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


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]

Islam’s “Quiet Conquest” of Europe

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, August 10, 2016:

  • “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam.” — Tariq Ramadan.
  • In 1989, Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques.
  • In Britain, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques.
  • Civil war in France is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.
  • Real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with France’s director of domestic intelligence, Patrick Calvar. “The confrontation is inevitable,” Mr. Calvar said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France’s seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the miscreants down the street.”

These Salafists openly challenge France’s way of life and do not make a secret of their willingness to overthrow the existing order in Europe through violent means, terror attacks and physical intimidation. But paradoxically, if the Islamists’ threat to Europe were confined to the Salafists, it would be easier to defeat it.

There is in fact another threat, even more dangerous because it is more difficult to decipher. It has just been dubbed by the magazine Valeurs Actuelles,the quiet conquest“. It is “moderate” Islam’s sinuous project of producing submission. “Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely”.

That threat is personified in the main character of Michel Houellebecq’s novel, Submission: Mohammed Ben Abbes, the “moderate” Muslim who becomes France’s president and converts the state to Islam. And from where does President Ben Abbes start his Islamization? The Sorbonne University. It is already happening: Qatar recently made a significant donation to this famous university, to sponsor the education of migrants.

In France, the quiet conquest has the face of the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), which a Simon Wiesenthal Center report charged with “anti-Semitism, advocacy and financing of terrorism and call to Jihad… ”

Not only does UOIF not encourage the integration of Moslems in France,” the report states, “it actually provides a nursery for the most radical Islamist positions.”

In Italy we have just witnessed the strategy of this “moderate Islam.” The largest and most influential Islamic organization, l’Unione delle comunità ed organizzazione islamiche in Italia (Ucoii), sponsored Milan’s first Muslim councilwoman, Sumaya Abdel Qader, a veiled candidate of the center-left coalition. Qader’s husband, Abdallah Kabakebbji, openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel: “It is a historical mistake, a scam”, he wrote on Facebook. His solution? “Ctrl + Alt + Delete”.

Qader won the race over a real moderate Muslim, the unveiled Somali activist, Maryan Ismail. I met Mrs. Ismail at a pro-Israel forum in Milan. After losing the election, she broke with Italy’s Democratic Party in an open letter: “The Democratic Party has chosen to dialogue with obscurantist Islam. Once again, the souls of modern, plural and inclusive Islam were not heard”.

Take two “stars” of this French “moderate Islam.” The first one is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the motto of which is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Ramadan does not hide in Raqqa or shoot at French citizens. By applying for French citizenship, he would like to become one of them. His office is in the Parisian suburb of Saint Denis; he has written 30 books and he has two million Facebook followers. Ramadan has academic chairs all over the world, he is the director of the Research Center for Islamic Law in Doha (Qatar) and the president of the European Muslim Network. He publicly campaigns for Islam along with Italy’s former prime minister, Massimo D’Alema. Ramadan recently explained his vision for Europe and France: “Islam is a French religion and the French language is a language of Islam”.

Ramadan’s project is not the hoped-for Europeanization of Islam, but the not-hoped-for frightful Islamization of Europe. He opposes the assimilation of Muslims into French culture and society. A few days before the election in Milan, Ramadan was in Italy to endorse the candidacy of Sumaya Abdel Qader.

The second French “star” is Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. In 1989, Boubakeur justified the persecution of Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2002, he testified for the prosecution against the writer Michel Houellebecq. In 2006, he sued Charlie Hebdo in court, after the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Last year, Boubakeur called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France.

Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, last year called for the conversion of churches into mosques and asked to “double” the number of mosques in France. (Image source: TV5 Monde)

In the United Kingdom, mainstream Muslim organizations are dispensing “Islamic justice” through more than 85 sharia courts attached to mosques. Divorce, polygamy, adultery and wife-beating are only some of these courts’ matters of jurisprudence. In Germany, vice-chancellor Sigmar Gabriel criticized Saudi Arabia for financing Islamic extremism in Europe. It is the same kingdom which last year offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany.

Qatar, with its Al Jazeera television megaphone, is also very active in sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood Islamic radicalism all over Europe. The Qatari royal family, for example, in 2015 donated £11 million to Oxford’s St. Anthony’s College, where Tariq Ramadan teaches. Qatar also announced that it was willing to spend $65 million in the French suburbs, home to the vast majority of the six million Muslims in France.

Today in Europe, several scenarios are possible, including the worst. Among them, there is a civil war, which many are beginning to talk about, including Patrick Calvar, the director of domestic intelligence. This is what the Islamic State is looking for: unleashing a blind repression so that the Muslim population will show solidarity with the revolutionary minority. Yet, there is still worse possible outcome: that nothing happens and we continue as is.

The end is more important than the means. The Islamic State has the same goal as most of the members of so-called “moderate Islam”: domination under the sharia. Many supposedly “moderate Muslims”, even if they do not commit violent acts themselves, support them quietly. They support them by not speaking out against them. If they do speak out against them, they usually do so in coded terms, such as that they are “against terrorism,” or that what concerns them about violent acts by Muslims is the possibility of a “backlash” against them.

Violent jihadis, however, are not the only means of transforming Europe, and perhaps are even counterproductive: they could awaken the nations they attack. Soft and more discreet means, such as social pressure and propaganda, are even more dangerous, and possibly even more effective: they are harder to see, such as the West’s acceptance of dual judiciary and legal systems; sharia finance (if there had been a “Nazi finance” system, in which all financial transactions went to strengthening the Third Reich, what effect might that have had on World War II?), and the proliferation in the West of mosques and extremist Islamic websites. Although there are indeed many real “moderate Muslims”, there are also still many who are not.

