CPAC Declares World War III Against Jihad

ww-iii-panel

Jihad Watch, by Andrew Harrod, Feb. 27, 2017:

“We are 15 years in to what is going to be a multigenerational war, because we are talking about defeating an idea” of jihadism, stated retired Lieutenant-Colonel Michael Waltz during a February 24 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) panel. The former Green Beret and his fellow panelists discussing “When Did World War III Start?” brought stimulating center-stage discussions of Islamic jihad threats to CPAC, where they had often suffered neglect before.

Waltz was one participant in CPAC panels concerning America’s domestic and foreign security challenges on successive days in the ballroom of National Harbor’s Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center near Washington, DC. New Zealand conservative author and filmmaker Trevor Loudon initiated the February 23 panel by noting the “red-green” confluence of seventh-century Islam and twentieth-century Marxism. “World War III started about 1,400 years ago and it got a big boost in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution and those two streams, Islam and the Bolsheviks, have never parted company.” Today “you have got the Muslim Brotherhood operating in this country; you have got the radical left, Communist groups.”

Loudon’s fellow panelist, Center for Security Policy Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez, delineated these Islamic threats. “We are not fighting terrorism. We are fighting the forces of Islamic jihad and sharia to live free.” While terrorist attacks globally are increasing, the “main line of effort here in the United States is the civilization jihad, for which the Muslim Brotherhood [MB] is the vanguard.”

Lopez elaborated upon sharia subversion “taking aim at the pillars of our society,” such as in the American judiciary and with current Canadian legislation condemning and perhaps even criminalizing “Islamophobia.” She similarly warned about how “our government and national security which have been so deeply penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood,” such as with law enforcement training by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups. In American religious institutions such as churches, there is also “interfaith dialogue, where the bridge only goes one way:  towards Islam.”

Lopez described this “civilization jihad” in terms of an insurgency. Thus an “insurgency is won or lost at the local level, and so will be this one.” Accordingly, she exhorted that an “informed, engaged and patriotic citizenry, like all of us here today, is the very best defense to keep America as great as the Founding Fathers ever envisioned it to be.”

Taking the CPAC center stage with Waltz the day after Lopez’s presentation, American Forum for Islam and Democracy President Zuhdi Jasser echoed her ideological concerns. “We see the invocation of blasphemy laws through using the term ‘Islamophobia,’” a term with totalitarian origins often used to silence any criticism, including that of self-professed Muslims like Jasser, of Islamic doctrine. “Don’t use the term ‘Islamophobia,’ because they are trying to shut us all up from criticizing Islamic State ideology.” (Perhaps another CPAC panelist from later that day, The Hill editor Nicholas Hahn, should have considered such censorship concerns, given The Hill’s deletion under criticism of an article by Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer.)

Like Lopez, Jasser emphasized the broad-based nature of threats anchored in Islamic doctrine, such as the Islamic State (in Iraq and — Greater — Syria, or ISIS). “We could get rid of ISIS tomorrow or next year, and then in a couple of years there will be another radical Islamic group,” he warned. Citing Saudi Arabia’s Islamic kingdom or Iran and Pakistan’s Islamic Republics, he noted that ISIS is “this monster that got created from their ideas.”

Jasser therefore sounded a call for a battle of ideas and advocated an ideological policy shift from “this nebulous, blasé ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ to ‘Countering Violent Islamism.’” Like Loudon, Jasser noted that Islamist groups are “parties that embrace the collectivism of Islam as a faith.” Therefore, there is a “bargain between the Left and Islam; it’s because they are both collectivists.”

Ideology also played a prominent role in the thinking of Jasser’s fellow panelist, Sebastian Gorka, President Donald Trump’s deputy assistant. “The definition for victory for us is a very simple one,” he declared. “We are going to make the black flag of jihad as repugnant around the world…as the black, white, and red swastika flag of the Third Reich. The brand of jihad has to be destroyed.”

In this ideological warfare against jihad, Jasser reprised his description of what he has previously termed an Islamic civil war. This son of Syrian-American refugees judged that “there are Muslims across the world that share our values, are against dictatorship, be it the secular military fascists and the monarchs, or the Islamist theocrats” in the Middle East. Therefore “we need to start taking sides within in the House of Islam, with the Green Revolution in Iran, with the secularists that are fighting for freedom against both the Assadists and the ISIS Islamists.”

Yet the sobering failures in America of the Muslim Reform Movement led by Jasser belie his exceedingly rosy assessment of the 2011 “Arab Spring” or, more accurately, “Islamist Winter.” Contrary to this bitter experience, he concluded that the “Arab Awakening proved that these populations are ready for a revolution, for a grassroots movement against the establishment across the Middle East.” Astonishing also are Waltz’s echoes of President George W. Bush’s Middle Eastern “freedom agenda” and current National Security Advisor Lieutenant-General H. R. McMaster, who has called jihadist terrorists “un-Islamic.” Recalling Afghans who fought against the Taliban, Waltz stated that “they want a better future for their children. They want the ability to have free markets to make a living.” This contrasts with a supposed “bastardization of what is otherwise a peaceful religion” in Islam.

Irrespective of strategy debates over defeating jihad, Waltz struck a more realistic note when discussing the longterm nature of fighting against a faith-based ideology. As an Afghan tribal elder explained to Waltz:

Until you are prepared to commit your grandchildren, not your children, but your grandchildren, to stand shoulder to shoulder with my grandchildren and fight Islamic extremism, then you will never be successful here.

 

John Guandolo outlines his disagreement with Trump advisors on CT policy – plus my take

CJR: There is a fierce debate going on among counter-jihad activists right now over what the Trump administration’s official counterterrorism policy towards Islamic jihad should be. One positive development is the likely end of the disastrous Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) policy that de-linked Islam from terrorism and led to both domestic and foreign policy which placed Muslims “feelings” above the safety of our own people. Now the debate is focused on whether ISIS is Islamic. I have no doubt that both Lt General H. R. McMaster and Dr. Sebastian Gorka know that it is. I believe that they are using disinformation strategy to de-legitimize the enemy and gain Muslim allies. However, I believe that now is the time to make clear that Islamic doctrine is the enemy threat doctrine and Muslims who are not following that doctrine to the letter are technically apostates. Muslim reformers must acknowledge this. The Muslims we wish to ally with understand this very well and will not be “driven to radicalize” by an official U. S. policy that states the truth.

