Governor Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign and visited the White House.

The other key player was Abdurrahman Alamoudi, founder and board member of the American Muslim Council (AMC) that also lobbied heavily for Al-Arian’s cause. Alamoudi was later convicted on terrorism-related charges and was specifically linked to a Libyan regime plot to assassinate the king of Saudi Arabia.

AMC was part of a coalition named the American Muslim Political Coordination Council-Political Action Committee that endorsed Bush’s candidacy. The coalition said Bush “promised to address Muslim concerns on domestic and foreign policy issues.” It said one of the major reasons for the endorsement was the “accessibility” they had and his adoption of their position on the secret evidence issue.

The Bush presidential campaign returned a $1,000 donation from Alamoudi after he was videotaped declaring his support for the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups. He later wrote in a letter from prison that  was featured in the Grand Deception documentary that, “I am, I hopestill a member of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S.A.”

You can read more about the story of Islamist-GOP engagement and the Islamic Free Market Institute during this period here.

Bush’s First Meeting with Six “Supporters”

The Bush Administration documents do not specify what qualified the six attendees at the 3:05 meeting as “supporters” but presumably it was their work for the presidential campaign. The Islamist Money in Politics project shows that the Islamist lobby financially favored the Bush candidacy in 2000.

***

Conclusion

The Bush White House documents obtained by the Clarion Projectare shocking in how they display the historical irony of President Bush’s scheduled meeting with terrorist-allied Islamists on 9/11 of all days, but there are equally-shocking broader conclusions to be made.

The episode is reflective of a successful Islamist political influence operation and a seriously flawed vetting process that continues until present, with the Islamists at President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism Summit and the choice of Muslim Brotherhood promoter Mohamed Elibiary as a senior Department of Homeland Security advisor serving as two examples.

The conclusion should not be that everyone involved is a secret Islamist conspirator or terrorist. It’s that skillful Islamists use relationships with persons of influence in both parties to promote themselves, advance their causes and impact policy.

On the Glenn Beck Show on March 26, Norquist said he formed the Institute to promote a progressive reformation in Islam that is more pro-American and against Sharia governance. Yet, it worked closely with the Islamists who are the exact opposite of that.

Norquist said he probably didn’t even know what the Muslim Brotherhood was at the time. It’s very hard to believe that anyone involved in Islamic issues would be ignorant of that very basic fact. The Islamism of many of Norquist’s partners was already public knowledge then and was almost definitely expressed in their private dealings.

If Norquist was ignorant then, he certainly he is not now. Unknowing partners of these Islamists should renounce them and detail their dealings so as to prevent them in the future. They should thank those who exposed them and make up for their errors by embracing Muslim activists who stand against Islamism.

To this day, Norquist has not expressed regret about working with the Islamists. He has not even conceded that their histories are unsettling. He acts as if the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t even exist and ridicules those who say it does.

There is a bi-partisan problem when it comes to mistaking Islamists for “moderates.” The fight against Islamic extremism requires that those who made such mistakes wake up and act to correct their errors by challenging Islamism.

The treatment of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists as treasured “moderates” must come to an end.

Much more at Clarion Project

IIIT: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank

IIITCSP, By Kyle Shideler:

Founded in 1981 following a summit by high level Muslim Brotherhood leaders, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) is the leading Islamist think tank in the world. Despite a federal investigation into its ties to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fundraising, members of IIIT continue to operate among the Washington policy community. This addition to the Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series examines the founding of IIIT, its disturbing ideology calling for “the Islamization of knowledge” and “civilizational battle,” and its troubling ties to terrorist organizations.

Read the paper at the link below:

Kyle Shideler and David Daoud: International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT): The Muslim Brotherhood’s Think Tank | Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series | July 28, 2013 (PDF 14 pages, 245kB)

Brotherhood Influence Op Inside U.S. Academia: Success

Hartford Seminary

By Ryan Mauro:

In 1988, an FBI informant warned that the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood front, was focusing on getting “peacefully get inside” U.S. academia. Proof of that mission’s success comes in the form of Hartford Seminary, a non-denominational, interfaith graduate school with extensive Islamist ties.

IIIT’s latest newsletter has a photo of Dr. Heidi Hadsell, President of Hartford Seminary and Dr. Vanda MacMurty, chairman of Hartford Seminary’s board, visiting IIIT headquarters in Virginia on April 21.

The photo shows them standing next to IIIT leaders Yaqub Mirza, Jamal Barzinji, Abubaker Al-Shinghieti, Ermin Sinanovic and Hisham Altalib. Several of these IIIT officials are the original founders of the organization when it was set up as a Muslim Brotherhood front.

The picture is a symbol of the close relationship that IIIT has established with Hartford Seminary, including a $1 million donation to endow a faculty chair in Islamic Chaplaincy at the school in March 2013. Separately, Hartford received $17,500 in 2008 from an Iranian government front.

In July 2012, Dr. Hadsell spoke at an IIIT fundraiser where she thanked it for its assistance “particularly in the area of Imam training and education, and the study of Christian-Muslim relations in general.” She was also booked to speak at a scheduled IIIT event at the Woodrow Wilson Center on December 9 that was cancelled.

IIIT Executive Director Abubaker Al-Shingieti is a Hartford Seminary trustee.

Much more at Clarion Project