To conservative Muslims, however, any Muslim who does not accept every word of Allah — the entire Koran — is not a true Muslim, and is open to charges of “apostasy”, the punishment for which is death. According to a leading Sunni theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, based in Qatar, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today.”

That is why the late writer Oriana Fallaci once said to The New Yorker: “I do not accept the mendacity of the so-called Moderate Islam”. That is why real “moderate Muslims” are silenced or murdered.

This might summarize the current Islamic mainstream mentality: “Dear Europeans, continue to think about a shorter working week, early retirement, abortion on demand and adultery in the afternoon. With your laws, we will conquer you. With our laws, we will convert you”.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

How Islamists Are Slowly Desensitizing Europe And America

Photo Erica Simone / Shutterstock.com

Photo Erica Simone / Shutterstock.com

The Federalist, by M.G. Oprea, April 8, 2016:

Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine whose offices Islamists attacked in 2015, published an editorial recently titled “How Did We Get Here?” that has raised some eyebrows. In it, they ask how Europe has become where European-born Muslims have attacked the hearts of Paris and Brussels. Their answer has proved distasteful to many on the Left.

The editorial has been harshly criticized and the magazine accused of racism and xenophobia. The Washington Post says Charlie Hebdo blames extremism on individual Muslims—the veiled woman on the street, the man selling kebabs. There’s some truth to this accusation, and to the extent that there is, Charlie Hebdo is wrong. But this, and other critiques, miss the larger point of the article, which is to demonstrate the gradual and quotidian way in which criticizing Islam has been silenced.

It’s worth quoting Charlie Hebdo at length:

In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale. Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. All the while, no one notices what’s going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He’s a teacher, so it’s not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion…

No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan’s task.

The Charlie Hebdo editorial correctly points out that in Europe the dominant liberal culture has pounded into us that we must adapt to Muslims who come to our country, and never ask them to adapt to any of our ways. Doing so would be colonialist and wrong. It’s a double standard, of course. As the welcoming countries, Europeans must suppress their own culture and ideals for those of the Islamic immigrant population. But when they go abroad to non-Western countries, either to live or to visit, it’s considered offensive not to adapt to their ways of life.

Learning a Culture Should Work Both Ways

No one who found the Charlie Hebdo op-ed so offensive would ever suggest Morocco ought to welcome McDonalds or Wal-Mart with open arms. They would say the country is being ruined with Western culture. They want non-Western countries to remain exactly as they are—preserved and frozen in time-while the West must endlessly adapt to anyone who makes it their home.

The article highlights the important fact that Europe has failed to ask its Muslim immigrant population to assimilate. This fact was demonstrated recently when police discovered that the only surviving terrorist from the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was able to travel from Paris to Brussels and conceal himself there until a few days before the Brussels attacks. He was aided by a large community of French and Muslim Belgians whose loyalties clearly lie with their own community, not with Belgium, or Europe at large. What’s more, a 2013 study shows the shocking degree to which European Muslims hate the West.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own. This is the point that Michel Houellebecq made in his recent novel, “Submission.”

Slow-Boiling Our Brains

Europeans have been lulled into accepting that it’s wrong to criticize Islam or scrutinize it in any way. The Charlie Hebdo editorial points out that it’s a slow process, an insidious wearing away of what is and isn’t acceptable to say or think. The process must be slow, because few people would accept a proposal dictating what topics they’re not allowed to discuss. So, you gradually shame them into it.

This establishes a pre-conditioned mindset so the line of acceptability can be moved further and further until the problem of global jihad can no longer be effectively explored because we aren’t even allowed to ask fundamental questions. This is Charlie Hebdo’s point about Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather founded the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and whose father was an active member of the group. Through the guise of intellectualism and purported adherence to moderate Islam, he instructs his audience ever so gently that the problem has nothing to do with Islam, and that suggesting so is ugly and base.

We acquiesce, because, as Charlie Hebdo points out, we fear being seen as Islamaphobic or racist. We are made to feel guilty if the thought flashes through our head that we wish that the new sandwich shop run by a Muslim sold bacon, or that a woman wearing a hijab makes us a little uncomfortable. That fear that we feel when we entertain those thoughts, the op-ed argues, saps our willingness to scrutinize, analyze, debate, or reject anything about Islam. And this is dangerous.

Fierce Reactions Aim to Condition Us Into Fear

Although Europe is further along in this process, there is a clear relevance to the United States. We are already being instructed on college campuses and by our own president that Muslims are a sort of protected class regarding criticism. President Obama even went so far as to censor French President François Hollande when he used the forbidden phrase “Islamist terrorism.”

The latest incident of shaming those who do push back ishappening in Kansas, where the Islamic Society of Wichita invited Sheik Monzer Talib to speak at a fundraising event on Good Friday. Talib is a known fundraiser for Hamas, the militant Islamist Palestinian group that the United States classifies as a terrorist organization. He even has sung a song called “I am from Hamas.” U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo dared to put out a press release objecting to the speech out of concern that it would harm the Muslim community, particularly in the wake of the Brussels terrorist attack.

