Islamists in America | WarSclerotic | Page 11

Archive for the ‘Islamists in America’ category

Jewish Leftists Choose Hamas Over Trump

November 16, 2016

Jewish Leftists Choose Hamas Over Trump, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 16, 2016

(Caution: Democrats may consider this article “antisemitic” and “racist.” — DM)

The Islamic Society of North America was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas. It was linked to two Hamas funding fronts, the Holy Land Foundation and KindHearts. ISNA’s checks were made payable to the “Palestinian Mujahadeen” or “Holy Warriors” which was a name used by Hamas.

ISNA’s co-founder Sami Al-Arian was the local head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Mousa Abu Marzook, a top Hamas official listed by the Treasury Department as a Specially Designated Terrorist, received tens of thousands of dollars from ISNA.

This should have come as no surprise as both ISNA and Hamas are arms of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But the American Jewish Committee has decided to team up with the financiers of the murder of Jews to oppose Trump. The left wing Jewish group and an Islamist organization that wrote out checks to Islamic terrorists enabling them to kill Jews have formed the “Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council”.

Statements from both ISNA and the AJC made it clear that this was a reaction to Trump’s win.

“We are uniting to help the administration navigate in the proper constitutional manner, to uphold freedom of religion and constitutional rights for all American citizens,” Eftakhar Alam of ISNA said.

“It is a reaction to some of the bigotry and hate speech that came out of the campaign,” Robert Silverman, the AJC’s director of Muslim-Jewish relations said. “We’re concerned about the public discourse in the whole country. We’re also concerned about messages that originated within the two communities. The Trump phenomenon is only going to make it come together more quickly.”

The love affair that birthed the Wolf-Sheep Advisory Council is mostly unrequited. While the AJC loudly trumpets its new friendship, as of this writing ISNA has yet to inform its brethren of the alliance with the sons of apes and pigs in its news section. ISNA’s list of interfaith partners doesn’t even mention the AJC.

But appeasing those who hate you wins more enthusiasm from the appeasers than the appeased.

Farooq Kathwari, the Muslim co-chair of the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, had his name on a report by the American Muslim Task Force which defended Muslim donations to Islamic terrorist groups including Hezbollah. “It was difficult for Muslim Americans… to ease the plight of Lebanese civilians without risking scrutiny by the U.S. government for aiding organizations connected with Hezbollah,” the report complained.

The Muslim council members include ISNA’s Imam Mohamed Magid who gave a diversity award to a CAIR official who had declared that Jews had incurred the wrath of Allah. Magid had called for an end to Israel’s blockade of Hamas in Gaza and the ISNA statement it was appended to had decried that Islamic terrorists had not been consulted in ceasefire negotiations.

Also on the Council is ISNA’s Sayyid Syeed who had declared, “Our job is to change the Constitution of America”. He had formerly headed up the Muslim Students Association and worked in a senior position at the International Institute of Islamic Thought, another unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas whose ranks included a number of Islamic terrorists fighting against Israel.

But it’s more interesting to note who in ISNA’s leadership isn’t on the Council.

There’s Iqbal Unus whose home had been raided in connection with an investigation into Hamas and Islamic Jihad funding. There’s also the co-founder of ISNA, Muzammil Siddiqi, who hosted and translated a speechby the infamous Blind Sheikh, linked to the World Trade Center bombing, in which he declared, “If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah.”

Siddiqi predicted the Islamic conquest and destruction of Israel. “In a few years we will be celebrating with each other the victory of Islam in Palestine. Insh’allah, we shall be celebrating the coming of the Masjid al-Aqsa under the Islamic rule. We shall be celebrating insh’allah the coming of Jerusalem and the whole land of Palestine insh’allah and the establishment of the Islamic State throughout that area.“

It would be a little awkward to have the man who praised suicide bombers and called for the destruction of the Jewish State on the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council.

But no doubt a way could be found to finesse the problem.

Siddiqi is still a prominent figure in ISNA. The Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council is a sick sad joke in which Jewish lefties ally with Jihadists against a pro-Israel administration while claiming that they share goals.

Which goals exactly does the American Jewish Committee share with Siddiqi? Is the AJC also anticipating the creation of an Islamic State in Jerusalem?

Instead of representing the needs of the Jewish community, the AJC has dived into the left-wing gutter, wailing against Trump and making alliances with the enemy to protect them from Trump.

