Minneapolis: Terror suspect’s attorney departs over Muslim clerk’s jihad preaching

Creeping Sharia, April  4, 2016:

via: Attorney defending Mpls. man departs ISIS terrorism case | Minnesota Public Radio News

A federal judge Friday granted a defense attorney’s motion to withdraw from representing a young Minneapolis man who faces charges of plotting to join ISIS.

In a packed court hearing in Minneapolis, P. Chinedu Nwaneri, defense attorney for Mohamed Farah, said he asked to be taken off the case altogether “to stop further distractions in this matter,” apparently referring to questions surrounding the participation on his legal team of a well-known Twin Cities Muslim religious leader.

Last week, federal prosecutors notified Farah’s attorneys that they had evidence that a cooperating ISIS defendant learned “the manner in which to pray on a battlefield where one is engaged in jihad” from Nwaneri’s employee, Imam Hassan Mohamud, who was working as a law clerk in Farah’s defense.

ali-mohamud

Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis told prosecutors to file a motion asking whether there were grounds to disqualify Mohamud and Farah’s attorneys, Nwaneri and Murad Mohammed, a co-counsel in Farah’s case.

The government’s allegation was followed by even more concerns about Farah’s defense team. On Thursday, a court filing by an attorney of another young man charged in the case, wrote that Imam Mohamud tried to influence his client’s family to get their son to reject a plea deal and to take his case to trial, raising ethical questions.

On Friday, Mohamud told MPR News he never gave other defendants’ families legal advice.

In his motion hours before today’s hearing, Nwaneri wrote: “It is not in doubt that these events detract defense counsel from concentrating solely on the defense of the various defendants and create future uncertainty in this complex matter.”

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis granted Nwaneri’s motion. Farah would continue to be represented by defense attorney Murad Mohammed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Docherty said the cooperating defendant, Abdirizak Warsame, was secretly recorded by an FBI informant on April 2, 2015 while talking to another man in the alleged conspiracy.

The men were talking about how to pray on the battlefield, he said.

“This was not a discussion of an abstract theological concept.” Docherty added the prayer discussion got them “psyched up to go to Syria” to join ISIS.


Much more background on Sheik Mohamud here.

Also see:

In 2015 the Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota produced a 61 page booklet titled My Neighbor is Muslim, Exploring the Muslim Faith.  The purpose of the booklet was to enable Lutherans to learn about Islam in order to better understand their “new neighbors” who were arriving as refugees.

On p. 3 of the booklet we find an endorsement by, and a picture of, Imam Hassan Ali Mohamud, the founder, Imam, and Director of the Minnesota Da’wah Institute.

What is Sharia?

shariah dem

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 7, 2016:

Earlier this week, UTT published the first in a series of articles about sharia (Islamic law) entitled “Understanding the Threat” which amplified the fact that sharia is the focal point and driving force behind everything jihadis across the globe are doing.

Today, we will breakdown what sharia actually is and its origins.

All Islamic sources define Islam as a “complete way of life governed by sharia.”

According to the most widely used text book in Islamic junior high schools in the United States (What Islam is All About), “The Shari’ah is the ideal path for us to follow.”

There are two sources of sharia:  the Koran and the Sunnah.

Islam is the system of life under sharia.  Those who submit to Islam and the sharia are called “Muslims.”

The Koran (also Quran or Qur’an)

According to Islam, the Koran is the “uncreated word of Allah,” who is the Islamic god, and the contents of the Koran were revealed to the Prophet Mohammad between the years 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. in the Arabian peninsula through an angel.  The Koran has 114 chapters or “suras” which are arranged in no particular order.  They are generally arranged by size from largest to smallest.  However, the first chapter is approximately the smallest, and the sizes of the chapter vary so this is not a perfect rule.

The Islamic scholars have authoritatively listed the chapters of the Koran in chronological order.  This is very important because Allah said in the Koran (2:106, 16:101) that whatever comes chronologically last overrules anything that comes before it.  This is called “abrogation.”  Allah revealed his message to Mohammad progressively over time.  By the time it was all revealed, what came last was the most important and overrules anything that was said earlier.

“It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that though mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages.” (Koran 17:106)

So, for instance “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256) is overruled or abrogated by “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him” (Koran 3:85) which is why we get “Take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends…” (Koran 5:51).  Chapter 5 in the Koran is the last chronologically to speak about relations between Muslim and non-Muslims.

Chapter 9 is the last to discuss jihad.

“Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)

Furthermore, every verse in the Koran has been legally defined in the Tafsir.  The most authoritative Tafsir scholar in Islam is a man named Ibn Kathir.  For instance, the Tafsir defines a portion of verse 9:5 above as follows:  “This is the Ayah (verse) of the sword…’and capture them’ (means) executing some and keeping some as prisoners…’and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush’ (means) do not wait until you find them.  Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them.  This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”  (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 4, pages 375-376)

Tafsir

The Tafsir is taught at mosques in the United States on a regular basis.  There is no such thing in Islam as a “personal interpretation” of a particular verse of the Koran.

The Sunnah

The Sunnah is the example of the Prophet Mohammad who is considered the al Insan al Kamil in Islam – the most perfect example of a man.  If Mohammad did it or said it, it is an example for all Muslims to follow for all time.

His words and deeds are recorded in the authoritative biographies (Sira) and the collection of the Hadith or stories about him. In Islam there are many Hadith scholars, but the most authoritative are by men named Bukhari and Muslim.

The Prophet said, “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.”  Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926. Volume: Jihad; Chapter: Fighting the Jews

The above quote from Mohammad is doctrine in Islam.  Mohammad said it and it is authoritatively recorded by Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam.  This is why the above quote is not only in the Hamas Covenant, it is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools.

Example:  Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl?  Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was six (6) years old and consummated the relationship when she was nine (9). Mohammad is the perfect example, therefore, it is a capital crime in Islam to suggest this is wrong behavior.

The Koran, as understood with the Koranic concept of abrogation, and the Sunnah form the “Sharia” or the way for all Muslims to follow. This is a totalitarian legal system and cannot be altered or amended because it comes from Allah and was exemplified by the actions and words of Mohammad.  Therefore, when it comes to the definition of jihad, the obligation of jihad, the law of jihad, the obligation of the Caliphate (Islamic State), the rules under the Caliph, and relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is no disagreement among any of the scholars.

If Allah said it chronologically last in the Koran, Mohammad said it, and Mohammad did it, how could there be a legal “gray area” in sharia?

  1. “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
  2. Mohammad said:  “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”  Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim
  3. Mohammad went out and fought many battles against non-Muslims until they converted to Islam or submitted to Islam.  Those who did neither were killed.

Any questions?

Empowering our law enforcement professionals: Announcing “The Thin Blue Line Project”

 

A Special Message from
Brigitte Gabriel, President


I’ve been eagerly anticipating today, the day I could send you this email.

Because today, it’s my great pleasure to announce the launch of a project we’ve been working on for over a year – one that could change the course of anti-terrorism strategies and tactics!

We call it “ACT! for America Education’s Thin Blue Line Project.”

The “thin blue line” is a reference to the line of law enforcement officers that stands between the law-abiding and the law-breaking.

Unfortunately, thanks to suffocating political correctness in our country, most law enforcement professionals aren’t getting the information, materials and training they need to effectively understand and fight Islamist terrorism.

This is why we’re launching “The Thin Blue Line Project,” a one-of-a-kind project designed by law enforcement for law enforcement (please see the video introduction at the bottom).

CHECK OUT THE HOME PAGE HERE!

(Note: Access to the entire site is for active or
retired law enforcement, by registration only).

Here’s what part of the home page looks like:

This password-access only website for law enforcement professionals gives them all the information they’re not now getting from the politically correct higher-ups in DHS and the FBI.

  • Who and what is the Muslim Brotherhood?
  • What is the Muslim Brotherhood plan for America, and why is knowing this important?
  • What is jihad and how does this relate to terrorism?
  • What kinds of covert and disinformation campaigns are being used by Muslim Brotherhood front organizations to advance sharia law and jihad?
  • How are law enforcement “outreach” programs frequently used by Muslim Brotherhood operatives and their allies to co-opt law enforcement officers – especially the leaders?
  • What is the role that local and state law enforcement can play in preventing terrorism?
  • Who and where are the radical individuals and organizations in America?
  • What are the best tactics and techniques for law enforcement to use in discovering, preventing and prosecuting terrorist activity?
  • And much, much more!
Here’s a shot of the radicalization locator map:

I guarantee you – this project is NOT politically correct!!!

Had FBI agents understood the role that jihad plays in terrorism, maybe they would have stopped Tamerlan Tsarnaev before he blew up the Boston Marathon.

Here’s what an FBI special agent said about “The Thin Blue Line Project.”

Since the FBI has decided to eliminate evidence/fact-based training on the threat to America from the Global Islamic Movement and Jihad, and replace it with more politically sensitive training which neither addresses the threat nor gives agents and officers the ability to pursue those threats, The Thin Blue Line Project should be the go-to place for everyone in law enforcement and all those with national security duties.