I would not impune the character and motives of Lt General H. R. McMaster or Dr. Sebastian Gorka as John Guandolo does in the following article but I do agree with his position that there is only one Islamic doctrine. I would just point out that Muslim belief and practice of that doctrine varies. I see no problem allying with Muslim reformers as long as we are all clear on what Islamic doctrine actually says. There needs to be a complete overhaul of CT training as well as public education on the matter so that we can begin to “orient on the enemy”.

I will continue to post opposing views on this important debate and encourage respectful comments. Perhaps Dr. Gorka should invite John Guandolo to the White House for a friendly chat over coffee like he did with that self-important, weasel attack dog Michael S. Smith II. That would probably be a much more productive meeting!

***

mcmaster-and-gorka

“Unfit for Duty” by John Guandolo at Understanding the Threat, Feb. 26, 2017:

The New York Times, Guardian, and CNN all report Lt General McMaster told members of the National Security Council Thursday he felt “radical Islamic terrorism” was an unhelpful way to describe terrorism because becoming a terrorist is actually “un-Islamic” in the first place.

In a talk he gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in May 2016, LtGen McMaster said, “There is a cycle going on where groups like ISIL, who use this irreligious ideology, you know, this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence, they depend on ignorance and the ability to recruit vulnerable segments of populations to foment hatred, then use that hatred to justify violence against innocents.”

This is incoherent and factually wrong.  LtGen McMaster wrote a book entitled “Dereliction of Duty.”  He may want to look in the mirror to see if he is doing the same thing in this war he accused President Johnson of doing in Vietnam.

100% of all Islamic doctrine, from elementary, junior high, and high school Islamic text books as well as the highest authorities in Islamic jurisprudence, to include Al Azhar University in Egypt, all clearly and doctrinally state Islam is a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  100% of all sharia mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule, and 100% of sharia only defines “jihad” as warfare against non-Muslims.

“The duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic state.”

What Islam is All About  (most widely used junior high text book in U.S. Islamic schools)

The violence Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Boston bombers, the attackers in Paris, the Fort Lauderdale shooter, and all the jihadis we have faced over the past 20 years quote authoritative Islamic doctrine in support of what they do.  Al Qaeda and ISIS have never misquoted sharia in furtherance of their actions.

In the last 15 years it has been made clear – the more muslims study Islam and sharia, the more likely they are to support and participate in jihad.

So the questions remains…what the hell is Lieutenant General McMaster talking about because he is not talking truthfully about a real and present danger to these United States?  He is doing exactly what our enemy wants him to do – creating an imaginary target for us to chase while our real enemy prepares to defeat us.

Nearly 16 years after 9/11, the Global Islamic Movement has taken down nations, expanded its power, and defeated the United States in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because leaders like McMaster decided they were too busy to stop and learn the enemy threat doctrine – Sharia – and instead have been given a counterfactual understanding of our enemy by Islamic advisors who are all batting for the other team.

The President’s Counterterrorism advisor, Sebastian Gorka, is “over the moon” LtGen McMaster is the new National Security Advisor.  However, Gorka’s lack of honesty about the Islamic threat raises much more serious questions.

Some have been lulled into believing he is on the right track because he uttered the word “jihad” but defeating this enemy takes more than pretending to know what you are talking about.

Speaking at CPAC this past weekend, Gorka stated:  “Zuhdi (Jasser) knows it better than anybody because he understands that this isn’t about poverty or lack of education. It’s about people who are fighting for the soul of Islam – not a war with Islam, but a war inside Islam; as King Abdullah, as General Sisi has said, for which version is going to win.”

Utter nonsense.  There is one version of Islam and one Sharia.  To say otherwise is to be factually wrong, but also dangerous when national strategies are being built off that utter nonsense.

When one’s duties include national security responsibilities, one has a professional duty to know the enemy or do due diligence to know the enemy.  To fail to do so makes one professionally negligent in one’s duties.  When people die (Ft Lauderdale, Boston, Orlando, Ft Hood…) because a person is unprofessional in his/her duties it is called “criminal negligence” and doctors and lawyers go to jail for such behavior.

Several years ago at a town hall presentation hosted by Washington, D.C. radio station WMAL, Sebastian Gorka stated “99.9% of muslims do not support terrorism (jihad)” despite a mountain of evidence and polling data proving this comment untrue, and the fact the entire purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is dominated by Islamic rule (sharia).

Dr. Gorka also writes in his book, Defeating Jihad, we are not at war with Islam (p.129) but our enemy is “the ideology of takfiri jihad” (p.123).

No muslim jihadi who fought on the battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else, nor any of the jihadis who have died in Europe in the United States attacking us nor the jihadis we have arrested have said they are “takfiri jihadis.”  They have said they are “Muslims” waging “Jihad in the cause of Allah” to “establish a caliphate under sharia.”

This is what Islamic doctrine commands them to do.

erdogan-moderate-islam-capture

On page 144 of his book, Gorka ends with the call for the United States to spend billions of dollars supporting “Muslim reformers” in their “ideological war to delegitimize the message of holy war against the infidel and bolster modern interpretations of Islam.”  This demonstrates Sebastian Gorka is either completely free of any clue of Islamic doctrine or is intentionally lying about what Islam actually teaches.
Since these ideas and strategies to use “moderate Muslims” to ensure the “other version” of Islam wins are based in fantasy not reality, these policies will necessarily fail – and have failed the United States for 15 years.
Is that Dr. Gorka’s intention?  Does he not know that strategies to win a war must be based in the reality of who the enemy is?  Why would Sebastian Gorka put forth such and idea when he knows what he is saying is untrue?
Is it possible Dr. Gorka has remained strategically incoherent for 15 years during this global war?  Is he working on behalf of some outside entity to intentionally mislead the President of the United States, or is he is simply putting his paycheck ahead of the American people and his duty.
The United States will lose this war against the Global Islamic Movement if we do not clearly define the enemy and target the enemy.  We cannot hit a target we do not identify and cannot defeat an enemy we do not target.
Our warfighting doctrine calls for an analysis of our enemy based on how the enemy defines itself.  We begin our analysis there.  Something we have not done since 9/11/01.  If we did, our entire national security apparatus, including our military, would have been studying and teaching authoritative sharia and more of our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen would be alive today because of it.
Keeping LtGen McMaster and Sebastian Gorka in their current positions will ensure America remains strategically incoherent and will guarantee our defeat in this war against the Global Islamic Movement.
As always, this war will be won or lost at the local level because our federal government is still failing us.

IPT Exclusive: In Private Fundraiser, Ellison Blasted Israeli Influence Over U.S. Policy

ellison2by Steven Emerson
IPT News
November 29, 2016

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s announcement earlier this month that he wants to be the Democratic National Committee’s next chairman drew quick support from several key lawmakers, including Jewish senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders.