Heading up the AJC’s effort is Robert Silverman. Silverman is a State Department veteran with plenty of experience in the Muslim world. From the start he seemed far more intent on agitating on behalf of Muslims and against the critics of Islam than for Jews.

His pitch to Jews was collaborate now and perhaps our new Muslim overlords will be grateful.

“Showing support at this critical time will lead to good results for the Jewish people down the road,” Silverman said. It didn’t work with Mohammed or in Israel or Europe. But it’s bound to work this time.

He warned American Jews not to complain about the risk of Muslim migration. “American Jews should be careful not to add to a climate of fear that exists in our country regarding immigrants.”

The joint group will, among other things, lobby for refugees. The remaining Jewish refugees are fleeing Muslim violence and hate in Europe. If America is swamped by Muslim migrants the way Europe was, where will American Jews flee all these “refugees” to?

Meanwhile Silverman retweeted a message of approval from Glenn Greenwald who had criticized theinclusion of Hamas and Hezbollah on the terror list and described them as being “dedicated to protecting their citizens against the State of Israel.” He complained, “and yet it is criminal in the United States to do anything that is deemed to be material support for Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Greenwald had also spoken of “the role Judaism plays in the decades-long oppression by the Israelis of Palestinians.”

Instead of fighting anti-Semitism, the American Jewish Committee was allying with anti-Semites.

While Muslim hate groups supported by ISNA terrorize Jewish students on campuses, the AJC expressed concern about “hate” against Muslims on campuses.

The media and left-wing groups are bombarding Jews daily with alarmist warnings about Trump while urging them to ally with our Muslim “friends”. Here’s what an alliance with those friends looks like.

Left-wing groups like the AJC have sold out the Jewish community by taking the side of Muslims over their Jewish victims. They have allied with Islamic hate groups supportive not of Jews, but of the murder of Jews.

And now they are screaming their heads off about Donald Trump.

Their Muslim friends, whether it’s Keith Ellison or ISNA, have defended anti-Semitism and attacked the Jewish State. American Jews have a choice between trying to appease Hamas or fighting against it.

The AJC has chosen its side. It has sided with the financiers and inciters of the murder of Jews.

American Jews have a simple choice to make. They can either believe the lies or hear the truth. They can either side with their killers or resist.

The AJC has made the choice very clear and simple. It’s either Hamas or Donald Trump.

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump and Israel, Hamas, Islam and Jews, Islamic Society of North America, Islamists in America, Leftists
Tags: Donald Trump and Israel, Hamas, Islam and Jews, Islamic Society of North America, Islamists in America

Comments: Be the first to comment

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?

November 15, 2016

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism? Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, November 15, 2016

(Please see also, The Ellison Angle.– DM)

When is anti-Semitism not anti-Semitism? When it comes from the Left, of course.

President-elect Trump has enraged the establishment media by choosing Steven K. Bannon as his chief strategist, because Bannon, they claim on the flimsiest of evidence, is a white supremacist and an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, that same media is hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.

“A chorus of critics took to Twitter,” said the New York Times, “to lament what they said was a frightening normalization of the fringe views that Mr. Bannon promoted as the chairman of Breitbart News. The site has for years given voice to anti-Semitic, racist and white nationalist ideology.”

The evidence? Slim to none. As David Horowitz pointed out Monday, the source for the claim that Bannon is anti-Semitic is “a one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews.” Horowitz noted in response that Bannon had wanted to produce a Horowitz biopic: “I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.”

Horowitz also noted that CNN hit Bannon over “a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’” Surely that proves Bannon’s anti-Semitism, right? Wrong. Said Horowitz: “In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: ‘Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,’” because “Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).”

Joel B. Pollak, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew, declared: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

Meanwhile, the same Democrats who are howling about Bannon are applauding Ellison’s announcement that he is running for DNC Chair, despite the abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to anti-Semitic groups. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Hamas has declared: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” Ellison has spoken before several groups that have ties to Hamas, and has accepted money from a Muslim Brotherhood group; Hamas styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. Does Keith Ellison also, then, think that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”? No establishment media “journalist” would ever dream of asking him that question, but it’s a fair one: Hamas repeatedly demonstrates genuine and murderous anti-Semitism, and Ellison has repeatedly shown himself willing and even eager to associate himself with Hamas-linked groups.

