You can defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but not conservatism

Hamid Mir | Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

Erdoğan’s Coup Survival: Don’t Call It Democracy

pro erdogan demIPT NewsAugust 3, 2016

Nihad Awad, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) executive director, is in Turkey this week. It isn’t clear why, but Awad is taking advantage of his travels to post upbeat photographs celebrating that country’s recent failed military coup.

Last month, a faction of Turkey’s military tried to oust Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has consolidated power and steered his country away from the secular ambitions laid out by modern founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk toward a decidedly Islamist state.

As Natalie Martin explained in Newsweek:

“For almost ten years, Turkey has been drifting towards authoritarianism. Life has become distinctly uncomfortable for anyone who doesn’t support Erdoğan and his party, the AKP. The government controls the news media, has undermined the rule of law and clamped down harshly on any kind of peaceful protest. So while Turkey is still democratic—in that Erdoğan is elected—it is not a liberal country.”

1749Last Friday, Turkish journalist Mahir Zeynalov captured one aspect of Erdoğan’s latest crackdown, the arrests of dozens of journalists, in a series of Twitter posts that garnered immediate international attention.

Awad hasn’t seemed to notice or doesn’t care. On Saturday, he posted a photograph of a bridge where, he said, “the army surrendered to the will of the people.” Monday evening, he snapped a selfie in Turkey’s Taksim Square, showing what looked like a rally of flag-waving Turks “guarding democracy.”

1748True, Erdoğan was elected president by popular vote in 2014. But his actions, seizing opposition media outlets, purging military, the courts and government of potential foes and increasing Islam’s role in Turkish society, predates the failed coup.

But Erdoğan’s crackdown, described by the New York Times as “nearly unprecedented” in modern history, has not stopped his American Islamist supporters from fully embracing Turkey’s tilt toward a more theocratic state.

In a series of White House rallies that started the night of the failed coup, speakers including Awad cast Turkey as a beacon of freedom.

“This military coup is an affront, not only to the Turkish people, but to everyone who believes in democracy and the free will of the people,” Awad said at another White House rally July 15.

Read more

Also see:

Two Glaring NYT Displays of Ignorance About CAIR in One Day

by Steven Emerson
IPT News
December 15, 2015

1308America’s “paper of record” might be well served to spend some time reviewing actual records.

A day after the Investigative Project on Terrorism published exclusive stories detailing the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood ties at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) from the moment of its birth, and the radical, pro-jihad views of a longtime national board member, the New York Times gave CAIR two free passes.

First, it invited CAIR-San Francisco director Zahra Billoo to write a column lamenting an increase in anti-Muslim threats and attacks in recent weeks. IPT readers know that Billoo has a long record of radical statements, including accusing U.S. soldiers of engaging in terrorism in 2012. Last year, she compared the Israeli army to ISIS, and she heads the chapter which posted an infamous “wall of resistance” poster sowing fear and suspicion among Muslims against federal law enforcement.

1307Last month, Billoo posted on her Twitter feed a toned-down, yet still dark image of a lurking FBI agent, calling on “Champions of Justice” not to talk with law enforcement without a CAIR lawyer.

Crimes motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry, such as last week’s firebombing of a Southern California mosque are despicable and should be prosecuted. The question here is the Times’ judgment in selecting Billoo, out of the universe of Muslim Americans who can speak on the issue.

According to Billoo, the anti-Muslim attacks are not connected to the San Bernardino shooting by two radicalized Muslims who pledged allegiance to ISIS before killing 14 innocent people – in fact, Billoo’s column barely mentions the attack – rather, they are solely due to “dangerous anti-Muslim rhetoric from some politicians.”

Billoo is certain that rhetoric can lead to violence. That’s an unusual position for a CAIR official, since the organization insists the attacks like San Bernardino, or Paris, have nothing to do with the terrorists’ Islamist ideology. “Terrorism has no religion,” CAIRrepeated last month. If there’s anything to blame, CAIR officials point to U.S. foreign policy.

1306Billoo seemed to hint at that message in a Nov. 29 Twitter post,writing that America “must take responsibility for the crazies it has created through its imperialism.”