Ellison backers also have defended him against claims he may hold anti-Semitic views in addition to being anti-Israel. A column in Israel’s liberal daily Haaretz quotes two rabbis praising Ellison, D-Minn., as “the best of our constitutional democracy and the best of America” and “an extraordinary leader. Anyone who would associate him with any kind of hatred hasn’t met him and certainly hasn’t worked with him.”

A 2010 audio of Ellison speaking at a private fundraiser obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism calls such praise into question. In a fairly intimate setting, Ellison lashed out at what he sees as Israel’s disproportionate influence in American foreign policy. That will change, he promised, as more Muslims gained political influence:

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

The fundraiser for Ellison’s re-election campaign was hosted by Esam Omeish, a past president of the Muslim American Society (MAS) who was forced to resign from a Virginia state immigration panel in 2007 after an exclusive IPT videotape showed him praising Palestinians for choosing the “the jihad way … to liberate your land.” Omeish was a candidate for Virginia’s general assembly the previous year, and Ellison spoke at a fundraiser for that losing effort.

In his 2010 remarks, he described Omeish as “my beloved brother and I love you and you are the best and your family is so beautiful and again, you know, you put it out there. You ran. And I hope you run again.”

Also present at the fundraiser was Nihad Awad, a co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and a member of a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in America known as the Palestine Committee.

Ellison’s comments about Israeli political influence do not appear to be a poor choice of words. A year earlier, as conflict raged between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Ellison told Al Jazeera that the people who have a strong sympathy for the Israeli position dominate the conversation. It is really not politically safe to say there have been two sides to this.”

A month later, Ellison told the BBC that outreach to Hamas was not feasible for a member of Congress – not because it is a terrorist organization with an anti-Semitic charter demanding Israel’s destruction – but because it is too politically risky.

“What I can tell you now is that the constellation of political forces in the United States at this moment would make a member of Congress who has reached out directly to Hamas spend all their time defending that decision and would not be able to deal with other critical issues that need to be focused on. So for example if I were to make a move like that I wouldn’t be able to focus my attention on the humanitarian issue. I’d have to defend myself to my colleagues why I reached out to a terrorist organization. It would absorb all of my time. I would spend a lot of time fighting off personal attack and would not be able to achieve goals that I have.”

Just after the 2009 Gaza war, Ellison was among 22 House members to vote “present” rather than take a stand on a nonbinding House resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Ellison claimed he was “torn” on the issue because it “barely mentions the human suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.”

Ellison long has demanded that Israel open its borders to Gaza, arguing that economic aid and development would help ease tensions and resulting violence. In 2010, he authored a letter signed by 53 House colleagues which called on President Obama to pressure Israel into opening the border.

Ellison described the blockade as “collective punishment” on Gaza residents.

He re-upped the argument in a 2014 Washington Post oped which was written during new conflict between Israel and Hamas. Hamas terrorists provoked the war by kidnapping and murdering three teenagers and by launching thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian areas.

But Ellison argued that peace would come with economic relief in Gaza and said an end to the blockade should be part of any ceasefire.

“The status quo for ordinary Gazans is a continuation of no jobs and no freedom,” he wrote. “This is not an attractive future. Gazans want and deserve the dignity of economic opportunity and freedom to move.”

The restrictions on imports to Gaza were aimed at curbing the flow of materials sent to Hamas to build rockets, bombs and other tools for terrorism. Israel allows humanitarian aid into the territory. But Hamas continues to divert millions of dollars in aid and supplies which could be used to improve daily life in order to dig more attack tunnels and restock its terrorist arsenal.

While he also said that “Hamas must give up its rockets and other weapons” to achieve peace, Ellison was one of only eight House members to vote against increasing funding for Israel to provide added funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense program. Even though it successfully intercepted dozens of Hamas rockets, especially those aimed at population centers, Ellison said the proposal was no good because “the US government needs to be prioritizing a ceasefire between the two sides.”

These statements and countless others should concern DNC officials before choosing a leader early next year. Any chairperson’s job will include efforts to preserve and maintain the party’s support from American Jews. Exit polling indicates an estimated 71 percent of Jewish voters supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Jewish leaders either don’t know the extent of Ellison’s relationship with Islamist groups like CAIR, or of his consistent criticism of Israeli actions, especially in response to Hamas terror, or they do not care. Jonathan Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League’s chief executive, issued a statement last week saying Ellison “is a man of good character” and “an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights.”

As we have shown, he’s also a man who believes Jewish interests disproportionately influence American foreign policy.

During last summer’s national convention, Ellison and other delegates supporting Sanders wanted the Democratic Party platform to delete a description of Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” and wanted to gut language opposing the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement targeting the Jewish state.

Those efforts were pushed back, but should have a far stronger position under an Ellison-run DNC.

Support for Terror Tied

In addition to seeing Israel as controlling government policy, Ellison has supported prominent Islamists targeted for their direct support for Palestinian terrorist organizations.

During a 2008 radio interview, Ellison praised Sami Al-Arian. Years earlier, evidence admitted into a federal court showed Al-Arian served on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Shura council, in essence, its board of directors. Despite that fact, Ellison said he wished “that Dr. Al-Arian and his family have peace, have justice, and are able to secure a greater quality of justice for their case,” saying he found “some things about his case that I think raise legitimate questions.”

Similarly, Ellison expressed frustration at the 2007 terrorist financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five former officials. The charity, shut down by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2001, funneled millions of dollars to Hamas through a network of Palestinian charities the terrorist group controlled.

But after a trial ended with a hung jury on most counts, Ellison blasted the case as “persecution” during remarks at a CAIR fundraising banquet in Anaheim. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, in part due to internal Palestine Committee documents showing CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. network from the moment of its 1994 inception.

“And the worst of it was not that these people’s lives were disrupted, their reputations were tarnished,” Ellison said. “The worst of it was that [300] other organizations were tossed in to the mix of it all as they were listed as unindicted co-conspirators. No evidence to be found that they had done anything. So here is what we have today. 300 reputable civil rights organizations, including CAIR, put on a list they never should have been put on in a case where they had been thoroughly exonerated. It’s time to call an end to wasting taxpayer money in this manner. There have been other prosecutions for Muslim charities and we’ve come up with nothing at all when it comes to convictions in these cases. It’s time for us to call a stop to this selective prosecution. It’s time to say that our justice system and our prosecutors and our police officers are here to investigate crime for the sake of public safety, not to pursue a political agenda.”

The Holy Land defendants were retried in 2008, with jurors convicting the defendantson all counts. Ellison did not comment.