That’s the real story of anti-Semitism in American politics this week. But the media propagandists are most certainly not going to pause in their hysteria over Trump and Bannon to take any notice of it. Their hypocrisy is obvious, their dishonesty unrelenting, and their moral authority absolutely nil.

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Hamas, Islamists in America, Keith Ellison, Muslim Brotherhood, Steven K. Bannon
Tags: Antisemitism in America, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Hamas, Islamists in America, Keith Ellison, Muslim Brotherhood, Steven K. Bannon

Comments: Be the first to comment

HAMAS dba CAIR Using 2016 Muslim GOTV Campaign to Fund Jihad

November 4, 2016

HAMAS dba CAIR Using 2016 Muslim GOTV Campaign to Fund Jihad, Center for Security Policy, November 3, 2016

csphamas

The Center for Security Policy reported in its September 2015 publication Star Spangled Shariah that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively setting its sights on the 2016 election cycle and preparing for a ‘get out the vote’ operation to mobilize its base. The United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first U.S. political party openly associated with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, is aggressively pursuing many of its operational objectives behind a screen of feigned ‘patriotism’. Since the inception of the USCMO in March 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood-led organization more than once has relied upon a less-than-transparent modus operandi that obscure its true agenda, activities, and intentions for the U.S. political process from the general public and even members of Congress.

The Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States includes the subversive infiltration of every sphere of American society and recruitment of assistance in the subversive process from unwitting American themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that the successful execution of its plan for societal destruction from within depends on what it calls the ‘settlement process:’ ‘In order for Islam and its Movement’ to become ‘a part of the homeland’ in which it lives, ‘stable’ in its land, ‘rooted’ in the spirits and minds and people, ‘enabled’ in the life of its society, and firmly established within organizations through which the Islamic structure is to be built, the Movement must work to obtain ‘the keys’ and tools of this of this ‘Civilization Jihadist’ project that is the responsibility of its vanguard, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The USCMO and its Secretary General Oussama Jammal relied upon the expertise of veteran Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leader Sabri Samirah, banned and deported from the United States for a decade until his (apparently temporary) 2014 return. Samirah worked as chairman of the Islamic Association of Palestine, the progenitor to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). It will be recalled that the IAP was established in 1981 by HAMAS operative Mousa Abu Marzook. Samirah has functioned effectively as a catalyst for the next steps of Civilization Jihad described in the 1991 document ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for North America’ by working closely with USCMO leadership to ‘get out the vote’ to influence key elections before his return to Jordan in October 2015.

Today, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS doing-business-as CAIR. In the fall of 2016, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad unveiled the first-ever Muslim Brotherhood ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign. As noted on the CAIR website, donations to support the ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign are both tax deductible and zakat eligible. As explained in Islamic Law (shariah), however, ‘zakat’ is not merely ‘charity,’ but rather an obligatory tax on all Muslims and Muslim firms. According to shariah, all zakat proceeds collected anywhere on earth must be distributed among a legally-fixed set of recipients, at least one-eighth of which is always jihad.

In essence, therefore, HAMAS dba CAIR and the USCMO are not only running an influence operation under cover of ‘citizen activism’ during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but using proceeds dishonestly acquired under the cloak of star spangled shariah to support enemies of the United States and the Free World.

Categories: 2016 elections, CAIR, Hamas, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: CAIR, Hamas, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood

Comments: Be the first to comment

America’s “Arab Spring”

November 3, 2016

America’s “Arab Spring”, Gatestone Institute, Nonie Darwish, November 3, 2016

Americans have a choice: they can either keep on empowering Islam, and helping extremist Muslims infiltrate into the American system — even as there is a resolution in the House of Representatives to shut down all criticism of Islam — or they can end the gamble of the current administration, which seems bent on changing America forever by allowing the worldwide empowerment of Islam. They can continue the Islamist “Arab Spring” revolution to change “America as we know it” or preserve the freedoms of the American republic.

********************************

President Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom. This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America’s help to topple the dictatorships — then mostly military and secular — but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.

After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.

Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama’s equation for America. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, hosting several closed-door conferences on “Defamation of Religion,” to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison. She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.

This escalating subversion should be reason enough for all Western democratic countries permanently to part company with the United Nations. Its history of corruption is neither new nor surprising, or that it is run anti-democratic “club of dictators” whose interests are opposite to ours.