In response, the mosque claimed Pompeo stoked prejudice and Islamaphobia and that they had to cancel the event because of protest announcements and because some individuals on Facebook made some offhand comments about guns. Cue a local media frenzy, letters to the editor accusing Pompeo of government overreach, and the predictable arrival of two CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) representatives to skewer Pompeo.

This is just one example of how criticizing or questioning the actions of a Muslim community—even one that is supporting a Hamas fundraiser—has become anathema. The line of acceptability has been moved so now it’s Islamaphobic to object to someone with links to Islamist groups being invited to a U.S. mosque while we’re in the midst of a global battle against Islamist terrorism. People don’t even want to discuss it. The conversation is over. Just as Charlie Hebdo asks, so should we ask ourselves, “How did we get here?”

Although the particulars of the Charlie Hebdo editorial may go too far, and I do not endorse everything the article says, the overarching message is that Europe has slowly let this happen year by year, decade by decade, like a frog in a pot slowly brought to a boil. Post-colonial guilt and shame have stopped Europeans from openly loving and defending their own culture. The state of things in Europe today is the natural conclusion of that neglect. We in America are on the same road.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

“Moderate Reformer” Tariq Ramadan Defends Brussels Attack

tariq-ramadan1Frontpage, Daniel Greenfield, April 3, 2016:

Tariq Ramadan was barred from the US under Bush, but Obama threw open the doors for him. Ramadan was billed as a moderate reformer. And here is the “moderate reformer” on the Brussels attacks. After the formality of condemning the attacks, mumbling that terrorism is wrong, Ramadan pivots to the same old song and dance.

We cannot, today, afford to disconnect these events with the violence, terror and death that have long been commonplace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and in Africa and Asia more widely. European and American foreign policy does not happen in a vacuum, as those who target us have repeated in countless videos: You have caused war and death in our countries, now you will suffer the consequences.

Now the “war and death” that ISIS terrorists are talking about is the US and the rest of NATO pushing back against its genocide of Christians, Yazidis and other minorities. Or to put it another way, American intervention against Islamic terror doesn’t happen in a vacuum either. “You have caused war and death in our countries, now you will suffer the consequences.”

But what is Tariq Ramadan really suggesting? That bombing ISIS is wrong?

We must hear those who criticize the incoherence of our allegiances and our support of dictatorships.

What dictatorships? Obama threw them overboard. And the Islamist alternative is itself a dictatorship. That’s what ISIS is.

Does the condemnable violence of their reaction mean we can ignore their arguments?

What ISIS arguments would Tariq Ramadan like us to listen to?

Tariq doesn’t answer. Instead he recycles the same old tedious nonsense. ISIS wants to wreck Muslim integration in the West. (The Brotherhood and the Saudis and Erdogan have done that on their own already.) Muslim terrorists are irreligious and need to be taught Islam propertly. (Fight Islamist indoctrination with our flavor of Islamist indoctrination.)

But then Tariq Ramadan informs us that if we don’t bomb the right Muslims, then maybe we also deserve to be bombed.

 We cannot support dictatorships, be political and economic partners with states who export literalist Salafi doctrine, be silent when civilians are massacred south of our borders and hope that we will not receive a response to the injustice and humiliation we have provoked.

Wait… so we can’t bomb Muslim countries and not expect to be bombed. Also we can’t not bomb Muslim countries and not expect to be bombed.

According to Tariq Ramadan, we need to bomb the countries that Islamists want us to bomb (non-Islamist dictators) and not bomb the wrong ones (Islamist dictators and terror groups) or… we will receive a response to the injustice and humiliation we have provoked.

But that probably sounded better in the original Jihadist.

France bombed Syria. So it deserved to get bombed. So why did Brussels deserve to get bombed? Well it wasn’t bombing Syria was it. So it deserved to get bombed. This is the Islamist Catch 22 that Tariq Ramadan is offering. Anything you do or don’t do is an excuse for Islamic terrorists to bomb you.

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.

Tariq Ramadan’s Research Center Holds International Conference In Europe For The First Time

Tariq Ramadan p12412-300x169By gmbwatch on March 18, 2015:

Islamist media is reporting on the third Annual International Conference of the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE), headed by Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan. According to the IslamOnline report, this is the first time that the conference has been held in Europe:

BRUSSELS – The third Annual International Conference on Islam and Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas was inaugurated in the Belgium capital, Brussels, on Saturday, March 14, presenting an insight on Islam and global ethics.

‘We are paying the price of a certain restrictive conception that says Islam is only Fiqh,’ Dr. Tariq Ramadan, the director of the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE) told attendants.

In his speech titled ‘Global Ethics and Applied Ethics’, Dr Ramadan presented an overview of three main sources of Islamic ethics which are law (fiqh), philosophy-theology and Sufism, in a bid to help audience understand how ethical values and principles are produced from within.

Dr. Ramadan also urged Muslims to go deeper in understanding the objectives of Islam, and not just stop at the level of Fiqh.

He was speaking at the inauguration of the third Annual International Conference on Islam & Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas held in Brussels.

Read the rest here.