In 2009, Ellison made the pilgrimage to Mecca known as the Hajj. His travels were financed by the Muslim American Society (MAS), which insiders have acknowledged is the Muslim Brotherhood’s overt arm in the United States.

Little Tolerance For Dissenting Views

When it comes to Muslims who may not share the Islamist ideology of MAS, CAIR and others, Ellison is quick tempered and hostile.

He walked out of a 2009 Capitol Hill panel discussion with Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, after falsely accusing Jasser of giving “people license for bigotry,” and “to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating.”

Jasser’s “sin” was to criticize the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and advocate for “a separation between mosque and state.”

Similarly, Ellison dramatically lashed out during a 2011 House hearing on Islamic radicalization. Even though the panel included a Muslim father of an American who became a terrorist, Ellison fought back tears talking about a Muslim first responder killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Simply holding the hearing was tantamount to assigning blame for a terrorist’s “violent actions to the entire community,” he said, “you assign collective blame to the entire group.”

Ellison has spoken at at least a dozen CAIR fundraising events since 2006, records show. In addition, the IPT has learned that Ellison privately consults with CAIR for talking points and suggestions about pending actions and hearings before the House.

It’s little wonder that, in 2014, CAIR honored Ellison with its “Muslim of the Year” award.

Jasser recently devoted his weekly podcast to Ellison’s DNC candidacy. “A DNC run by a Congressman Ellison, I think, will become very dangerous,” Jasser said. That’s in part due to Ellison’s support for Saudi Arabia, despite that country’s strict Wahhabi ideology and its prominent role financing the spread of a radical interpretation of Islam globally. Ellison also is a frequent fundraiser for CAIR and is supportive of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an umbrella group for 57 majority-Muslim nations which wants to see global blasphemy laws outlawing criticism of religion.

Ellison “racializes” Islam, Jasser said, as part of a broader reliance on identity politics. “Islam is not a race. It’s an idea. An idea, by the way, that includes ideas loathe to the Democratic Party” such as severe restrictions on women and the death penalty for homosexuality. But by making criticism of Islam, or of those who want to apply it politically, critics can be dismissed as bigots.

He recounted his 2009 debate with Ellison and the 2011 radicalization hearing in which Ellison engaged in “character assassination of us as witnesses. And the fact that we were Muslim did not seem to matter to him.”

That is one point on which Jasser and Ellison agree. Two weeks after the hearing, Ellison spoke at a University of Michigan-Dearborn event sponsored by the school’s Muslim Students Association (MSA) chapter. Like CAIR, MAS and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the MSA was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. Internal records show the Brotherhood acknowledges the connection.

Ellison dismissed Jasser, who advocates reform and opposes mixing his faith with government policy, and Abdirizak Bihi, the uncle of a radicalized Somali American from the Minneapolis area who died after joining the al-Shabaab terrorist group, as “some Muslim guys who, you know, who basically are angry at their community to go say a bunch of anecdotal things about … how good they are and how bad we are.”

Ellison’s record is clear. He raises money for some of the country’s most deceptive Islamist groups and works with them to advance their causes. He singles out Israel for criticism and believes the Jewish state enjoys disproportionate control over American foreign policy.

He wants to lead one of America’s two major political parties.

Also see:

Soros Money, Muslim Advocates Leader, Helped Weaken Homeland Security Policies

osfby John Rossomando
IPT News
October 7, 2016

A Muslim legal group, girded with $1.8 million in grant money from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), has helped influence major policy changes in the war on terror, including the Department of Homeland Security’s screening of individuals with suspected terror ties and the FBI’s training program for its agents working in counterterrorism.

Internal records, made public by the hacking group DC Leaks, show OSF spent $40 million between 2008 and 2010 on programs aimed at weakening U.S. counterterrorism policy.

Muslim Advocates’ Executive Director Farhana Khera played a key role in shaping the foundations’ spending. Khera co-authored a 2007 memo that “informed” the foundations’ U.S. Programs Board’s decision to create the National Security and Human Rights Campaign (NSHRC), a Sept. 14, 2010 OSF document discussing the program’s reauthorization, shows.

The NSHRC’s goals included:

  • Closing Guantanamo Bay, eliminating torture and methods such as the extraordinary rendition of prisoners, and ending the use of secret prisons;
  • Ending warrantless and “unchecked” surveillance;
  • Ensuring that anti-terrorism laws and law enforcement activities do not target freedom of speech, association or religious expression;
  • Reducing ethnic and religious profiling of people of Muslim, Arab or South Asian extraction;
  • Decreasing secrecy and increasing oversight of executive actions, and expose U.S. government or private individuals who abuse or violate the law.

Some of these policies, such as closing Guantanamo and ending enhanced interrogation techniques, already were also advocated by Obama administration. OSFclaimed its work laid the groundwork for implementing those policies. The Edward Snowden leaks cast light on the depth of the government’s warrantless surveillance activity. The other goals are more difficult to assess.

Muslim Advocates was founded in 2005 as an offshoot of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers. It often criticizes U.S. counterterrorism strategies that use sting operations and informants as discriminatory.

Papers released by the anonymous hacker group DC Leaks show that OSF budgeted $21 million for the NSHRC from 2008-2010. OSF spent an additional $1.5 million in 2010. The NSHRC also received a matching $20 million contribution from Atlantic Philanthropies, a private foundation established in 1982 by Irish-American Chuck Feeney billionaire businessman.

OSF made 105 grants totaling $20,052, 784 to 63 organizations under the NSHRC program. An Investigative Project on Terrorism tally shows Muslim Advocates received at least $1.84 million in OSF grants between 2008 and 2015.

A funders’ roundtable created by OSF in 2008 helped coordinate the grant making among several left-leaning foundations, ” in order to “dismantle the flawed ‘war on terror’ paradigm on which national security policy is now based.” At least “two dozen” foundations participated in the roundtable’s strategy sessions as of the end of 2008.

Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, called the Soros foundations’ $40 million program both hypocritical and ironic. He noted that the 2011 OSF-funded Center for American Progress report “Fear, Inc.” complained that seven conservative foundations donated $42.6 million to so-called “Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009.” The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other major Islamist groups routinely use the $42.6 million funding number to portray their opponents as being pawns of dark forces.

“It’s amazing that one foundation donated an amount that CAIR and [Muslim] Advocates say is the huge sum of money that funds the entire anti-jihad campaign,” Jasser said. “… That wasn’t from one foundation. That was an addition of [the money given to] everybody that they threw under the bus.”

By contrast, OSF and Atlantic Philanthropies spent $41.5 million in just three years. OSF dedicated another $26 million to the NSHRC program from 2011-2014.