So I encourage you, get the word out to everyone you know – especially those in law enforcement. If you’re not in law enforcement, you can check out the home page here, and you can encourage law enforcement professionals to sign up for access to the site.

If you are or have been in law enforcement, please register today!

Because what you’ll learn on this site will make America – and your community – safer from the threat of radical Islam.

Video Report: U.S. Syrian Jihadist ‘Allies’ Establish Brutally Unjust Aleppo Sharia Courts

An Islamist rebel group in Aleppo called "the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Supporting the Oppressed" reviews applications for aid on Feb. 25. In addition to handing out aid, the Islamist group says it is carrying out civilian administration in parts of Aleppo.

An Islamist rebel group in Aleppo called “the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Supporting the Oppressed” reviews applications for aid on Feb. 25. In addition to handing out aid, the Islamist group says it is carrying out civilian administration in parts of Aleppo.

By Andrew G. Bostom:

N. J. Coulson, the renowned twentieth-century scholar of the Sharia, elaborated how “matters of procedure” under Islamic law were antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law. Coulson demonstrated the flimsy nature of Sharia-based “evidentiary proof,” while elucidating, under the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”), which grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, how arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants were permissible to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects.

Particularly harsh treatment is recommended for the individual of reputedly bad character whose guilt is suspected but cannot be proved in orthodox fashion. He [she] should be subjected to rigorous examination, with beating and imprisonment if necessary,

Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to extract “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

This is the “legal system” being applied now by the Syrian anti-Assad Sharia-supremacist “rebels” in the 2/3 swath of Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city, under their control. A TF-1 (the private, national French TV channelvideo report (with English subtitles) filmed by Solomon Kane and Luc Golfin at 5 minutes, 35 seconds through minute 6, demonstrates, explicitly, the application one such barbarous method of “extracting” a confession—beating a man on the souls of his bare feet with a wooden cudgel. Indeed, at just after the 6-minute mark, the head Sharia judge, “Al-Maz” enters the room where the “confession” is being “extracted,” and objects to the scene being filmed, exhorting his colleagues,

Do you want the people in Europe to think [emphasis added] we are barbarians?

Moreover, the documentary filmmakers also capture the good Sharia judge attempting to deny the very brutality their camera’s have in fact just recorded!

It is both morally unconscionable, and a looming geo-strategic disaster for the U.S. to be supporting with armaments, and potentially, missile strikes against the Assad regime, predatory, jihad-promoting “allies” who aggressively seek broad application of such a brutally unjust, Islamic Sharia totalitarian system.

Watch the French TV report below.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/invading-sunni-muslims-force-sharia-law-occupied-aleppo-syria

Many thanks for Translation to C.B.Sashenka, and subtitling to www.vladtepesblog.com.

 

CAIR Targets Constitutional Rights in North Carolina

download (26)By Christopher Holton:

Recently the North Carolina legislature passed American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation with broad bipartisan support.

The purpose of ALAC is to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights in cases involving foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines. Among those fundamental constitutional rights are freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, due process and equal protection under the law.

One of the primary opponents of ALAC legislation is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which seeks to supplant US constitutional rights and norms by accommodating foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.

CAIR has targeted North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory with a nationwide e-mail and telephone blitz in an attempt to intimidate him into vetoing the ALAC legislation that both the North Carolina House and Senate approved with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/28/cair-hits-nc-governor-with-email-blitz-to-veto-anti-sharia-bill-80548

As the article linked above explains, promoting Shariah in the US is one of CAIR’s top agenda items. In March 2012, the organization published a tool-kit for promoting Shariah for community organizers across America.

CAIR has attempted to create many misconceptions about ALAC legislation which require correction and clarification.

For instance, CAIR suggests that the purpose of ALAC legislation is to target religious practices. This accusation is baseless.

Anyone who actually takes the time to read the legislation can readily see this. The purpose of ALAC is explicitly spelled out: American Laws for American Courts is designed to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights against the application of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, when the application of a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine would violate any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights—including freedom of religion.

In fact, the model ALAC language clearly states that it shall not interfere with ecclesiastical matters or be construed to violate anyone’s religious practice.

Moreover, CAIR’s supposition that ALAC is “unconstitutional” is laughable at best. ALAC has been in force in Tennessee and Louisiana since 2010, Arizona since 2011 and Kansas since May of 2012 and it has never been challenged. That’s because there is simply no legal basis for the embarrassingly contradictory theory that protecting individual fundamental constitutional rights is somehow unconstitutional.