According to the CLIE website, the following individuals of interest were expected to participate in this year’s conference:

In March 2014, the GMBDW reported on the the 2nd Annual CLIE international conference that was expected to include Wadah Khanfar, with a background in the Muslim Brotherhood and likely Hamas and Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood figure Tawakkul Karman a winner the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CLIE), headed by Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan, was launched in January 2012 and represented a significant coming together of Global Muslim Brotherhood leaders Ramadan and Youssef Qaradawi, noting that the Deputy Director is a close associate of Qaradawi’s at the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS).The new center appears to be the latest in the series of research centers being established by the Qatar Faculty of Islamic Studies (QFIS). The launch ceremony for Center was co-organized by a group that included five U.S. universities, among them Georgetown University, together with representatives of two organizations headed by Youssef Qaradawi and the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance. According to Saudi media, the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance is a U.K. based organization created to improve the Islamic education curriculum and headed by Abdullah Omar Naseef who has held many important positions Saudi Arabia including serving as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council, President of King Abdul Aziz University, and most importantly as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) from 1983-1993. Dr. Naseef also heads the Cairo-based International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, (IICDR), an umbrella group or 86 Islamic organizations, many of which are associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas fundraising, or support for Al Qaeda.

Tariq Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. For his profile, go here.

Profs Blame ISIS on ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Grievances’

reza-450x241By Cinnamon Stillwell:

President Obama’s infamous proclamation that ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) is “not Islamic” was received sympathetically within the ranks of Middle East studies. While many scholars of Islam and the Middle East have condemned ISIS’s heinous actions, a stubborn refusal to acknowledge their theological underpinnings lingers. Those who do concede ISIS’s Islamic supremacism are branded “Islamphobes.” Others attribute ISIS’s rampage of mass murder, beheadings, rape, slavery, and strict Sharia law in pursuit of a caliphate to Western-inspired “grievances” or “root causes.”

John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is at the forefront of such obfuscation. Disregarding ISIS’s adherence to Quranic literalism, Esposito declared:

I do not think that this is a very Islamic vision at all. . . . Theirs is a kind of religion that is extraordinarily full of violence and abuse that is not in accordance with the Quran, the traditions of the Prophet or even with Islamic Law.

Hatem Bazian, director of the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project at the University of California, Berkeley, lived up to his title by invoking victimhood. Bazian claimed that:

When Islamophobes point to the Koran and Islam as the problem, they are epistemically reinforcing ISIS’s claims and also pushing every Muslim into the same categorization. . . . For me, religion is a rationalization rather than the root cause.

Responding to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s public acknowledgement that British Muslims are joining ISIS, University of Michigan history professorJuan Cole ranted, “It’s just a way of beating up on the Muslims in the UK. . . . Cameron is grandstanding about this and it’s Islamophobia, it’s just racism.” Perhaps Cole is unaware that Cameron, speaking at a reception for British Muslims, kowtowed to political-correctness by declaring that ISIS has “nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace.”

Meanwhile, Sahar F. Aziz, Texas A&M University law professor, condemned those who are “blindly blaming religion . . . rather than root causes,” lamenting that, “Thousands of miles away from the Middle East, it is tempting for Americans to view the atrocities committed by the Islamic State (ISIS) as further evidence that something is wrong with Islam.” Instead, she asserted, “The politics of authoritarianism, rather than religion, explain the rise of ISIS.” Given that ISIS arose in a power vacuum, there is little basis for blaming authoritarianism.

Going to ridiculous lengths, Omid Safi, director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center, faults humanity itself:

I am mindful of the fact that much of the Islamophobic discourse of today holds Muslims in the West accountable for atrocities of ISIS. In that context, it makes a fundamental mistake. . . . All of us, Muslims and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and people of no faith and people of occasional faith, we are all responsible.

That is, since everyone is responsible for ISIS, no one is responsible.

After conceding that “Muslims have a responsibility to speak out against ISIS,” Safi then entreated,

[A]ll of us to speak out with the same vehemence . . . about the victims of the American drones, about the victims of the allies of the United States? Can we mourn Palestinians? Can we mourn Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin? Can we mourn the 2.5 million Americans caught in a penal industrial complex?

A better question for Safi would be whether there is any unrelated societal ill that cannot be associated with condemning ISIS?

University of California, Riverside creative writing professor Reza Aslan denied that ISIS has any appeal whatsoever to devout Muslims, marveling over “how little religion plays a role in this group, how little the idea of reading the Koran or praying or those kinds of things play a significant role on the ground among these militants.” Granting that “religion is the sort of underlying, unifying aspect of it,” Aslan then contradicted himself: “But the idea that ISIS is drawing excessively religious people to it is factually incorrect.” Elsewhere, he alluded to the “grievances . . . that a lot of Muslims around the world have” and warned that ISIS’s appeal would remain, “unless those grievances can be addressed.”

Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, suggested that Muslim scholars respond to ISIS by proclaiming:

What you are doing, killing innocent people, implementing so-called “Sharia” or the so-called “Islamic State”, this is against everything that is coming from Islam. . . . It is not a caliphate. It is just people playing with politics referring to religious sources.

While it is indeed necessary for Muslim moderates—a group that does not include Ramadan—to condemn ISIS, it is self-defeating to deny the Islamic basis for its behavior.

Read more at Frontpage

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Qatar Awareness Campaign – Letter to the Clintons #StopQatarNow

qatar_awareness_campaign_logoPresident Bill and Honorable Hillary Clinton
Clinton Foundation
1271 Avenue of the Americas
42nd Floor
New York, NY 10020

Dear President Bill and Hillary Clinton:

This letter is being sent to you on behalf of the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.  The purpose is to inform you and the public of the activities of Qatar.  The State of Qatar, in 2013, donated between $1-5 million to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.  Qatar is also the major financier behind Hamas as well as the genocidal Islamic State.