The goals of U.S. President Barack Obama in the Middle East ended the rule of most of the “secular” Arab leaders in the area. His views may have come, partly at least, from propaganda on why Muslim people supposedly lacked freedom there. Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom.

This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America’s help to topple the dictatorships — then mostly military and secular — but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.

The goals of the Muslim Brotherhood happened to be in tune with Obama’s goals in the Middle East. Obama’s first major presidential speech took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt was begun.

2017

Obama’s first major presidential speech, on June 4, 2009, took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt was begun. (Image source: White House)

Today, ordinary Egyptians link the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood directly to the Obama administration. Cairo was about to become the capital of the new Islamic Caliphate if Egyptians had not, after a year, come out in the millions to stop it.

The Obama administration did not appear happy with the counter-revolution, and the rise to power of Egypt’s current president, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and began doing everything it could to thwart it.

Egypt was back to square one: a military dictatorship that it had once convinced the West was the cause of its oppression.

America’s “Arab Spring” adventure — to topple secular dictators to bring about democracies — did not exactly work as planned. Bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East failed miserably, but the tyranny of the Caliphate, which had been the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place, was building. After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.

Promoting Islam also seems to have been a major factor in Obama’s equation for America. Before Obama started to implement his promise to “change America as we know it,” he first had to change the Middle East as they knew it. Many of the changes over which he presided were in harmony with the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its motto is: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

But while the Muslim brotherhood has been made illegal in Egypt, the Obama administration still refuses to label the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Under Obama, Islam became untouchable, not open to any kind of criticism. He even claimed that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed suit, and hosted several closed-door conferences in Washington and London on “Defamation of Religion,” to suppress free speech and internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam with fines and prison.

Even in a recent debate, Clinton stated, “Islam was always part of American history — even since the Revolutionary War.”

She would rather blame terrorism on free speech than on the violent tenets of Islam.

Only a person from the Middle East could understand the immense value of such a gift to the goals of Islamic jihadists in America.

It is unfortunate that many Americans apparently still do not know that Islamists rewrite history in order to claim that any land they wish to conquer was originally Islamic or founded by Muslims — even though historically Islam did not exist until seventh century, hundreds of years after Judaism and Christianity.

Today, Muslims have re-written their history books to claim that Muslims originally built the ancient Jewish Biblical sites, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has bowed to the wishes of Qatar and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — a bloc of 56 Islamic nations plus “Palestine” — to back up this fiction. UNESCO recently passed resolutions obscenely declaring ancient Jewish Biblical monuments — such as Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs, Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, home of the great ancient Jewish Temples — Islamic sites.

Which country will be next? This escalating subversion should be reason enough for all Western democratic countries permanently to part company with the United Nations. Its history of corruption is neither new nor surprising, or that it is run anti-democratic “club of dictators” whose interests are opposite to ours.

Jihadists today are stating that they also have a claim over Italy, Greece, and Spain — and now America. Obama and Hillary Clinton actually just solidified such claims for future Muslim history books about who actually built America.

Americans have a choice: they can either keep on empowering Islam, and helping extremist Muslims infiltrate into the American system — even as there is a resolution in the House of Representatives to shut down all criticism of Islam — or they can end the gamble of the current administration, which seems bent on changing America forever by allowing the worldwide empowerment of Islam. They can continue the Islamist “Arab Spring” revolution to change “America as we know it” or preserve the freedoms of the American republic.

It has recently become clear through WikiLeaks that the American system is indeed rigged and that Washington DC has turned into a swamp; or more accurately an “Arab Spring” swamp.

Egypt, on a much smaller scale, had to face such a choice in 2012-13, between life under the values of the Muslim Brotherhood or a life under a sliver of hope for a democracy, which Islam, under its laws, can never allow.

Both Egyptians and the West sorely need to understand that Islamic law, sharia, does not permit anything other than an Islamic government under the rule of Islamic law. Consequently, only military force can stand against sharia tyranny. The Muslim Brotherhood had proven once again that the only way out of Islamic theocracies is through military dictatorships.

A head-on collision over the future of America is underway. Many Americans still do not understand the magnitude of what is at stake, but many Islamists do: they are lying in wait, hoping to return to their budding Caliphate.