OSF additionally funded a study by the New America Foundation equating the terror threat posed right-wing extremists with al-Qaida. An Oct. 17, 2011 memo discussing NSHRC grants notes that New America received $250,000, partly to write two reports. The first aimed at creating a “‘safe space’ in which Muslims in America feel free to hold controversial political dialogues, organize without fear of unwarranted government surveillance.” The second aimed to “correct mistaken public beliefs that Al-Qaeda’s brand of terrorism is unique to Islam and that most terrorists are Muslim.”

The paper promised “to show how adherents of each extremist ideology use different language to justify very similar political means and goals. By demonstrating parallels among militant groups, this paper will aim to separate politically focused terrorism from the religion of Islam.”

Arguments from this report continue to help frame how Democrats and their allies talk about the jihadist threat. New America’s statistics and arguments recently came up in a House hearing about the threat from homegrown Islamic terrorists.

“According to the New America Foundation, there have been more incidents of right-wing extremist attacks in the United States than violent jihadist attacks since 9/11. I’m not minimizing jihadist attacks. In that light, can you explain what your office plans to do with respect to domestic right-wing extremism?” Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., asked Department of Homeland Security Office of Community Partnerships Director George Selim during a House subcommittee hearing last month.

New America’s effort to conflate right-wing extremists with al-Qaida glossed over a major difference – namely al-Qaida’s reliance on mass casualty attacks and suicide bombings.

New America’s latest data shows that jihadists have killed more people since 9/11 than right-wing extremists.

“What you’ve uncovered is the fact … that the Soros foundation works to obfuscate on national security,” Jasser said. “Muslim Advocates clearly is a prime example of the sickness in Washington related to dealing with the central reforms necessary to make within the House of Islam.

“You’ll see that the Soros foundation is spending money on organizations that deny the very principles they are defenders of, which are feminism, gay rights, individual rights. Muslim Advocates’ entire bandwidth is spent on attacking the government and blocking any efforts at counterterrorism.”

Muslim Advocates also opposes discussion on reform within the Muslim community and supports those who have theocratic tendencies, Jasser said.

“You have evidence here that the Soros foundation is part and parcel of the reason for the suffocation of moderation voices – reformist voices – in Islam,” Jasser said. “Muslim Advocates really ought to change their name to Islamist Advocates, and what the Soros foundation really is doing is just advocating for Islamists.”

OSF also contributed $150,000 in 2011 and $185,000 in 2012 to a donor advised fund run by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. It used this money to pay Hattaway Communications, a consulting firm run by former Hillary Clinton adviser Doug Hattaway, to develop a messaging strategy for Muslim Advocates and similar organizations. Hattaway’s message strategy painted Muslims as victims of American national security policies.

Khera used Hattaway’s strategy to paint the New York Police Department’s mosque surveillance strategy as “discriminatory.”

OSF funded groups, including Muslim Advocates, the ACLU, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed lawsuits challenging the NYPD’s surveillance program as unconstitutional. Police Commissioner William Bratton ended the policy in 2014.”Their only ‘crime’ is that they are Muslim in America,” Khera wrote in a June 6, 2012 op-ed posted on CNN.com.

The NYPD monitored almost all aspects of Muslim life ranging from mosques and student associations, to halal butcher shops and restaurants to private citizens.  A federal district court dismissed the suit, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in October 2015. New York settled the lawsuit in January, placing the NYPD under supervision of an independent observer appointed by City Hall.

Downplaying Radicalization and the Jihadist Threat

OSF accused conservative opponents of “borrowing liberally from Joe McCarthy’s guilt by association tactics.” It complained in a Sept. 14, 2010 memo to its U.S. Programs Board that the “homegrown terrorism narrative” resulted in “discriminatory” targeting of Muslims by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI.

Khera often expresses similar sentiments. She accused the FBI of engaging in “entrapment operations” to target “innocent” Muslims after former Attorney General Eric Holder called sting operations an “essential law enforcement tool in uncovering and preventing terror attacks.”

Khera likewise characterized law enforcement training materials discussing the Islamic extremist ideology as “bigoted, false, and inflammatory” in her June 28 testimony before a Senate Judiciary  Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, Federal Courts.

She and her organization played a central role in late 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive. FBI counterterrorism training materials about Islam contained “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims,” she complained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter. She objected to describing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat.”

Yet numerous Muslim commentators describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an,” says that zakat can be used to help “those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America issued a 2011 fatwa saying zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”

Following Khera’s letter, then-White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan announced a review of “CVE-related instruction across all levels of government.” This review resulted in a purge of 700 pages of material from 300 presentations. This included PowerPoints and articles describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as group bent on world domination.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s bylaws describe these ultimate ambitions and imply the need for violence: “The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.”

Khera’s influence with the Obama administration

Khera enjoys close connections with the Obama White House. Visitor logs show that Khera went to the White House at least 11 times.

Khera played a central role persuading the Obama administration to purge Department of Homeland Security records related to individuals and groups with terror ties, former Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) Agent Phil Haney told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

His superiors ordered him to “modify” 820 CPB TECS records about the Muslim Brotherhood network in America, Haney said. Irrefutable evidence from the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Hamas financing trial proved that many of these groups and individuals assisted Hamas, Haney said.

The HLF trial substantiated deep connections between American Islamist groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a Hamas-support network created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

A 2009 OSF funding document claims credit for helping persuade then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to order a review of border screening procedures. It also reveals that Muslim Advocates worked with “DHS staff to develop a revised border policy.”

The Muslim Advocates’ report recommended the “review and reform of … [Customs and Border Patrol policies and practices that target Muslim, Arab and South Asian Americans for their First Amendment protected activities, beliefs and associations; and … law enforcement and intelligence activities that impose disparate impacts on Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities.” It also asked DHS to prevent CPB agents from probing about political beliefs, religious practices, and contributions to “lawful” charitable organizations.

Muslim Advocates claimed a pivotal role in getting the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to reverse a new 2010 policy enhancing the screening on travelers from 14 countries, many of them predominately Muslim. The rule was proposed in the wake of the attempt by underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a Detroit-bound plane weeks earlier.

Muslim Advocates and several OSF grantees met with Napolitano and other top DHS officials, and the policy was canceled three months later. Muslim Advocates claimedthat the Obama administration “made special mention” of its role in reversing the TSA policy.

“This broke into the open with the great purge of 2011 and 2012,” Haney said, recalling Brennan’s letter to Khera announcing that materials she complained about would be removed.

The purge accompanied a practice of meeting with Islamist groups as community partners, Haney said.