Qatar also happens to be home of the Muslim Brotherhood, the stateless political organization that seeks political revolution across the world as to implement Sharia law.  Indeed, the Arab Spring is a project of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to reestablish a totalitarian Islamic caliphate.  In 1994, the Clinton administration welcomed the Council on American Islamic Relations into White House policy making.  CAIR, it should be noted, has been conclusively linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas (which is itself the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, founded by the Nazi collaborator Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini).

Going back in history, it has been the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood (and now of Qatar, their host) to establish global Sharia law.  One of the earlier academics who sought to reconcile Western law with Sharia law was Said Ramadan, the son-in-law of the organization’s founder, Hassan al-Banna.  Ramadan traveled the world, corresponding with various law professors, including to Germany, where he obtained a doctorate in law.

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 and increased security scrutiny on all Muslim Brotherhood-linked actors, Said Ramadan’s son Tariq, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Banna, was denied a visa and barred from entering the United States.  In July 2009, when you, Secretary Clinton, were Secretary of State, Tariq Ramadan’s travel ban was lifted with your signature.

The public is urged to consider these additional facts concerning the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, and the activities of the Clintons:

  • While Secretary of State, Clinton’s chief aide was Huma Abedin. Abedin’s family is from Pakistan, and they are known to be involved with the Pakistani branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and various other Islamist causes.
  • The U.S. Department of State under Clinton supported the Qatari-backed Islamist revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. These have resulted in ongoing chaos, anarchy, and destruction.  In Syria, where the State Department backs the anti-Assad rebels, the resistance has metastasized into ISIS, which is definitively genocidal in its ambitions.
  • When you, President Clinton, were President, you accepted the billionaire Fethullah Gulen into the United States, giving him asylum from Turkey. Gulen had tried to overthrow the then-secular government of Turkey and turn it into an Islamist state.  He now resides in Pennsylvania.
  • The Clinton Presidential Library received a donation of “at least $1 million” from the State of Qatar, according to the Washington Post.

Additionally, Qatar is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell, and profits from operating a virtual slave state.  The Arab Spring, a Qatari and American-backed program to install Islamists across the Middle East and North Africa, has led to a veritable diplomatic “crisis” with Israel.  John Kerry’s attempt to force Qatar’s (who back Hamas) hatched peace terms on Israel has caused the only democracy in the region to question America’s allegiance to their security.

The QAC Coalition and petitioners ask that you consider the attached sourced report on Qatar’s activities.  The links cited are vetted and credible sources.  We hope you take the time to verify the truth of the statements for yourself.

After doing so, the Coalition of the Qatar Awareness Campaign calls on you to exert due influence on the Qatari government and the Muslim Brotherhood to cease any type of involvement in all forms of Islamic terrorism, slavery, and drug trafficking!


Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret)

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy

Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs

Walid Shoebat

Charles Ortel
Washington Times

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman, Stand Up America

Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

** Select signatures as of 9/27. The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.

Is the Islamic State the Islamic ‘Reformation’?

Screen-Shot-2014-10-14-at-2.34.22-PM1-358x350By Fjordman:

The self-declared Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has shocked the world with its brutality. The British Prime Minister David Cameron, along with other Western leaders, claims that the Islamic State has “nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace.” The former British PM Tony Blair states that IS’ ideology is “based in a complete perversion of the proper faith of Islam.”

Notice that both the current and a previous British Prime Minister say virtually the same thing as Tariq Ramadan. He is a Swiss writer of Egyptian origin and is a Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University in Britain. Tariq Ramadan suggests that the Islamic State is ”not Islamic.”

Ramadan is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Banna’s stated goal was the restoration of an Islamic Caliphate. We now have an Islamic State under the leadership of a Caliph. You could therefore argue that ISIS have fulfilled the original promise of Hassan al-Banna. What Tariq Ramadan is in effect saying is that: “The Islamic State have fulfilled the promise of my pious Muslim grandfather. Yet this has nothing to do with Islam.”

The slick Islamic infiltrator Tariq Ramadan has always reminded me of the deceiving manipulator Grima Wormtongue from Tolkien’s novel The Lord of the Rings. It is no wonder that Western ruling elites are clueless about the true nature of the Islamic threat when we allow people such as Ramadan to be treated as experts on Islam in prestigious Western universities and advise Western authorities on matters related to Islam.

Saying that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam or Islamic teachings is false. ISIS propagandists quote authentic Koranic verses or respected hadith literature in favor of their actions. Yes, texts can be interpreted in different ways, but some interpretations have a stronger foundation than others do. A rubber band can be stretched up to a certain point, but not forever. Likewise, texts can be read in several ways, but they are not infinitely elastic.

Maybe what the militant members of the Islamic State are doing is not the only way to interpret Islamic religious texts. Maybe. What should worry us, however, is that it is a perfectly legitimate way to interpret Islamic texts.

The Islamic State now has many supporters, also in Western countries. Their atrocities resonate with quite a few Muslims who recognize something similar from Islamic history. In the earliest days of Islam, Mohammed and his companions raided and pillaged their opponents, massacred and beheaded non-Muslims, enslaved their children, raped their women and forced them to be sex slaves. Suggesting that it has nothing to do with Islam, when militant Muslims today directly copy the behavior of their Prophet as described in Islamic sources, is not credible.

Western leaders and commentators are often shockingly ill-informed about Islam. Tony Blair, then still Britain’s Prime Minister, wrote about Islam for the influential magazine Foreign Affairs in its January 2007 issue. This quote sums up the breathtaking cluelessness of Western leaders:


To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance. Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones.”