The Times was more justified quoting CAIR in a Tuesday morning news article, since presidential candidate Ben Carson called on the State Department to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group and called on the Justice Department to “fully investigate” CAIR as a Brotherhood offshoot. Simple fairness dictates giving CAIR a chance to respond.

But it doesn’t justify blindly accepting discredited CAIR propaganda, as the Times did.

“CAIR maintains a section of its website dedicated to debunking claims that the group is a front for Hamas or a fund-raising arm of Hezbollah,” the Times reported. “The group condemns violence and works to improve relations between Muslims and other communities in the United States.”

CAIR does have a page claiming to debunk its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, but the IPT found gaping holes and lies in the report. And CAIR’s connections are not really matters of interpretation. They are established in internal documents the FBI took from members of the Hamas-support network. The FBI read those documents and promptly cut off communication with CAIR “until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”

Here is a flow-chart the FBI created showing the network’s components.

The documents seized by the FBI were admitted into evidence in a Texas federal courtroom and available for the public, including the New York Times, to see for themselves. The presiding federal judge who saw the evidence determined there was “ample evidence to establish the” connection between CAIR, other Islamist groups, and Hamas.

A Lexis search indicates that readers who depend solely on the New York Times have no way of knowing this.

Worse still, Times readers were falsely told in 2014 that “[r]eferences to the group were officially expunged from the court records.” That story remains uncorrected 16 months later. That failure means any Times reporter today who might check the newspaper’s archives for background before writing about CAIR is being fed bad information.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More Blind Hate Toward Israel From a CAIR Official

1189IPT News, July 9, 2015:

Lamis Deek, a lawyer and board member for the Council on American-Islamic Relations-New York (CAIR-NY), is a self-described “Human Rights Advocate” dedicated to promoting justice and human rights – except when it comes to Israel.

In a response to a report Monday that President Obama intends to grant clemency to nonviolent drug offenders, Deek called on the president to release “Political Prisoners” including convicted terrorist financiers and a convicted killer.

“Ok,” Deek wrote on her Facebook page, “and how’s about freeing a [sic] the Political Prisoners then… free Mumia Abu Jamal, Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Holy Land Five, Leonard Peltier and all our political prisoners now!”

Those named share an iconic status within the far Left. Two, Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu Jamal, are convicted killers. Abu-Jamal, a former member of the radical Black Panther Party, was convicted in 1982 for killing a Philadelphia police officer. In 2012, Abu Jamal lost his last legal appeal after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a challenge concerning forensic evidence surrounding the case.

The “Holy Land Five” refers to five officials from the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation who were convicted in 2008 of illegally transferring over $12 million to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization committed to attacking Israeli civilians and the destruction of the Jewish state.

“The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas,” U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis said before sentencing the five to prison terms ranging from 15 to 65 years.

Supporters continue to describe the five as victims of overzealous post-9/11 prosecutions who simply raised money for deprived Palestinians, and were never connected to any violence.

However, evidence and testimony presented at the trial showed the HLF sent money to Palestinian charities under Hamas control. In addition, HLF and its leaders were part of a secret Hamas-support network in the United States created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Internal committee documents show that the Palestine Committee was designed to serve Hamas with “media, money and men.”

1190Deek’s support for the Holy Land defendants is perfectly consistent with her general position on Israel. When it comes to Israel, Deek’s human rights advocacy turns into vociferous hate for a nation and people. She does not shy away from propagating her belief that Israel should cease to exist. In a Twitter post last month, she wrote, “No impunity, ears to the ground, eyes on creative ways to weaken the genocidal zionist regime…”

It’s an ironic statement, given that Deek has voiced support for Hamas. In its charter, Hamas calls for genocide against Jews and for Israel’s destruction.

During the 2012 war between Israel and Hamas, Deek tweeted that Gaza is a “beacon of resistance, exposes shackles, awakens dignity, inspires revolution, reaffirms our oneness – the reason ‘israel’ won’t last”.

During a 2009 fundraiser for an effort to break Israel’s embargo against the Hamas government in Gaza, Deek explained that Palestinian support for Hamas is a choice for “one united Palestinian state on all of the 1948 territories from the north to the very south. That is what Palestinians chose. And in supporting Palestinian choice we are saying we support their right to liberation from violent colonialism.”