In addition to the purge of training material, documents related to people and groups with terrorism ties such as Canadian Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi and the Pakistan-based Tablighi Jamaat movement also disappeared from CPB records. (Tablighi Jamaat often serves as a de facto recruiting conduit for groups such as al-Qaida and the Taliban.)

Investigators might have had a better chance of thwarting the San Bernardino and the June Orlando shootings had those Tablighi Jamaat records remained available, Haney said, because the shooters’ respective mosques appeared in the deleted 2012 Tablighi Jamaat case report.

The Obama administration’s “absolute refusal to acknowledge that individuals who are affiliated with networks operating here in the United States, and their deliberate deletion of any evidentiary pieces of information in the system, has made us blind and handcuffed,” Haney said. “The proof of it is San Bernardino and Orlando.

“They obliterated the entire [Tablighi Jamaat] case as if it never existed.”

Haney’s claims have met with some skepticism. Haney stands by his claims and says critics “made a lot of factual errors.”

Still, Muslim Advocates’ success reversing the TSA policy was among the accomplishments showing that it “has proved itself to be an effective advocate on the national stage,” an April 25, 2011 OSF document said. It recommended renewing a $440,000 grant to “support the core operating costs of Muslim Advocates.”

In doing so, the Soros-funded OSF weakened U.S. national security and potentially left it vulnerable to the jihadi attacks we have been seeing in the homeland since the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Obama Eid Celebration Again Empowers Islamists Over Reformers

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

IPT NewsJuly 21, 2016

The White House held a celebration Thursday afternoon to honor Eid al Fitr, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. While no guest list has been made public, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has learned that it includes a number of Islamist activists who have espoused views in direct contrast with American policy.

Among them were several officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a former official who remains close to the organization. In contrast, Muslim Americans who believe CAIR and other Islamist groups are not representative of the community’s diverse viewpoints were not invited.

The White House declined to comment to the IPT or release a complete list of invitees.

The inclusion of so many CAIR officials shows that the United States government has wildly different views about the organization.

FBI policy since 2008 prohibits engagement with CAIR, which touts itself as “a grassroots civil rights and advocacy group” and the country’s “largest Muslim civil liberties organization.”

But the FBI cut off CAIR’s access after its agents uncovered CAIR’s darker history.Internal documents and eyewitness accounts prove that CAIR was born into a network of Muslim Brotherhood-created support groups in the United States. Each branch of that network, known as the “Palestine Committee,” shared a mission of boosting the Islamist movement in general and Hamas in particular.

Until it determines “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,” a senior official explained in writing in 2009. [Emphasis added]

Here’s what federal prosecutors privy to the same evidence wrote in 2007:

CAIR has tried to ignore or minimize these statements. But it has never acknowledged the connections to the Hamas support network or ever tried to claim that it has evolved since then and no longer pursues its original secret agenda. It has had only one executive director in its history, and he was listed in a roster of the network’s members (see No. 25, Nihad Awad).

Despite this wealth of evidence, Thursday’s Eid celebration shows that the message to CAIR is a little different at the Obama White House: Come on in!

At least four CAIR officials were invited. Among them, a man who called the 2008 war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza a “genocide” and who likens the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to ISIS, and a man who accuses the FBI of setting up innocent Muslims and of cold-blooded murder.

In addition, Ahmed Bedier, a former CAIR official in Florida who continued to raise money for the organization as recently as 2014, posted links to videos from the event on Twitter Thursday afternoon.

Honoring a holiday celebrated by several million Americans is fine. But the Obama administration’s insistence on inviting – thereby empowering – radical Islamist voices like the CAIR officials included Thursday overlooks the work and conclusions of its own career agents and prosecutors.

Once again, the White House guest list omits any members of the fledgling Muslim Reform Movement. That movement, representing more diverse opinions and arguably a more representative face of American Muslims, published a declaration that should be embraced by people of all stripes. It is worth reading in its entirety, but its preamble says they are fighting for “a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam” and clearly rejects “interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam.”

In addition to explaining what they reject, the reformists articulate what they stand for. “We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty. We are against political movements in the name of religion. We separate mosque and state. We are loyal to the nations in which we live.”

Someone needs to explain why that message can’t get a seat at the table.

“The saddest thing is not only the complete monopoly and dominance of American Islamist groups in the [White House] Eid celebration invitation,” Reform Movement member Zuhdi Jasser told the Investigative Project on Terrorism, “… but imagine how insulting it is that the [White House] also includes representatives of all the ‘petro-Islam’ and [Organization of Islamic Cooperation]’s ‘neo-caliphate’ tyrannies from Embassy Row. So the nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan who imprison, torture, and assassinate Muslim reformers like us are honored and invited down the red carpet along with their choir of American Islamist lobbyists (as Asra Nomani calls them: the #HonorBrigade) and yet genuine, honest free-thinking American Muslim reformers are completely ignored and blackballed. This has been the SOP for the Obama administration for now over 7 years. Their ‘Muslim’ related policies are dominated by the Islamist mafia at home and abroad. The Obama administration and their friends on the Left claim to be about diversity yet when it comes to diversity it’s all about racial and ethnic diversity and no ideological diversity within the House of Islam.”

The ideology two CAIR officials brought to the White House is inherently hostile toward U.S. policy.

In addition to comparing the IDF to ISIS, CAIR Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide and a holocaust against Palestinians in Gaza. These accusations seem to redefine what constitutes a genocide or holocaust, since Gaza’s population is increasing steadily.

Ayloush also reacts similarly to most CAIR officials when asked about Hamas, the beneficiary of support from the American “Palestine Committee” to which CAIR was born. He refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization and quickly grows angrily defensive.

Hasan Shibly, Ayloush’s Florida counterpart, returns to the White House for at least the second time since December, when he was included in a discussion on religious discrimination. Like Bedier, he posted video from the event on his Facebook page Thursday afternoon, also showing Ayloush with him.

In the video, Shibly says the White House event triggered debate, since U.S. military strikes in Syria killed civilians. Ayloush, Shibly said, planned to deliver a letter “about the atrocities in Syria” to Obama. “Right now U.S. drone strikes – they’re the biggest creators of terrorism in the Middle East,” Shibly said.

That, presumably, means Shibly thinks drone strikes create more terrorism than ISIS.

Shibly said he and his colleagues also planned to criticize “consistent abuse by the FBI” and Customs and Border Protection “against the American Muslim community,” saying Muslim activists are harassed and accusing the FBI of “brainwash[ing] mentally disturbed youth to plan terrorist plots so they can justify the continued surveillance of the community.”