Categories: 2016 elections, Arab Spring, Egypt, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: Arab Spring, Egypt, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood

Comments: Be the first to comment

CAIR’s Agenda: Islamization of America, Not Protecting Muslims from Civil Rights Abuses

October 31, 2016

CAIR’s Agenda: Islamization of America, Not Protecting Muslims from Civil Rights Abuses, Jihad Watch, Andres Harrod, October 31, 2016

(Excellent reference material on CAIR and its associated Islamist organizations. — DM)

cair-terrorist-organization-hp_3

This article is part of the Organization Trends series.

Summary: The terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims to be America’s largest civil rights organization for Muslims. But its agenda has more to do with the Islamization of America than with protecting Muslims from civil rights abuses.

Capital Research Center last examined the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its aggressive, jihad terrorism-whitewashing Islamists in the August 2005 Organization Trends. CAIR statements and actions in recent years show that this organization, which sprang out of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, has in no way changed its radical spots—a fact that ought to call into question its continuing respectability in media and politics.

The basics

Information about CAIR’s revenue sources is surprisingly difficult to come by. IRS filings reveal donations to CAIR by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors ($30,000 since 2008), Silicon Valley Community Foundation ($90,000 since 2008), and Tides Foundation ($5,000 since 2002). CAIR is actually registered as CAIR Foundation Inc., a public charity recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. That entity reported a budget of $2,632,410 in 2014 and gross receipts of $2,355,032. It also claims to have had 28 employees in 2014 and 40 volunteers. Many of CAIR’s state and local chapters are separately incorporated as nonprofits.

CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men were linked to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and created to serve as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. CAIR opened an office in Washington, D.C., by using a $5,000 grant from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity that the Bush administration closed down in 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization.”

CAIR’s ties to terrorists are recognized on Capitol Hill. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said, “CAIR is unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.” Before leaving Congress in 2013, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) said, “Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States.”

Ghassan Elashi, a co-founder of Texas CAIR, was convicted in 2005 of terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to almost seven years imprisonment. CAIR civil rights director Randall Todd Royer was given 20 years for federal weapons and explosives convictions in 2004. Bassem Khafagi, a community affairs director at CAIR, was convicted in 2003 on bank and visa fraud charges and shipped back to Egypt. Rabih Haddad, a fundraiser for CAIR’s chapter in Ann Arbor, Mich., was detained in 2001 for overstaying his visa. Authorities found a firearm and considerable ammunition in his home. He served 19 months in prison and was then deported to Lebanon in 2003. CAIR board member Abdurahman Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment for directing at least $1 million to al-Qaeda. (See Foundation Watch, December 2015.)

“Contending that American Muslims are the victims of wholesale repression, CAIR has provided sensitivity training to police departments across the United States, instructing law officers in the art of dealing with Muslims respectfully,” according to DiscoverTheNetworks. The estate of 9/11 victim John O’Neill Sr., a senior FBI counter-terrorism agent, filed a lawsuit claiming that CAIR’s goal “is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police department and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.”

CAIR and its allies have spent years pressuring the FBI to give Muslims special treatment in investigations. As of 2012, FBI agents weren’t allowed to treat individuals associated with terrorist groups as potential threats to the nation, according to an FBI directive titled, “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training.” The fact that a terrorism suspect is associated with a terrorist group means nothing, according to the document. (“Terrorist? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Matthew Vadum, FrontPage Mag, Sept. 24, 2012)

In the aftermath to 9/11, CAIR refused to blame Osama bin Laden for those terrorist attacks. Earlier, in 1998 CAIR denied bin Laden was responsible for two al-Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. The group claimed the bombings resulted from “misunderstandings of both sides.” The same year CAIR objected to a Los Angeles billboard that called bin Laden “the sworn enemy,” claiming it was “offensive to Muslims.”

Guess who’s coming to dinner

CAIR’s list of gala dinner honorees from its 2015 annual banquet underlines CAIR’s continuing extremism. (CAIR’s aversion towards critical observers kept this writer out of the gala dinner.) CAIR recognized Omar Suleiman, an American sheikh who has defended sex-slavery and encouraged the murder of adulterous Muslim women by family members. He describes himself as an “advocate for a global non-violent resistance to apartheid Israel,” claiming recent stabbing attacks in Israel “are not random acts of violence. They are the unfortunate result and response to decades of … ethnic cleansing of an indigenous people.” Interestingly, his past condemnations of homosexuality as a “repugnant shameless sin” did not prevent him from declaring that Muslims “stand in solidarity with the LGBTQ community” before a Texas LGBT group after the Orlando, Florida, massacre earlier this year.