By openly calling for pre-1967 Israel’s destruction, Deek’s anti-Zionist views transcend into the realm of anti-Semitism.

1192Last August she posted photos on her Facebook account glorifying terrorists from the Al-Quds Brigades – the military wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist organization that has directly participated in the systematic murder of Israeli civilians since the 1990s.

Deek is hardly alone in her hatred for Israel, and the resulting American Islamists’ rationalization of terrorist violence. Fellow CAIR officials Hussam Ayloush and Zahra Billoo have equated Israel’s army, the IDF, with the marauding barbarians of ISIS, who post grisly videos of their creative methods to kill anyone who crosses their path.

1195Billoo did it again June 16, in response to an article about Westerners who join ISIS, under a headline wondering whether they were criminals or victims. “Are westerners who go to fight for the Israeli Defense Forces victims, or racist, apartheid promoting criminals?” she asked. A previous post expressed more fear of the FBI and the IDF than of ISIS.

She has also spread blatant lies about Israel’s involvement in U.S. law enforcement community engagement.

In 2012, Deek spewed ridiculous conspiracies of the Israeli Mossad posing as FBI agents in America seeking to entrap Muslim Americans during a “Know Your Rights” presentation at a CAIR leadership conference and chapter banquet.

“It was discovered or published that a lot of the interviews that Muslims believed they were going into with the FBI, it turns out it wasn’t with the FBI at all … Guess who it was? Mossad, Israeli intelligence in New York and New Jersey,” Deek said.

Deek’s desire to see an existing nation destroyed and her moral support for Hamas speak volumes about her “human rights” priorities. It’s one thing to advocate for Palestinian nationalism and ways to improve Palestinian lives. But when that position is based on blind hate and the embrace of a terrorist organization which rejects a peaceful settlement and devotes itself instead to death and destruction, she loses any moral high ground and should lose all credibility.

Maajid Nawaz Just Indirectly Called 2 CAIR Officials “Insane”

by IPT News  •  Jun 5, 2015:

The National Union of Students, a confederation of 600 student unions representing more than 95 percent of all higher education unions in the United Kingdom, passed a motion Tuesday to align with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign as part of a worldwide effort to boycott Israel.

The same group rejected a motion in October condemning ISIS out of concerns it would “become a justification for war and blatant islamophobia.” The failed motion called for support to “Iraqis trying to bridge the Sunni-Shia divide to fight for equality and democracy, including defence of the rights of the Christian and Yazidi-Kurd minorities.” It also specifically condemned the Islamic State and expressed support for the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting it.

Seeing that fail, but a boycott of Israel pass, prompted Maajid Nawaz, a Liberal Democrat candidate in the 2015 parliamentary elections and prominent anti-extremism activist, to tweet his disapproval, saying it represents “Everything wrong with the Modern Left.” In a subsequent comment, Nawaz, a former recruiter for the radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir who now combats the Islamist narrative, said that anyone who “entertains the idea” that Israel is as bad as ISIS “is frankly insane.”

As we reported in February, several prominent American Islamists have tried to push that very comparison. Two of them, Hussam Ayloush and Zahra Billoo run California chapters for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Ayloush, who runs CAIR’s Los Angeles office, told an audience at the Islamic Center of Orange County in January that Muslims receive too much attention when it comes to extremism, especially involving foreign fighters. “So let’s talk about the Jewish American kids who join the Jewish State before we talk about Muslim Americans who join the Islamic State. Neither one represents Judaism or Islam,” he said.

Billoo, who runs the CAIR San Francisco office, made similar arguments in Twitter posts in September and again in February.

“Is one genocidal group different than the other?” her Feb. 16 post read.

It’s remarkable that she sees that as a legitimate question. Or, as Nawaz sees it, “frankly insane.”

In Boston Shooting, Islamists Damn First, Ignore Facts Later

1172 (1)IPT News
June 3, 2015

Virtually everything Islamist activists in the United States claimed about Tuesday’s fatal shooting of terror suspect Usaama Rahim in Boston appears to have been debunked within 24 hours.

