Homeland Security Chief Speaks At Hamas Front’s Confab; Shares Stage with Holocaust Denier, Muslim Brotherhood Leader

Screen-Shot-2016-09-04-at-8.48.38-PM

The DHS head told the group which worked to finance Hamas, “Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism.”

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Sept. 4, 2016:

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson — whose job it is to protect America from terrorists — spoke at the annual gathering of an Islamic group the Department of Justice considered a terrorist front on Saturday, where he heaped praise and unearned legitimacy on his dubious host.

After traveling to Chicago as a featured speaker at the Islamic Society of North America’s convention, Johnson took the stage and boasted, “I am the highest ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting Cabinet officer to ever speak in person before this convention.”

There’s a reason for that: ISNA has been identified by the U.S. Justice Department as a front group for the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian terrorist branch Hamas.

Still, Johnson said, “I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.”

U.S. prosecutors would argue that’s nothing to be proud of: In 2008, they listed Johnson’s host as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing trial in U.S. history. Despite repeated efforts to expunge its name from the list in court appeals, ISNA still remains on the list today.  Responding to an appeal by ISNA and other Muslim groups to remove it from the list, federal judge Jorge Solis ruled that, “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”

The federal terrorism case, U.S. vs. the Holy Land Foundation, resulted in guilty verdicts on all 108 felony counts against HLF and five of its leaders, who conspired to funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian terrorists, including suicide bombers.

ISNA was “intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas,” said U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks in a federal court document. “HLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account it held with ISNA.”

Jacks said HLF leaders sent “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to Hamas terrorists through bank accounts controlled by ISNA and its financial arm, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Hamas was designated a global terrorist group in 1995 by President Clinton.

Added Jacks: “The evidence introduced at trial established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood,” whose “ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder recognized Jacks for “exceptional service” in a 2010 Justice Department awards ceremony. So the Obama administration does not dispute the merits of the terrorism case in which ISNA was implicated.

Johnson said his appearance at the ISNA event was part of carrying out a “priority” set by President Obama to “build bridges to American Muslim communities.”

“Tonight I will not look at the large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens,” he said. “Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism.”

Instead, Johnson portrayed Muslims as victims of counterterrorism efforts, comparing the scrutiny of Muslim-Americans in terrorism cases to the historic discrimination suffered by African-Americans.

“I look out on this room of American Muslims and I see myself,” he said. “I see a similar struggle that my African-American ancestors have fought to win acceptance in this country.”

On a more personal note, Johnson compared the suspicion Muslim-Americans have fallen under — after Muslim-Americans launched recent deadly terrorism attacks in Boston, Chattanooga, Tenn., San Bernardino County, Calif., and Orlando — to the “McCarthyism” he said his grandfather experienced in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Charles S. Johnson was investigated for his ties to the Communist Party by the House Un-American Activities Committee following his hiring of known Communist operatives as president of Fisk University and defending them after they had been exposed as subversives. Johnson also faced questioning about his own membership in communist fronts.

In addition, ISNA’s convention program shows Johnson was listed to participate in a breakout session calling on Muslims to “turn the tide, confront our challenges and seize our opportunities.” The panel included Tariq Ramadan, who was formally barred from entering the U.S. in 2006 “for providing material support to a terrorist organization” — until, that is, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted the ban on his visa. Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and the son of the important Brotherhood leader Said Ramadan.

Also listed on the ISNA panel with Johnson was Khizr Khan, the Sharia law advocate who famously took the stage at the Democrat National Convention and complained about GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on immigration from Muslim nations tied to terrorism. In a treatise on the merits of Sharia law, Khan “gratefully acknowledged” Said Ramadan as a source expert on the subject.

In his speech, Johnson called Khan and his hijab-clad wife “American heroes.”

Also listed as “featured speakers” at ISNA’s 53rd annual convention were Jamal Badawi, a founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood who was listed among unindicted co-conspirators who helped HLF raise money for Hamas terrorists, and Muzammil Siddiqi, a Muslim cleric who currently chairs NAIT, the bank for the Brotherhood in America and the custodian of most of the mosques in America.