Some observers suggest that Islam needs to be reformed. Yet it is arguable that we have already witnessed an Islamic Reformation, and that ISIS/the Islamic State represents a culmination of this process.

In 2007 I published an essay with the title Do we want an Islamic Reformation? The question of whether Islam can be reformed largely hinges upon one’s definition of “Reformation.” This is often implicitly taken to mean something along the lines of “peaceful, non-sharia-based with respect for individual choice, freedom of speech and the freedom to criticize and leave your religion.” In other words: “Reform” is vaguely taken to mean less Islam, or at least less traditional sharia laws, and no violent Jihad.

However, several observers argue that there are similarities between Martin Luther and the Christian or Protestant Reformation in sixteenth century Europe and the reform movement started by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab in the Arabian Peninsula in the 18th century. Wahhab’s alliance with the family of Muhammad bin Saud led to the creation of Saudi Arabia. Using its massive oil wealth, paid for by non-Muslims, that country has for generations funded strict sharia-based Islamic movements worldwide. This Islamic revivalist movement is at the base of the present-day Salafist movement.

Read more at Frontpage


Obama-Iftar-Dinner-ISNAby KYLE SHIDELER:

An interesting development in the world of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations: a long simmering disagreement has broken out into open discord, as Tariq Ramadan, son of Said Ramadan and grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan Al-Banna, formally announced that he was pulling out of attendance at the Islamic Society of North America annual convention in Detroit.

The high-profile Muslim Brotherhood leader was once banned from entry to the U.S. after allegedly providing funds to a charity known to support Hamas. That ban was lifted in 2010 by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Since that time, Ramadan has been a frequent guest speaker at a number of events put on by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations.

The Islamic Society of North America is a longtime organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, where the federal government produced documents leading federal judge Jorge Solis to state the government had produced “ample evidence” to show ISNA’s ties to other Brotherhood fronts. These fronts included CAIR, NAIT, the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association of Palestine and, most importantly, Hamas. ISNA was formed out of the Muslim Brotherhood’s first organization, the Muslim Student’s Association, and has been historically considered the “nucleus of the Islamic Movement” in North America, and an “apparatus” of the Brotherhood.

Ramadan’s statement on his website accuses ISNA of failing to adequately challenge U.S. policy on a host of issues, including U.S. counterterrorism matters, and especially in failing to be active on the issue of Gaza. This criticism has come to a head over whether or not Islamic organizations should have attended the Obama Administration’s White House Iftar dinner. Some, like Ramadan, have vocally opposed the decision to attend, while ISNA defended its presence. Regarding ISNA’s interactions with the U.S. government, Ramadan writes:

However, the ISNA leadership is too often silent, as if paralyzed by fear. It fares no better with respect to American foreign policy. Its silence over American support for the outlaw and inhuman policies of Israel cannot be justified, even less so after attending an iftar organized by the White House during which President Obama defended Israel while the Israeli ambassador tweeted his delight! We cannot be forever silent: what kind of active and responsible citizenship does the ISNA leadership offer young American Muslims? What kind of example? That of silent, fearful sycophants…”

In a response, ISNA published a list of contacts it has had with the U.S. government on the issue of Gaza, and issued a formal reply to American Muslims defending their record:

ISNA leaders have also taken many opportunities in recent months to speak directly with high level officials on behalf of the American Muslim community. Each time, whether at the White House iftar or at any other gathering, leaders take great care to consider the interest of the American Muslim community and the context in which they live. I participate in many dialogues with the President of the United States…”

As we observe a policy question for the Brothers being settled in a vaguely public form, in a manner likely familiar to many Cold War era Kremlinologists, there are two possibilities regarding the ISNA-Ramadan debate’s deeper significance.

It is possible that the dispute represents a disagreement among the Ikwhan over whether the Islamic Movement (as the Brotherhood views it) should take an increasingly confrontational policy against the United States, as Ramadan seems to suggest, or whether to continue to advance under a policy of influence operations and cooption which the current ISNA leadership seems to prefer.

Alternatively, the Muslim Brotherhood has in the past expressed concerns regarding its grip over the Islamic Society of North America, because ISNA is a broad-based member organization, and there has previously been a lack of full-fledged Ikhwan with which to manage the organization.

Read more at Breitbart

Fmr US Pres. Carter to Speak at Brotherhood-Linked Conference

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter addresses a joint news conference at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo. (Photo: © Reuters)

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter addresses a joint news conference at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo. (Photo: © Reuters)


Former President Jimmy Carter will speak and sign books at the 51stannual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the organization has announced. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) is also listed as a speaker on its program.

The U.S. Justice Department labeled ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in American history and listed the group as a Muslim Brotherhood entity. The event’s speaker lineup includes many Islamist radicals, debunking the moderate image ISNA puts forth.

The name of this year’s conference is, “GenerationsRise: Elevating Muslim American Culture.” It will be held in Detroit on August 29-September 1.

Clarion Project analysis in March showed that ISNA’s religious leadership is made up of radicals, including one whose deportation is sought by the Department of Homeland Security because of his links to Hamas.

Sayyid Syeed, former ISNA Secretary-General and current National Director of its Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances, was videotaped in 2006 declaring, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo explicitly identifies ISNA and its various components among its fronts. The memo states the Brotherhood network’s “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” Another Muslim Brotherhood document from 1988 states ISNA is part of its “apparatus.”