The White House embrace comes despite the fact that Shibly is helping a family sue the FBI, for allegedly shooting a Muslim without cause. Agents shot and killed Ibragim Todashev, a “skilled mixed-martial arts fighter,” after hours of questioning in 2013 tied to an unsolved triple murder. Todashev also was a friend of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. After reportedly acknowledging some involvement in the murder case, agents say Todashev attacked.

CAIR asked for independent investigations. But after two reviews found no wrongdoing, Shibly refused to accept the outcome. He also accused FBI agents of shooting a Detroit imam in 2010 after he had been “tied and bound.” Separate independent investigations and an actual video of the shooting showed this was not remotely true, but Shibly repeated the smear anyway.

He also defended a terror suspect who was arrested after loading what he thought was a bomb into his car. Sami Osmakac repeatedly expressed interest in violent jihad and dreamed of carrying out a “second 9/11.”

“I want to do something,” he said. “Something terrifying.” Before his arrest, he made a martyrdom video in which he called his attack “payback for Sheikh Osama Bin Laden.”

Still, Shibly cast Osmakac as a man who posed no threat to the public and blamed the FBI for setting him up.

He gets the White House invitation – again, at least his second – but Jasser and his fellow reformists are shut out. The imprimatur that accompanies an audience with the president of the United States can be used for tremendous good. It can raise new voices to prominence, and it can stimulate much-needed debate. The Reform Movement declaration, for example, specifically emphasizes the rights of women to equal treatment.

Instead, President Obama and his staffers continue to tip the scales to favor the most monolithic, pro-Islamist voices and protect the monopoly they enjoy on public debate.

It is beyond shameful.

Also see:

CAIR Chief’s Reflexive Terror Denial Stands Apart

Nihad-AwadIPT News, July 15, 2016

Before the bodies of all the victims had been removed from the streets of Nice, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad insisted that religion had nothing to do with the terrorist attack that killed at least 84 people.

A French resident of Tunisian descent rammed a truck into a crowd of revelers gathered to watch fireworks commemorating Bastille Day. The truck traveled as much as two kilometers, leaving twisted bodies in its wake.

French President Francois Hollande described the “undeniable terrorist nature” of the attack, which was further established by the presence of guns and explosives inside the killer’s truck.

“All of France is under the threat of Islamic terrorism,” Hollande said. “Our vigilance must be relentless.”

To Awad, this was reckless and inflammatory.

“French President #Hollande is pouring oil on the fire by describing the #Nice crime as Islamic terrorism and subjects France’s Muslims to danger,” Awadwrote, in Arabic, on Twitter. “What is Islamic about this crime?”

Plenty of analysts have shown exactly how terrorist groups like ISIS are deeply rootedin Islamic theology. As IPT Shillman Senior Fellow Pete Hoekstra noted, Islamist terrorists have been calling for such attacks for years, and al-Qaida specifically suggested this kind of attack in 2010, using a mock Ford-150 ad: “With the right tools and a little effort, the truck can be turned into a killing machine from a Wes Craven horror film,” an article in al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine said.

That seems to be a pretty good description for what happened in Nice.

ISIS spokesman Abū Muhammad al Adnānī ash Shāmī made a similar suggestion in a2014 statement: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war … kill him in any manner or way however it may be … Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.” [Emphasis added]

Awad’s denial does nothing to discredit these ideas or the Islamic theology underpinning them. In another tweet, he claimed such talk was “blaming all Muslims for the heinous #Nicemurders.#Don‘tCallTerroristsJihadists.”

Compare Awad’s reaction with other Muslim voices. He doesn’t win points for courage.

Writing in the Telegraph, former Islamist Maajid Nawaz begged Muslims and non-Muslims alike to stop pushing the counter-productive “nothing to do with Islam” message. “Your good intentions towards us Muslims are only making the problem worse,” he wrote.

Terrorist groups like ISIS successfully recruit new members in part because “we have allowed hardline Islamism to permeate our communities and mobilise the vulnerable,” Nawaz wrote. “To stop it we have to make it less attractive, and that is a long-term struggle, similar to those against racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism.”

He could have been speaking directly to Awad when he added, “please stop denying the nature of jihadism. Please stop ignoring the narratives which drive these attacks. Instead of aiding extremists who insist Islam today is perfect, perhaps you should aid us beleaguered reformist Muslims who are attempting to address this crisis within Islam against all the odds.”

Nawaz also called out the hypocrisy of critics who don’t think images of the carnage in Nice should be shown.

Speaking on Fox News Channel, American Islamic Forum for Democracy President Zuhdi Jasser explained that “intoxicant of theocratic Islam, the sharia state” must be confronted for the terror to wane. That starts by “looking at the schools of thought of jihadism, Wahabism and Salafism. And the fact that most Americans don’t even know what those terms are is a crime.”

Unable to argue on the merits, Awad and his CAIR colleagues tend to dismiss Jasseras a sellout and simply ignore reformist voices like Nawaz’s.

But even Hamza Yusuf, founder and president of Berkeley’s Zaytunah College, an Islamic institution, acknowledges there is an Islamic root for the recent wave of terrorism. In an essay he titled “The Plague Within” – which he posted after terror attacks in Orlando, Baghdad, Bangladesh and elsewhere that were carried out during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan – Yusuf likened radical interpretations of Islam to “brain-eating amoebas.”

Citing another cleric, Yusuf said the plague is “the bitter harvest of teachings that have emanated from pulpits throughout the Arabian Peninsula, teachings that have permeated all corners of the world, teachings that focus on hatred, exclusivity, provincialism, and xenophobia. These teachings anathematize any Muslim who does not share their simple-minded, literalist, anti-metaphysical, primitive, and impoverished form of Islam, and they reject the immense body of Islamic scholarship from the luminaries of our tradition.”

While Yusuf still seems to balk at the phrase “Islamic radicalization,” he still called for action from scholars and others to counter the ideology driving the terrorism: “What we do not need are more voices that veil the problem with empty, hollow, and vacuous arguments that this militancy has little to do with religion; it has everything to do with religion: misguided, fanatical, ideological, and politicized religion. It is the religion of resentment, envy, powerlessness, and nihilism.” [Emphasis added]

Yusuf has spoken at CAIR fundraisers, and the organization spotlighted a message of his just last year.

These are but a few examples of Muslims who are trying to wage a battle of ideas within Islam in hopes of discrediting the ideology that fuels shooting massacres in Orlando and Paris, bombing massacres in Turkey, Belgium Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and now a vehicle massacre in Nice.

With the possible exception of Maajid Nawaz, none of them has the profile and bully pulpit Awad and his organization enjoy. Reporters quote them all the time and television news airs their views almost every day.