In 1995, Siddiqi defended jihad and praised suicide bombers: “Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor.”

During a 2000 anti-Israel rally outside the White House, Siddiqi openly threatened the US with violence if it continued to support Israel. “America has to learn … if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please, all Americans. Do you remember that? … If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come.”

Listed alongside DHS Secretary Johnson was Imam Yasir Qadhi, who has called the Holocaust “false propaganda” and described Jews as “crooked-nosed.”

Also see:

One of the early and most important indicators of the Brotherhood’s surreptitious expanding influence within the Intelligence Community [IC] showed up as a terminology scrub of official strategic documents dealing with counterterrorism. As Robert Spencer explains, the trend toward politically correct Global War on Terror (GWOT) language began with a misguided effort by Jim Guirard, the founder and president of the TrueSpeak Institute[40], a lobbying group influenced by input from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Guirard, senior U.S. government officials, either incompetent or unwilling to fulfill their professional duty to “know the enemy,” fell under the Brotherhood’s influence and began substituting a garbled lexicon of inaccurate Arabic vocabulary[41] in place of the actual words the enemy uses to describe what he does and why he does it.[42]

Defensive or Offensive Jihad: Classical Islamic Exegetes Vs. Contemporary Islamist’s Propagation

d9fc17f32b375e9eeed63a6c2d3200a4_L

Modern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, Jan. 24, 2016:

The main objective of Islam is to implement Allah’s divinely ordained religion on Universe in its entirety. It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated; to impose its belief system on all the nations, not to be imposed upon religiously; and to extend its power to the entire planet, not to be governed by infidels.

To achieve its objectives, Islam justifies all means by the use of Jihad against the infidels. Claiming they do it for the defense of their religion, the Muslim lands, and the Muslims’ honor, Jihad is permitted and lawfully justified.

The issue at stake is the deep gap between the horrific acts of terrorism coming from the World Islamic Jihad groups, and at the same time the propagation coming from the Islamists, Muslims and Westerners. Firstly, they claim that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, hijacked by extremists; secondly, that there is only one Jihad, the spiritual, that means to worship Allah; and thirdly that the Muslims are ordered to fight their enemies only defensively.

The stunned Free World witnesses the atrocious acts of terrorism, slaughtering and beheadings, and at the same time is being told that this is only retaliation to the Western colonialism and neo-imperialism, that these groups are only a small minority, weeds; that the threats of demolishing modernity and bringing it back to the 7th century are only because World Islamic Jihad wishes to defend its lands, its lives and honor against Western aggression. However, as Muslims see it, Islam is for everyone in the human race and should be expanded as a winning religion, until all human beings proclaim that “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.”

Jihad appears 41 times in 18 Sûwar in the Qur’ān, mostly coupled with fi-Sabīlillāh (in the way of Allah), which gives it a religious sanctioning. There are 527 verses in the Qur’an that show deep intolerance towards the infidels, and 109 verses straitfully call to fight the infidels, with all kinds of slaughtering. Contemporary world statistics is very clear and horrifying: over 90% of world terrorism and over 70% of world violence is perpetrated by Muslims. As for 2015, the statistics is stunning and dramatic: 451 of 452 suicide terror attacks in 2015 were perpetrated by Muslims. The remaining one in Turkey was perpetrated by a Russian woman. It is now investigated that she was radicalized by Wahhabi ideology.

Jihad is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam, and its merits are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works. It is sometimes called “the neglected duty” or “the forgotten obligation,” and regard as the sixth pillar of Islam. Lewis finds that “overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists… understood the obligation of Jihad in a military sense.” The elevation of Allah’s word cannot be achieved without Jihad (al-Baqarah, 2:251; al-Nisā’, 4:75; al-Anfâl, 8:39; al-Hadīd, 57:25).