America has an established tradition of allowing people of faith to make agreements and resolve disputes within the parameters of their religion, as long as any resulting contract complies with the US constitution. That is exactly what ALAC is designed to do—as is explicitly stated in the legislation.

CAIR documents have dishonestly portrayed ALAC. For instance, a letter sent by CAIR to the Oklahoma legislature in the spring of 2013 referred to the American Bar Association as being opposed to “such legislation.” This is an important point because it is not true. If you actually examine the American Bar Association literature on this, they were not referring to American Laws for American Courts legislation. In fact, the resolution they passed did not oppose American Laws for American Courts legislation.

CAIR has also created a phantom argument to scare state elected officials into thinking that standing up for individual, fundamental constitutional rights will somehow negatively impact the business community of a state or inhibit commerce in some way. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Not only does ALAC expressly apply to individuals, not businesses, but there has been no negative impact on business or commerce in any of the several states that have passed ALAC since 2010.

The reality of ALAC legislation can be summed up in three points:

1. American Laws for American Courts does not target a religion or religious community.

2. American Laws for American Courts is not explicitly aimed at Shariah.

3. American Laws for American Courts is targeted at safeguarding individual, fundamental constitutional rights and does not impact business or commerce in any way, shape or form. It has had no impact whatsoever on the business or commerce of the several states in which it has already passed.

Since we have taken the time to address the issues CAIR has raised with regard to ALAC, now we will take the time to address the myriad concerns thousands of freedom-loving Americans have about CAIR itself. These concerns are especially relevant given CAIR’s opposition to protecting the individual, fundamental constitutional rights of Americans:

Read the rest at Center for Security Policy

“American Laws for American Courts” Public Policy Initiative Advances in State Legislatures as AFLC Leads Citizens Awareness Drive

images (84)AFLC:American

In the past year, over 10,000 American citizens have petitioned elected representatives from their respective state governments to enact the “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC) legislation, which is designed to prohibit the application of foreign law when it would violate fundamental constitutional rights such as due process and equal protection.  David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), was the principal drafter of the model legislation, which has passed in states such as Arizona, Louisiana, Kansas, and Tennessee.

AFLC sponsored a citizens awareness drive to alert Americans about this public policy initiative to protect their rights from constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including – but not limited to – sharia law.  Indeed, extensive research conducted by the Center for Security Policy, a national security thank tank, has found over 50 significant cases from a small sample of published cases indicating that sharia law has permeated state court decisions nationwide.

Yerushalmi commented: “The fact that 10,000 individual Americans responded to our citizens awareness drive demonstrates the growing concern about the imposition of sharia law and its pernicious effect in American courts.  Even more important, it shows that Americans are listening to AFLC’s arguments, which have exposed the fact that numerous judges nationwide have applied sharia over United States law.  People get it: American Laws for American Courts is not a slogan, it is actual legislation available to every state that enacts it, and it will ensure that no state court applies foreign laws or judgments that deprive a party of their constitutional rights.”

In Hosain v. Malik, a classic example of a state court enforcing sharia law, a Maryland appellate court agreed with a lower court’s decision to defer to a Pakistani Sharia Court that granted sole, unrestricted custody of a child to her father even though the mother was not provided due process in the proceedings.  The mother had argued that if she had gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she would have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.  Nonetheless, the Maryland appellate court ruled that her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making a public policy argument against the enforcement of sharia law.  In this case, ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to reverse the lower court’s decision.

In spite of its constitutional defenses, ALAC has faced fierce opposition from Muslim Brotherhood groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which claim that passing ALAC legislation discriminates against Muslims.

Yerushalmi commented: “Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR have joined the ‘blame-America’ Left to challenge these laws, but the fact is ALAC has not been overturned in any of the states that have passed it because it is not just a constitutional law, it is the best way to protect the constitutional liberties of all American citizens.”

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, added: “The American Freedom Law Center commends those loyal and courageous American citizens who have sounded the alarm to their elected officials about the threat posed by sharia and other foreign laws to the American legal system.  And we hope these officials heed their citizens’ concerns by sponsoring this important legislation.”

Broken Immigration System Allowed Boston Bombers into US

Legacy_INS_-_Front__78327.1281402469.1280.1280Act For America:

They shouldn’t have even been here. Michael Cutler, a 30 year veteran of the Immigration and Naturalization Service explains the broken immigration system that failed to scrutinize the Boston Terror Attack suspects’ student visas and citizenship applications. Michael Cutler will be a featured speaker at ACT! for America’s National Conference & Legislative Briefing held June 19-21 in Washington DC.