The message so far – don’t talk about religion when religious zealots kill – is a wasted opportunity of immeasurable proportions.

CAIR’s ‘Islamophobia’ List Is a ‘Hit List,’ Say Critics

Screenshot

Screenshot

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, June 23, 2016:

Americans are being marked for murder whenever their names appear on the annual list of so-called “Islamophobes” posted by the jihad-linked Council on American Islamic Relations, say two Americans on CAIR’s 2016 enemies list. 

“This is a hit list,” said Nonie Darwish, a former Egyptian Muslim, now living in America. CAIR “should be held legally responsible for inciting violence against us,” she said, after citing several Muslims and non-Muslims who have been personally targeted by Muslims sharing CAIR’s Islamic ideology.

“They want to shut us up by putting us in a position of fear,” said Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which is pushing for modernization of Islam in the United States. “Not only does their list put our lives at risk, but it is full of false information [and] they’ve never called us.”

At least two of the people cited in the report have been targeted for murder by jihadis. Pam Geller, who is described by the new report as “Islamophobe Pamela Geller,” has survived two plots attempts because the Muslim attackers were successfully killed by police. Similarly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim and a former legislator in Holland, has a security detail to protect her from attacks. 

CAIR’s report “is certainly intended to be [incitement],” said David Yerushalmi, a lawyer at the American Freedom Law Center. “But it is not [punishable] incitement under First Amendment principles,” partly because judges requires an “imminent” threat to justify a charge of incitement, he said.

CAIR’s new report is titled “Confronting Fear“, and it was slated for publication June 14. But on June 12, the release was delayed six days because a Muslim murdered 49 Americans in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

The report lists a series of domestic enemies of Islam, its portrays them as mentally ill phobics, and also conflates occasional attacks and vandalism against Muslim people and buildings with various forms of democratic criticism of Islam. For example, comedian Bill Maher is on the list.

The group defines “Islamophobia” as “a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure.”

The problem, say Jasser and Darwish, is that CAIR’s message will reach people who believe that opponents of Islam deserve death. In fact, Pam Geller, a favorite hate-figure at the CAIR, has been the subject of at least two jihad plots. Two gunmen were killed by thefirst attack in May 2015. A second man, who carrying a knife, was killed by FBI officers in Boston in June 2015.

Other critics, such as Robert Spencer, who runs JihadWatch.com, has received myriad death threats from believers in Islam.

Islam’s politicized ‘sharia law’ endorses the murder of Islam’s critics and of ex-Muslims — repeatedly, endlessly, forcefully — and its recommendations are deemed divine commandments by numerous killers and would-be killers.

For example, the Koran — which observant Muslims say is a list of verbatim commands from their deity, Allah — tells Muslims to “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah [penalty tax] willingly while they are humbled.”

Islamic scriptures say that Islam’s reputed founder, Muhammad, personally ordered or supported the death of many enemies, including at 10 critics and poets, who were the pre-modern equivalent of modern journalist and writers — such as the machine-gunned cartoonists at the Paris-based Charlie Hebdo magazine. Traditionalist or orthodox Muslims says Muhammad is a perfect model of behavior and should be emulated by Muslims.

Because of this theological hostility to criticism, “I cannot go to any Islamic majority country — I would be killed on the street, and the killer would be called a hero,” said Darwish.

CAIR is extending those threats into the United States, she said. “The culture of Al Capone is the culture of Islam — when you put up a list of Islamic foes, this is a hit list,” she said.

In Western democracies, where law and religion both condemn violence, people can criticize and be criticized without the intimidating fear of violence, she said. With CAIR’s enemies list, “the difference is that you have a whole Islamic theology behind, the sharia law that [CAIR] support[s], that condemns people to death if they dissent,” she said.

If a journalist [criticizes] Republicans or Democrats, he does not have a whole legal system to condemn him to death. What makes CAIR different is that they support a legal system, they support HAMAS, they support the Muslim Brotherhood, and just by their affiliation and support of sharia law, the show they agree to the death penalty for apostates and blasphemers, and … by making a list for their sharia lovers and supporters, they are making it easy for their followers to find the blasphemers and apostates.

U.S. court documents and news reports show that at least five of CAIR’s people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated forvarious financial and terror-related offenses.

Breitbart has also published evidence highlighted by critics showing that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, that CAIR was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS, and that the FBI bans top-level meetings with CAIR officials. “The FBI policy restricting a formal relationship with CAIR remains … [but] does not preclude communication regarding investigative activity or allegations of civil rights violations,” said an Oct. 2015 email from FBI spokesman Christopher Allen.

The United Arab Emirates has included CAIR on its list of Muslim Brotherhood groups. CAIR has posted its defense here.

For Jasser, CAIR’s hate list is also a threat to the many members of his pro-modernity Islamic coalition who don’t want to be linked to anti-Islamic activists. “We are a modern [classic] liberal islam that believes in universal declaration of human rights [and] we reject theocratic islam,” he told Breitbart. “Our brand is about loving Islam and loving America,” he said.

“Our board members are devout Muslims, our families go to the mosque, we are celebrating Ramadan now, and for us to described under ‘Islamophobia’ … is the greatest smear I can think off… and that’s the intention,” Jasser said.

“There’s no doubt that CAIR is all about monopolizing the voice of Islam [in the United States], and the way they prevent any debates is the term ‘Islamophobia’ … they want to prevent any criticism of Islam,” he said. It “is their way of making a blasphemer’s list — they use it as a way to shame anyone who would question the need for reform,” he said.

But CAIR is safe from a lawsuit or criminal charges unless there’s testimony from a whistleblower or an email showing CAIR officials linking their claims with hopes that someone else launches a violent attack, said Yerushalmi.

Racketeering lawsuits likely won’t work either, he said, because the court has restricted their use to criminal gangs and drug-sellers, he said. “I don’t think you get a RICO case unless an individual or a group of individuals who were physically [harmed] or their business were harmed ….[and] where you can show CAIR’s fingerprints,” he said.

CAIR’s press aide, Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment. 

CAIR’s list of “Islamophobic” actions include many normal examples of civic criticism of Islam’s doctrines. For example, the report slams comedian Bill Maher, saying ;

Maher acts as the liberal counterpart to Fox News when it comes to broadbrush attacks on Islam. While discussing Boko Haram’s kidnapping of a large number of female students in 2014, Maher asserted, “There’s no mention here of connecting this to the religion, which is always what I am seeking to do because I think that’s the elephant in the room. And that in the religion at large, women are seen as property, second-class at best, often property.”