Authorities say they shot Rahim, 26, after he repeatedly lunged at them with a military-style knife as they tried to question him. The skepticism was fueled by online posts by Rahim’s brother, Imam Ibrahim Rahim. His claims, which fueled the immediate and reflexive condemnation of the Boston police and FBI, turned out to be wrong. Usaama Rahim was not shot in the back. He was not on the telephone with his father when he was shot. Law enforcement did back up and give Rahim several opportunities to end the confrontation peacefully.

Officials showed the surveillance video proving this to a group of Boston community leaders Wednesday. “We’re very comfortable with what we saw,” said Urban League President Darnell Williams. While those who saw the video say it was too grainy to see the knife, a Boston Globe photograph shows a long knife being removed from the scene.

In a criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday afternoon, FBI Special Agent J. Joseph Galietta wrote that Rahim bought an Ontario Spec Plus Marine Raider Bowie fighting knife and an SP6 Spec Plus Fighting Knife from Amazon in the past week.

In conversations recorded by the FBI, which had Rahim under constant surveillance for months, Rahim and a friend discussed beheading someone outside the state of Massachusetts. That changed in a 5 a.m. telephone call Rahim made to friend David Wright Tuesday morning. He said he no longer was interested in beheading the target previously discussed.

“I’m just going to ah go after them, those boys in blue,” Rahim allegedly said in the recorded conversation. “Cause, ah, it’s the easiest target and, ah, the most common is the easiest for me…”

Wright then advised Rahim to destroy his computer and smartphone “Because, at the scene, at the scene, CSI will be looking for that particular thing and so dump it, get rid of that. At the time you are going to do it, before you reach your destination you get rid of it.

That suggestion prompted the complaint against Wright charging him with conspiring to obstruct an investigation. Once arrested, Wright waived his Miranda rights and verified agents’ beliefs that cryptic conversations they heard between Wright and Rahim were about plots to kill people.

When Rahim pulled the knife Tuesday and officers told him to drop it, Rahim replied, “you drop yours,” Galietta wrote.

Thus far, none of the activists who jumped to an erroneous conclusion Tuesday, who unrealistically expected a full accounting of the incident within hours, have acknowledged their error.

Arab American Association of New York Executive Director Linda Sarsour minimized statements by Boston religious and political activists who reviewed the video of the Rahim shooting. “If you haven’t seen the video of killing of #UsaamaRahim, don’t talk to me about it,” she wrote on Twitter. “I don’t know what it shows or doesn’t show. Questions still remain,” she wrote in a separate post.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which routinely criticizes counter-terror investigations as unjust and rooted in prejudice, issued a news release seeking an “independent and thorough” investigation, saying it has a “duty to question every police-involved shooting to determine if the use of deadly force was necessary, particularly given the recent high profile shootings of African-American men.”

If history is a guide, CAIR won’t accept the findings no matter what. It sought, and obtained, an independent investigation into the 2009 shooting of Detroit imam Luqman Abdullah.

In 2010, CAIR asked for, then rejected, investigations by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the Dearborn Police Department and Michigan attorney general’s office after an imam was shot and killed after he fired on a K9 dog leading an FBI SWAT team.

Video from that investigation shows Imam Luqman Abdullah, who preached that followers should not go peacefully if police came for them, tried to run away as agents moved in to arrest him. He refused their orders to lie down, lurked behind a corner and kept his hand hidden despite repeated instructions to show them.

CAIR’s Michigan director dismissed the DOJ investigation as “superficial and incomplete” and continues to cite the incident as an example of FBI excessive force and mistreatment of Muslims.

It sought, and obtained, an independent investigation into the 2013 shooting in Orlando of Ibragim Todashev, a friend of Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Investigations by the Justice Department and an independent Florida state attorney conclude that Todashev, a “skilled mixed-martial arts fighter,” tried to attack agents shortly after acknowledging having “some involvement” in a 2011 triple homicide in Massachusetts also under investigation in connection with the Tsarnaevs. Todashev reportedly heaved a coffee table, striking an FBI agent in the head before grabbing a five-foot-long metal pole over his head “with the end of the pole pointed toward [the FBI agent] as if intended to be used to impale rather than strike.” The agent shot him three times, but Todashev again tried to charge, prompting the agent to fire three or four more shots, killing Todashev.