During the same month, the annual banquet for CAIR’s New York chapter honored Imam Siraj Wahhaj and the executive director of CAIR’s Florida chapter, Hassan Shibly. A Hezbollah defender, Shibly equates Israeli “apartheid” and “state terrorism” with Nazism, while he supports sharia law in Muslim-majority societies and spews conspiracy theories concerning U.S. national security. Considered by American authorities a possible 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirator, the pro-jihad, pro-sharia Wahhaj is a former CAIR board member.

CAIR branches invited extremists to their 2016 gala dinners as well. CAIR’s Minnesota chapter honored Johari Abdul-Malik, the imam of a terrorist-tied mosque who has advocated sabotaging Israeli infrastructure. A CAIR-Cincinnati banquet hosted keynote speaker Alaf Husain, vice president of the Muslim Brotherhood-derived Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which has decried Israel as an “apartheid” state from its founding. After 9/11, when Husain was president of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) from which ISNA developed, he admitted to a mere “oversight” when links were discovered between the MSA website and terror-tied groups.

CAIR-Cleveland hosted Canadian sheikh Alaa Elsayed and the writer Murtaza Husain. The dinner featured a “Mother’s Day Tribute,” which is ironic, given that Elsayed has supported wife-beating, bigamy, and polygamy. His comments upon a past Canadian honor killing focused on the importance of a daughter wearing a hijab, not her murder by her father.

Yet Husain focuses his literary ire on those who would in any way scrutinize Islam and Muslims. He has called Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaza a “well-coiffed talking monkey,” “native informant,” and “porch monkey,” and he’s described Iranian-American commentator Sohrab Ahmari as “one of the most prominent Iranian ‘Uncle Tom’s’ of the neoconservative movement.” He has condemned American law enforcement surveillance of certain Muslims, while ignoring the valid concerns that led to such scrutiny.

CAIR-Cleveland is no stranger to controversy, having hosted Monzer Taleb, an unindicted terrorism-financing conspirator who sang “I am from Hamas” at a 2009 fundraising banquet. Nonetheless, CAIR’s Florida chapter co-hosted Taleb yet again at a 2014 event in Tampa, and he recently planned to address a mosque in Wichita, Kansas, but cancelled after a public outcry. Speaking in his defense and using his own self-description, CAIR-Dallas/Fort Worth executive director Alia Salem reportedly described him as a “motivational speaker and leader within the Muslim community.” He is an “upstanding citizen” and “very prominent community leader” in his Dallas home area, Salem said.

As in life, so in death CAIR’s extremism continues, as shown by CAIR condolences for the deceased Ahmad Sakr in 2015. “Very few people in our community have left a legacy comparable to that of Dr. Sakr,” said CAIR-cofounder Awad of a founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood-derived Muslim Students Association. “My very first few English sermons in 1989 as a student in Austin were read from his books,” said CAIR’s southern California chapter executive director, Hussam Ayloush. “No words can describe how much we owe him.”

Sakr impresses objective observers less in light of his 2011 lectures at a Florida camp for Islamic schoolchildren. In one he declares that “here in America the Congress puts themselves in the position of Allah” by instituting laws contradicting Islam’s supposedly divine decrees. Such a legislature is a false pagan institution, he said. “How can you see Allah on the Day of Judgment and he says ‘you crazy man, you crazy woman you put yourself in my position, you want to take over my position, go to Hell,’” Sakr stated. After asking the schoolchildren whether they are proud as Muslims or Americans (they respond with the expected answer of Muslims), he said that “America is trying to entangle itself with every foreign country and to control it.”

In another children’s camp lecture, Sakr emphasizes the orthodox Islamic understanding that “Islam is a total way of life” in contrast to other religions. Accordingly, not only should Muslims prioritize Islamic commands in case of any conflict with secular governance, but his pupils should seek the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of an “Islamization of science and technology”; “Islamize your profession,” he stated. Reflecting Suleiman, Sakr said of homosexuality that “all of us have to condemn it and say this is unnatural,” and he referenced the Islamic teaching that God destroyed Sodom with an earthquake.