All four Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence (Madhāhib al-Fiqh) and most of Islamic exegetes agree that the aims of Jihad are at removing the infidel’s oppression and injustice; eliminating the barriers to the spread of Allah’s truth; and establishing Islamic justice universally. There are four different ways in which the believer may fulfill his obligations: a) by his heart; b) by his tongue; c) by his hands; d) by the sword. They are aimed at establishing Allah’s rule on earth, until either the infidels embrace Islam; or submit to Islamic rule and agree to pay the tax poll, the Jizyah; or be killed in the battleground by Jihad war.

From the Islamic vantage point, all wars in Islam are religious; there is no concept of secular war” and Jihad is the only just war known. So, even according to Islamic Jurisdiction, one can wage the most aggressive war using atrocious evil deeds and still see it as a defensive war. Muslim legal theory states that Islam cannot exist together with idolatry. This is Shirk, meaning association of other gods and idols with Allah (al-Nisā’, 4:48, 166; al-Qasas, 28:17; al-Luqmān, 31:13; Yā Sīn, 36:74; al-Sāfāt, 37:158). According to a Hadīth related to Muhammad, he declared: “I am ordered to fight polytheists until they say there is no god but Allah.” Muslims are under the Qur’an Commandments’ obligation to slay the idolaters (al-Baqarah, 2:193; al-Taubah, 9:5; al-‘Imrān, 3:167-168; al-Nisā’, 4:84, 88-89). Terrorizing Islamic enemies is Allah’s commandment (Bukhāri, 1:24, 6:19).

There are four Qur’an “sword verses” relating to different types of people against whom Muslims are obliged to fight: a) Surah 9 verse 5: Fighting the Idolaters; b) Surah 9 verse 29: Fighting the People of the Book, Ahl al-Kitāb; c) Sûrah 9 verse 73: Fighting the Hypocrites and the infidels; and d) Surah 47 verse 4: Fighting the Enemies of Islam whoever they are and whenever they can be found. Most Islamic exegetes claim that Surah 9 verse 5 abrogates 114 or 124 other un-militant verses from Mecca.

The Shahīd is one who is killed and has achieved martyrdom in the battle of Jihad, and he is granted seven glorious gifts. Islamic exegetes take the Qur’an statements that the Shuhadā’ are alive living beside Allah and enjoying all his grace (al-Baqarah, 2:154; al-‘Imrān, 3:169).

Muslims view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective, by defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy, until Islam controls the whole world. They might come to terms with the enemy, provided that they should resume the Jihad after the expiration of the treaty. By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for the normal relations between Muslim and the infidels are not peaceful, but warlike.

In spite of the extensive agreement among Islamic classical exegetes based on the Sharī’ah, Islamists in the West emphasize the milder verses from the Qur’an, actually showing the abrogated `Meccan Islam’ in order to camouflage the living `Medina Islam’. They state that Islam is defensive and the fighting injunctions in the Qur’an are only in self-defense. They carefully hid the unconscionable and intolerable verses that litter from all the Medinan Sûwar by saying that ‘those verses were taken out of context’ and that they were not applicable to the infidels. Ali Cheragh brings verses from the Qur’an which he claims are limited or conditional, and “only two verses in the Qur’an containing an absolute or non-conditional injunction for making war against the un-believers.” however, for Cheragh it is very simple: wherever you find verses contradictory to his opinion about the interpretation of the Qur’an, it is ruled out as non-operative. Therefore, if Muslims summon their enemies to embrace Islam and they refuse to accept it, then all the Islamic wars are defensive by definition. All those who disagree with him are “wrong in history, chronology, as well as in understanding the general scope of the Qur’an and the tenor of the Sûwar.”

Mahmoud Shaltut comments are also indicative: “People would do well to learn the Qur’an rules with regard to fighting, its causes and its ends, and recognize the wisdom of the Qur’an. The role of the Qur’an is to summon humanity to submit to Allah, as the natural process. As about war verses, they all deal with the defense of the Islamic community, and are fully legitimate.