In 2007, the Justice Department labeled ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood front found to be financing Hamas. The U.S. government also listed ISNA as one of the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

Specifically, federal prosecutors revealed how checks for the “Palestinian Mujahideen” were deposited into ISNA accounts and then transferred to the Holy Land Foundation for distribution to Hamas. A federal judge upheld the unindicted co-conspirator designation in 2009, citing “ample” justification and observing that the Foundation “operated from within ISNA.”

ISNA’s Canadian affiliate lost its charitable status last year due toevidence it was financing Pakistani terrorist groups, but ISNA claims it has nothing to do with ISNA-Canada.

ISNA portrays itself as the leader of the Muslim-American community, but a 2011 Gallup poll found that only 4% of Muslim-American males and 7% of females see ISNA as the group that most represents their interests. Nonetheless, its organizational capabilities and high profile have given it access to American leadership on a bi-partisan basis.

ISNA, like other American Islamist groups with radical backgrounds, were also embraced by the Bush Administration following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Last year, President Obama delivered avideotaped address for ISNA’s convention, praising it despite that event’s extremist lecturers.

This year’s event is no different. Carter is adding his name to a lineup that includes:

Imam Siraj Wahhaj, whose history of extremist and anti-American incitement is too long to review. For example, in 1992, he said, “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a Caliphate. If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir and give allegiance to him. Take my word, if eight million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

His rhetoric became more cautious after the 9/11 attacks. In 2011, he preached, “The trap we fall into is having a premature discussion about sharia when we are not there yet.” In November, the New York Police Department disclosed frightening information about his mosque’s activity.

He is scheduled to teach at the conference on the topic of elevating Muslim-American culture.

Read more at Clarion Project


Caution – cringe factor high as our president and uniformed military officers praise and promote Muslim Brotherhood front group ISNA: 

h/t @ClareMLopez

Genesis of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations Muslim Brotherhood Political Party


As the 2016 presidential election cycle heats up, the USCMO initiative to fortify Muslim citizenship rights “by conducting a census of American Muslims to create a database that will be used to enhance civic and political participation in upcoming elections,” shows all the outward signs that the Muslim Brotherhood actively is working to create the equivalent of the Republican Party’s GOP Data Center, formerly known as Voter Vault.

Center for Security Policy:

Executive leadership from some of the most prominent American Muslim organizations announced the formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The eight founding Muslim organizations participating at the press conference were immediately joined by two additional U.S. Muslim organizations. Key Muslim leadership representatives spoke about the vision and mission of the USCMO and appeared in the following order:

  • Ousama Jammal, Secretary General USCMO and past President of The Mosque Foundation
  • Naeem Baig, President, Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)
  • Nihad Awad, National Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
  • Mazen Mokhtar, Executive Director, Muslim American Society (MAS)
  • Imam W. Deen Mohammed II, President, The Mosque Cares (grandson of the NOI founder)
  • Khalil Meek, Executive Director, Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA)
  • Imam (Name), American Muslim Alliance (AMA)
  • Osama Abuirshaid, National Board Member, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)
  • Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid, Deputy Emir, Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA)
  • Mahdabuddin Ahmad, Director of Community Affairs, Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA)

The USCMO is described as an umbrella organization – and CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad inferred that and more, with his assertion regarding the USCMO that “This is the dream of every American Muslim, to unify the approach, agenda and vision of the Muslim community. In the past, many people have tried to unite on a limited agenda, but this is a broad agenda for the American Muslim community.” Awad stressed the need for a “platform to coordinate, to communicate, and unify the vision on critical issues both to the Muslim community and the society at large,” because he believes that “Muslim voters can be swing voters in key elections, especially 2016.” The formation of the USCMO marks the first U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political party, and indeed the first religious identity political party in the history of this country.

USCMO founding members CAIR and ICNA were previously identified as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood during the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial in 2007. Sheikh Kifah Mustapha, who has worked with Ousama Jammal (current Mosque Foundation board member) at The Mosque Foundation, was listed by name as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee. According to documents entered into evidence at the HLF trial, he was a “registered agent for HLF in Illinois” who acknowledged fundraising for the HLF from the mid-1990s until 2001. Mustapha has also raised money for MAS and ICNA initiatives during their annual conferences in Chicago.

It is important to note the geo-political influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Illinois, as this relates to the oversight of USCMO’s founding member organizations.

USCMO member organizations with headquarters in Illinois include the following:

USCMO member organizations with regional offices in Illinois include the following:

During the press conference, Nihad Awad indicated his organization CAIR was “proud to join this historic organization, because today is a historic one. We have been meeting for at least one and a half years.” However, the information absent from this discussion by Awad and his colleagues was that the development of the USCMO not only predates the eighteen month time frame, but finds its origins in the Chicago metropolitan area, where the Muslim Brotherhood has successfully built a strategic organizational network for almost six decades.

Read more

Muslim Brotherhood Founder’s Grandson on UK Government Religious Taskforce

ramadanby :

The British government last week unveiled its new Foreign Office Advisory Group on freedom of religion and belief, featuring – amongst others – Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood.

The inaugural meeting was convened by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who has herself been linked to individuals who admitted involvement in the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Critics have blasted the appointment of Tariq Ramadan, whose mother’s father was Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna.