Hating Israel

According to a 2015 Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report, CAIR has a longstanding hatred of Israel, as demonstrated by the CAIR executive director Nihad Awad at a 2014 Washington, D.C., rally. He said Israel is a “terrorist state” and that the American-Israeli Political Action Committee “should have its hand off the United States Congress. They have corrupted our foreign policy.”

CAIR “chapters continue to partner with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish State,” the ADL notes, such as the anti-Semitic and jihadist-tied Council on the National Interest (CNI). CAIR and CNI collaborated in presenting a 2006 Washington, D.C., lecture by the Islam apologist Karen Armstrong.

CAIR National Board member Sarwat Husain (no relation) similarly wrote in 2009 that Israel practices “state sponsored terrorism at its best.” “No other country in the world have [sic] terrorized as many people for so long as Israel has for more than half a century.” CAIR-Georgia executive director Edward Ahmed Mitchell has tweeted that the American-Israeli Political Action Committee “is the only explanation for US’s morally bankrupt Israel policy.”

CAIR San Francisco Bay Area (CAIR-SFBA) executive director Zahra Billoo has declared that “Zionism is racism” and that “Israel ‘defending’ itself is analogous to Nazi Germany defending itself from Jewish uprising.”

Mongi Dhaouadi, the executive director of CAIR’s Connecticut chapter, does not let facts disturb the anti-Israel animus. At a 2010 Connecticut rally he ranted that Israel had “murdered” 1,400 people during the 2008–2009 Cast Lead military strikes against Gaza, thereby furthering the completely unsubstantiated charges of indiscriminate use of military force by the Israelis. His CAIR chapter executive director colleague in Arizona, Imraan Siddiqui has referenced debunked propaganda posters that claim “Palestinians were cleansed from their land.”

Not surprisingly, Dhaouadi and Siddiqui have led their respective CAIR chapters in supporting Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. (See Organization Trends, January 2016.) CAIR-CT in 2014 called for Connecticut to sever financial ties to an Israel that “discriminates against its citizens on the basis of ethnicity and wages a war against innocent and unarmed civilians,” according to Dhaouadi. Like CAIR’s California chapter, CAIR-AZ in 2016 opposed an Arizona bill requiring state pension system divestment from any company boycotting Israel. “It would be un-American to deny constituents the right to work to change the illegal and discriminatory actions of a foreign government,” Siddiqui said. In 2011 CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter (CAIR-LA) opposed criminal prosecution of University of California (Irvine) students who disrupted an Israeli ambassador’s speech.

Siddiqui, CAIR-LA former vice president and current CAIR National Board member Masoud Nassimi, Billoo, and CAIR as an organization signed a 2014 statement supporting BDS because “funding racism and Apartheid is un-American.” Supporting the “BDS Campaign to end occupation” would recreate a “non-violent tactic that was employed successfully during the South African freedom struggle.” Among the demands was a Palestinian “right of return” for millions descended from Palestinian refugees.

Corey Saylor, in 2007 the director of CAIR’s Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia, rejected what he called undue reliance on the “Israeli Apartheid lobby.” His antipathy towards Israel flows logically enough from his work from 1998 to 2001 with the now-defunct American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ), whose November 1999 fundraising dinner struck one participant as “crudely anti-Jewish.” Speakers like Awad and Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was subsequently convicted on terrorism charges, “vied with one another in verbally assaulting the State of Israel and American Jews,” Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes reported.

Such events were no exception for AMJ, which helped organize a notorious October 28, 2000 rally outside the White House at which Alamoudi expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah before cheering crowds. AMJ executive director Khalid Turaani likewise attended conferences calling for jihad against Israel. He proclaimed to Palestinians at a 2002 AMJ conference that “Allah will allow you to conquer the land of Palestine. Its men, its women, and its servants are in a state of jihad until the Day of Judgment.” He added that “for too long the extremist pro-Israel groups have literally gotten away with murder” and that “we will never forget Jenin,” a reference to the myth that Israel perpetrated a massacre in that city.

Turaani’s fellow conference speakers included the notorious anti-Semite Alison Weir, who likened the Palestinian terrorist to a “terrorized victim who has tragically but explicably turned to violence.” Even more anti-Semitic was the neo-Nazi William Baker, who invoked the aforementioned Palestinian “Right of Return” in such circles. In their midst CAIR founder Omar Ahmed declared that “pro-Israeli groups have brainwashed Americans.”