Jamal Badawi, a member of the Fiqh Council of North America, claims that Jihad is a struggle against inner desires and a fight against social injustices. Combative jihad is not only restricted in terms of what may or may not justify it, and also strictly regulated. War should not be resorted against peaceful and just but to stop aggression or oppression. There must be a declaration of war by a legitimate authority after due consultation; noncombatants should not be hurt; and Prisoners of war and the injured must be treated humanely.

The main of the Muslim propagators is to clearly lie and mislead the ignorant infidels of the meaning of Jihad, claiming it means the spiritual struggle of the believer to Allah. This is untrue. j-h-d, on the first Arabic conjugation, means indeed to make efforts, to strive. However, Jihad and Mujāhadah are the noun of the third conjugation, Jā-h-d, which means to fight, to make war against. Muslim propagators know Arabic and they just evade the truth. They also ignore the physical military aspect of Qitāl, as fighting and slaughtering to make Islam prevail over all other religions and governmental systems.

Indeed, these statements are pure fraud propagation. Of all the Islamic duties (A’māl), Jihad is considered the noblest, next to belief (Imān) and prayer (Salāh). The one who died without waging Jihad against the infidels, nor intended to fight Jihad in the way of Allah in his heart, he died like a hypocrite (Munāfiq). From its beginning, the Islamic movement had struggled aggressively to subdue religiously, to conquer politically, and to expand territorially other peoples and to bring the Islamic mission to all mankind. This was an offensive Jihad proper, and nobody recognized any other kind of Jihad.

Read more

Former CAIR-Canada Official Represents Egyptian Brotherhood

Wael Haddara, a former official with CAIR-Canada and senior adviser to Deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist with the Muslim Brotherhood's party

Wael Haddara, a former official with CAIR-Canada and senior adviser to Deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist with the Muslim Brotherhood’s party

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro. June 23, 2015:

Media coverage of the U.S. State Department’s decision to comply with Egypt’s request not to meet with a Muslim Brotherhood delegation this month missed an important point: That delegation included a former official from the Canadian wing of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and he has connections to several other Canadian Islamist groups.

The Muslim Brotherhood delegation visited the U.S. to advocate against the Egyptian government. The Brotherhood announced a new violent phase in January shortly after its representatives met with State Department officials. Brotherhood media outlets are calling for acts of violence in Egypt and against the interests of countries that are friendly towards President El-Sisi.

Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy writes that the Brotherhood delegation included Wael Haddara, a Canadian who served as a senior campaign adviser to former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s official candidate.

Haddara claims he is not a member of the Brotherhood but the group’s followers often play a game of semantics with what it means to be a “member.” He says he was a media advisor to Morsi before he launched his presidential campaign.

Haddara was on the board of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly known as CAIR-Canada. CAIR is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and was banned as a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates last year. Two other directors besides Haddara are known Muslim Brotherhood supporters. He left CAIR-Canada/NCCM in 2012 to work for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

CAIR-Canada changed its name in 2013 and tried to make the organization sound like it is unrelated to CAIR in America. However, the group’s own documents prove the association of the two groups. For example, CAIR’s press releases have referred to its “office in Canada,” and a 2003 affidavit by CAIR-CAN’s chairperson said CAIR “has direct control over the character and quality of all activities of [CAIR-CAN] including the use of its trademark and trade name.”

Haddara was also the president of the Muslim Association of Canada. The Point de Bascule blog, a website that closely monitors Muslim Brotherhood activity in Canada, found that the Muslim Association of Canada’s website openly stated it was pursuing the Brotherhood agenda in 2005.

Read more 

NJ Islamic Center to host Muslim Brotherhood Shari’ah event

3506095By Cultural Jihad, April 30. 2015:

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) has a history of being associated with Islamic radicals promoting terror …

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) advises that on May 2, 22015, the Islamic Center of Passaic County (Paterson, New Jersey) will host “Understanding Shari’ah: Sacred Principles for Human Development” in collaboration with the Fiqh Council of North America.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch notes the following about the council:

The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) is an organization comprised of Islamic scholars associated with the Global Muslim Brotherhood. As FCNA itself acknowledges, the organization grew out of the activities of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and later became affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), itself an outgrowth of MSA. FCNA maintains a relationship with other similar bodies in the Global Muslim Brotherhood including the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) as well as the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Saudi Arabia.Two individuals known to have been ECFR members, Jamal Badawi and Solah Soltan, are also known to have been associated with the FCNA.