The Justice Department review reached the same conclusions. It noted that Todashev’s half-written confession was found at the scene. “The last sentence that Todashev wrote on the tablet of paper specifically related conduct by him that acknowledged complicity in the crime,” the DOJ report said.

“The only person who can contradict the government’s narrative is now dead and the investigation into his death relied on evidence gathered by agents of the same agency involved in his death,” CAIR-Florida official Hassan Shibly said. Shibly, an attorney, is now involved in filing a wrongful death claim against the FBI.

He did not comment on Tuesday’s shooting in Boston, and Shibly did post an acknowledgement that the video shows Rahim was not shot in the back as claimed.

CAIR Michigan chapter leader Dawud Walid, who posted comments skeptical about law enforcement, made no direct statement about the new disclosures Wednesday after the activists spoke about what the video showed. Earlier, he lumped Rahim in with Abdullah adn Todashev. San Francisco chapter official Zahra Billoo challenged someone who urged restraint in pre-judging the situation and dared to mention the rule of law.

So far, all the emerging information backs up law enforcement claims about Rahim and debunked the Islamist narrative. But the damage here may be immeasurable. The inaccurate information plays right into the hands of ISIS and other radical Islamist recruiters. The reckless, false narrative fuels the notion of the West’s alleged war on Islam, that Muslims must wage attack to protect the lives of their brethren.

That is the ideology that motivated the terrorists responsible for the Fort Hood shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing, among others.

CAIR and other Islamists say they are merely asking questions. Next time, perhaps they can at least wait for an autopsy before spreading false, inflammatory gossip.

Also see:

‘Moderate Islamists’ Turn on MI Gov. for pro-Israel Comment

Clockwise: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, Hatem Bazian,Omar Suleiman and Zahra Billoo.

Clockwise: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, Hatem Bazian,Omar Suleiman and Zahra Billoo.

Mich. Gov. Snyder is getting an up-close look at the extremism of the Islamic Society of North America, an group that purports to be moderate

BY RYAN MAURO:

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is getting an up-close look at the extremism of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). AfterClarion Project brought attention to his speaking engagement at ISNA’s conference, his spokesperson defended ISNA. Now, he is facing an Islamist backlash merely for stating his support of Israel’s right to exist.

ISNA has a moderate presentation but an extremist history. ISNA was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in 2007 during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. The Justice Department said ISNA is an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, a determination supported by the Brotherhood’s own documents.

Our article mentioned these facts and reviewed the speaker lineup for ISNA’s conference, which consists largely of Islamist radicals. Significant media coverage followed our report. We provided this information to Governor Snyder’s office and asked for a response.

Press Secretary Sara Wurfel responded by defending ISNA as a moderate organization. The official statement read in part:

“ISNA has been consistent in rejecting all acts of terrorism and violence, and Congressional investigations and inquiries have resulted in no ties to terrorism, and the organization has as its mission ‘to foster the development of the Muslim community, interfaith relations, civic engagement, and better understanding of Islam.

“ISNA has advocated for a ‘just and fair settlement of disputes between Israel, the Palestinians, and their neighbors through diplomacy and other peaceful means.’ ”

Snyder personally complimented ISNA during his remarks.  He said,“Thank you for your interfaith efforts with Christian and Jewish organizations.” He even endorsed ISNA’s Islamist-filled schedule,stating, “The tracks of your program are well-selected and meaningful to all of us.”

But then he uttered one line that has raised the ire of Islamists who also spoke at the event: “I’m a strong supporter of Israel and believe in its right to exist.”

The Islamists say the comment is offensive and anti-Muslim. Of course, nowhere did he actually attack Muslims or Palestinians. All Snyder did was state his opposition to the Islamist goal of destroying Israel.

Now some of ISNA’s top speakers are vowing to punish him politically.

Hatem Bazian, the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine, is the loudest voice. He spoke twice at the ISNA conference, once on “Islamophobia” and once on the Muslim-American identity. He is also a founder of the Islamist-led Zaytuna College, which led another ISNA session.

Read more at Clarion Project