Writing in the Spectator, Douglas Murray, Associate Director of the foreign policy think tank the Henry Jackson Society wrote:


“I think we can probably all guess where this ‘Advisory group’ will be heading. And it won’t be dealing with the Christians being slaughtered by Islamists across the Middle East and North Africa.  Or Jews being targeted by Palestinian terrorists who still receive salaries for their crimes from the UK taxpayer.

“But who does it consist of – apart from the inevitable Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty and Kate Allen of Amnesty? Why none other than that dauphin, that exemplar of Muslim Brotherhood royalty, Tariq Ramadan.

It was Ramadan’s grandfather who founded the fascist movement now under investigation and his parents’ generation which continued the tradition. If Her Majesty’s government wants to learn about the Muslim Brotherhood, I am certain it could make no better start than by asking for the co-operation of its new advisor on ‘Freedom of Religion or Belief.’


Ramadan’s father was also a Muslim Brotherhood operative, and was reportedly exiled by Gamal Adbel Nasser when he was President of Egypt.

Critics have slammed him for “doublespeak”. Author Caroline Fourest said “Ramadan is a war leader” and the “political heir of his grandfather”, while even the Socialist head of France’s SOS Racisme group called Ramadan a “fascist”.

Ramadan was denied a visa to take up a teaching position in the United States, although the Obama administration overturned this move in 2010.

Also see:

The Muslim Brotherhood’s winter offensive

3831235057Center for Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Sixty-nine years ago this month, Nazi Germany mounted its last, horrific offensive in the dead of winter in what came to be known as the Battle of the Bulge.  Perhaps taking a page from the playbook of their fellow totalitarians, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have its own audacious winter offensive underway – only this one is being waged inside America, a country the Brothers have declared they seek “to destroy from within.”

At the moment, the object of this exercise appears to be to prevail on the U.S. government to do what it did once before: help install a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt.  The difference, of course, is that the last time was in the heyday of the so-called “Arab Spring,” a moment when the ambitions of Egyptian Islamists and those of their counterparts in Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere were temporarily obscured by disinformation and wishful thinking.

In short order, however, the determination of the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk to impose the supremacist and brutally repressive doctrine they call shariah became evident in Cairo and the rest of the Middle East.  Whether they gained power via violent revolution or through the ballot box, the goal was the same: compel moderate Muslims, secularists, Christians and everybody else to submit to orthodox Islamic misrule. Resistance was met with violence, imprisonment and the destruction of churches.

Fortunately, as many as thirty million Egyptians took to the streets of their cities last summer to denounce the Brotherhood and demand the removal from power of its president, Mohamed Morsi.  He was overthrown and arrested in July by the military-led opposition, his organization banned and its other leaders incarcerated.  Most sentient Americans recognized this as a very positive development.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s operatives, front organizations and allies in this country have nonetheless demanded Morsi’s restoration. They present themselves as champions of democracy, hoping no one will notice the practical effect of the Brothers’ policies when in power: a state in which elections amount to nothing more than one man, one vote, one time.

The Brotherhood’s advocates enjoy considerable access to and influence with the Obama administration.  For example, the President and his subordinates take counsel from Homeland Security Department advisors like Mohamed Magid, the president of this country’s largest Muslim Brotherhood front, the Islamic Society of North America, and Mohamed Elibiary, an Islamist community organizer based in Plano, Texas. At the urging of their ilk, Mr. Obama cut off military sales to the Egyptian government a few months ago.  In addition to needlessly alienating Cairo when it is rolling up our mutual enemies, he thus created an opportunity for Vladimir Putin to pick up the slack and, in the process, further reestablish Russia in the Middle East.

The Muslim Brotherhood in this country (the subject of a free ten-part online course at www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) is evidently determined to do even more for their fellow jihadists in Egypt.  Hence, they have created new fronts to promote Egyptian “democracy” and held lobbying and fundraising events in several U.S. cities featuring top Brotherhood personalities.

As the indispensable Investigative Project on Terrorism first reported, one of those is Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna.  Ramadan was allowed into the United States in January 2010 at the direction of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose longtime aide, Huma Abedin, also has extensive personal and family ties to the Brotherhood.

Even more outrageous is the presence at several of these events – including one in the House Cannon Office Building on December 5th – of Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian would seem an unlikely choice to sell Congress on so dubious a proposition as restoring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt.  After all, he not only engaged in what the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” in the United States. That’s the stealthy subversion Islamists employ until they are able to use violence to foist shariah worldwide.

Sami al-Arian was also convicted in 2006 of aiding Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist group he led for many years.  PIJ has been responsible for murders of innocents in the past and applauded a bus bombing in Israel just last Sunday.  Why on earth would Judge Leonie Brinkema allow Al-Arian, who is awaiting disposition of contempt of court charges and faces possible deportation, to collaborate and agitate with his fellow Muslim Brothers, albeit with a location-monitoring bracelet?

It is obscene that anyone in Congress would host such a jihadist. Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN), a Muslim legislator who sponsored the event at which Al-Arian appeared, claims not to have known that he would be there.  True or not, he and President Obama have certainly failed to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood for the enemy it is.

That failure makes all the more dangerous the Muslim Brotherhood’s present offensive.  As we mark the anniversary of the bloody and avoidable Battle of the Bulge, we would do well to reflect upon an event held last month at the Brotherhood beachhead at Georgetown University, the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  Among those invited to promote a “return to democracy” in Egypt was a featured guest speaker named Rami Jan, who happens to be a member of the Egyptian Nazi party.

Al-Arian Resurfaces in New American Brotherhood Campaign