Most of scheduled speakers for the May 2nd event are from U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organizations:

  • Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi (ISNA, NAIT)
  • Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah (ICNA)
  • Dr. Ihsan Bagby (ISNA)
  • Br. Azhar Azeez (President of ISNA)
  • Sh. Mohammad Qatanani (HAMAS)
  • Dr. Zainab Alwani (IIIT and daughter of MB leader Taha Al-Alwani)
  • Sh. Yasir Fahmy
  • Prof. Ebrahim Moosa

ISNA – Islamic Society of North America
ICNA – Islamic Circle of North America
NAIT – North American Islamic Trust
IIIT – International Institute of Islamic Thought

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) has a history of being associated with Islamic radicals promoting terror.  A 2013 Clarion Project reports:

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) was founded by Mohammad El-Mezain, who was convicted in 2008 for fundraising for Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation. It is led today by Imam Mohammad Qatanani, whose deportation is sought by the Department of Homeland Security.

Muhammad al-Hanooti was an imam at ICPC from 1990 to 1995.  He was president of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a pro-Hamas organization and Muslim Brotherhood front organization, from 1984 to 1986.

… [FULL ARTICLE]

In January 2014, the ICPC hosted Syrian Sheik Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi as part of an 11-city tour across America and co-sponsored by the Syrian American Council (SAC).   The Sheik al-Nabulsi supports suicide bombings and has labeled all Jews as combatants.

In 2014 we  reported on the lobbying efforts of SAC on Capitol Hill and its ties to the MB.

Who Really Ought to be Banned? Geert Wilders or Terror Supporters?

Carson_Ellison-e1400763054875CSP, by Kyle Shideler, April 29, 2015:

Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Andre Carson (D-IN) have called for Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders to be banned from the country, in a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry. The two Muslim lawmakers allege that Geert Wilder’s strong stance against the immigration influx of primarily Muslim migrants to Holland and his opposition to Islamization equates to a violation of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act.

On its face the assertion is patently absurd. As Freedom House reports, the Netherlands maintains nearly perfect scores for political and civil liberties. Wilders is a lawmaker in his native Netherlands, and can be expected to weigh in on issues of importance to his constituents, which is exactly what the Dutch court found in 2011 when he was acquitted on charges that his comments regarding Islamic immigration rose to the level of criminal hate speech.

In fact in the Netherlands the violence has been directed almost solely in the opposite direction, with the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh for their speech deemed critical of Islam. Wilders himself lives under constant threat of death. In 2009, the Dutch security services reported that Wilders personally received two-thirds of the 428 death threats against all Dutch politicians.

In comparison, Carson and Ellison both wrote letters in praise of the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for their 16th annual dinner, which featured attendees from such repressive states as Sudan, Qatar, UAE and Oman, all of whom rank as “Not Free” on Freedom Houses’ reports. Sudan in particular is ruled by an indicted war criminal, Omar Bashir, known for its genocidal campaign against the predominately christian South Sudanese and against ethnic minorities throughout Sudan including Darfur. There’s no indication Carson or Ellison complained to CAIR about these states’ representatives.

Indeed, Reps. Ellison and Carson are more likely to be sharing the stage with the kinds of individuals who really ought to be banned from the United States.

For example, the Department of Homeland Security was ordered to place Canadian Muslim Brotherhood leader and vocal Hamas and Hezbollah supporter Jamal Badawi on a hands off list, despite the urging of DHS officers who called for him to be blocked from entry. Badawi has publically expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and sat on the board of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) that issued a 2004 fatwa permitting the murder of Americans in Iraq. Badawi was listed as an unindicted Co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial which provided funds to the terrorist group Hamas, whose charter calls for the extermination of the Jewish people.

In 2014, Jamal Badawi and Rep. Andre Carson shared a stage at the 39th joint conventionof the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). MAS is recognized by federal prosecutors as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, and ICNA is considered to be a front for the Pakistani Islamistorganization Jamaat-e-Islami. The Muslim American Society has been listed as a terrorist organization in the U.A.E.

Also on the stage was Tariq Ramadan, a key European Muslim Brotherhood leader who was banned from the United States for his financial support for charities tied to Hamas until the Obama Administration reversed the decision. In 2013 Carson’s office also arranged for a room on Capitol Hill for an event by the Egyptian Freedom Foundation, a group close to the Muslim Brotherhood which was attended by convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizer Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian was deported from the United States two years later.

Rep. Keith Ellison has similar associations. Ellision also shared a stage with Badawi, in 2011 in Minnesota, and the two were both highlight speakers at the 50th Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention in 2013. ISNA was also listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF funding trial and in that case Federal Judge Jorge Solis wrote that the government provided “ample evidence” for connecting ISNA to Hamas. Ellison has also shared the stage with Tariq Ramadan which he did during a Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) event in 2010. Ellison also expressed support for Sami Al-Arian, urging listeners of a Tampa Bay radio station to support al-Arian during the PIJ organizer’s terrorism trial.

Ellison and Carson are pretending that open and honest debate by an elected official about the role of Islamic immigration to the Netherlands is on par with incitement to commit violence.

Yet, when it comes to those who actually incite violence, or provide material support for terrorism, they are far more likely to be in the United States at Ellison and Carson’s invitation than against their objections.

Muslim Scholar Blames Porn for Jihad

by John Rossomando
IPT News
December 17, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MPAC, Hamas-linked CAIR, ISNA, Muslim leaders condemn Islamic State

 

Jihad Watch, By Robert Spencer:

Here yet again we see Muslims condemning an act of jihad terrorism — in this case, the murder of James Foley by jihadis of the Islamic State — without addressing the Qur’anic case justifying the atrocity. Consequently, it is hard to see how any member or supporter of the Islamic State could watch this video and be convinced that what the Islamic State is doing is wrong on Islamic grounds. Most of it is just platitudes.

There is one scrap of a substantive argument when Maher Hathout says that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. Islamic State jihadis, however, would almost certainly respond that Foley was not innocent: he was an Infidel and a citizen of a state that the Islamic State has already announced it is at war with. The Islamic State has already warned that it would target American civilians; this would “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60). They can point to this hadith: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4321) “They are from them” — i.e., the women and children of the polytheists are from the polytheists and can lawfully be killed.

Ironically, Hathout warns against people who quote Qur’an verses to show the Islamic State’s justification for their action. He says that people who quote the Qur’an in this way don’t understand the nuances of Arabic or Islam. He does not, however, quote a single Qur’an verse himself to show how the Islamic State is wrong. Nor does he give us any specific explanation of how the Islamic State or the “Islamophobes” who are supposedly all over the media are misquoting the Qur’an and misrepresenting Islam.

The other substantive point comes in a statement from Hamas-linked CAIR: “The Geneva Conventions, the Quran – Islam’s revealed text – and the traditions (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad all require that prisoners not be harmed in any way.” And yet a manual of Islamic has this:

As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first, to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, “When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [Islam] then strike [their] necks” (Qur’an sura 47, verse 4) (Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance).

Hamas-linked CAIR does not explain how Qur’an 47:4 does not justify the beheading of Infidels. Nor do they explain how al-Mawardi and other Islamic jurists got the idea that killing prisoners was an option permissible in Islam. And so here again, there is nothing in CAIR’s statement that would change the mind of a supporter of the Islamic State. And without that, these condemnations are worthless.

Note also that appearing in the MPAC video is Jamal Badawi, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas jihad terror funding case.