Several of the conference speakers such as Yahia Abdul Rahman had links to the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, an organization uniting several Muslim Brotherhood groups and individuals. The Islamic supremacist and Hezbollah defender Mather Hathout discussed Israeli “apartheid” and “Israeli-occupied territory” in Congress, a body “more Zionist than the Knesset” (Israel’s parliament). Former ISNA president and jihad/sharia proponent Muzammil Siddiqi stated that “Zionists have created much confusion and misconception in the minds of Americans” concerning Jerusalem. He had discussed Jerusalem at AMJ’s first meeting in Washington in 1999 at which he falsely asserted that “Muslims established and practiced the most tolerant multi-religious and multi-faith character of Jerusalem.”

Contrary to the anti-Israeli invective of CAIR and its allies, CAIR has “for many years … refused to unequivocally condemn Palestinian terror organizations and Hezbollah by name,” ADL notes. Accordingly, in a 2013 interview Ayloush condemned any group that “engages in the harming of civilians” but refused to name Hamas specifically. Any such question concerning Hamas, he added, is “not acceptable,” and “proves that you have nothing but bigotry in you.”

“As a civil rights organization we’re not here in the business of being dragged into the Middle East affairs,” Ayloush said of CAIR, falsely describing it as a purely “American organization.” Organizations like the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) have amply documented CAIR’s serial condemnations of American and Israeli national security policies. Ayloush himself described American support for various dictatorships in Muslim countries as “partly responsible” for the 2015 San Bernardino jihadist massacre.

CAIR might have tried to acquire a more diverse, multicultural image with the 2013 appointment of Jacob Bender as the executive director of the organization’s Philadelphia chapter. Although the “first American Jew to head a chapter of a Muslim community organization,” the ADL notes, “Bender’s previous activism reveals a record of hostility towards the Jewish State that is consistent with CAIR’s anti-Israel agenda.” Bender and CAIR laughably claimed that Islam did not motivate a January 2016 stabbing attack on a Philadelphia policeman by a man screaming “Allahu Akbar.”

A fifth column

CAIR’s ideology presents a threat both to American civil society and U.S. national security. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” CAIR Dallas/Fort Worth executive director and Hamas apologist Mustafa Carroll said in 2013. Syed, whose CAIR-Missouri featured in 2013 the venomous Khalid Yasin, once appealed online to Muslims to “Report anti Islamic and anti Muslim content on the internet to appropriate authorities … take actions according to the Shariah.” Given sharia’s death penalty for blasphemy, his call could have lethal implications depending upon where Muslims worldwide heeded it.

Other CAIR members like Dallas leader Alia Salem, speaking after the 2015 Garland, Texas, attack upon a cartoon exhibit that invited artists to depict the Muslim prophet Muhammad, also seem more influenced by sharia than by the principle of free speech. “When does free speech become hate speech, and when does hate speech become incitement to violence?” Salem asked. “Free speech is not the same as responsible speech.” After the publication of the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons, Sarwat Husain said that the “West has crossed all the boundaries of civility for the followers of Islam” and displayed “unethical double standards” in equating anti-Semitic expression with criticism of Islam. She decried a “free passport and an open season to degrade Islam, Muslims” for Western media and asked whether they wanted a “right of freedom of expression or an intentional attempt to provoke a violent reaction.” While the “freedom of expression in a democratic society must always be balanced by the no-less-important notion of social responsibility,” the West’s “dogma of free speech and the freedom of expression is destructive to the rest of the world.”

Husain’s condemnation of strict, even satirical scrutiny of Islam, makes sense given her one-sided adulation of Islam, as indicated by an article of hers from Christmas 2015. Her ecumenical appeal to Christians that “Islam respects and honors Jesus as a prophet, the same way it respects and honors Muhammad” falsely equated Quran 98:5 with Jesus’ Greatest Commandment. While this commandment directs Jesus’ followers to “Love your neighbor as yourself,” the zakat in Quran 98:5 does not have the common meaning of “charity” as translated by her. Rather, the almsgiving demanded by Islamic doctrine from its followers resembles more a compulsory tax serving only the Islamic community, including its jihad-related military demands. (“Uncharitable,” by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, April 23, 2011)

Husain also draws a deceptive equivalence between the Greatest Commandment’s “Love the Lord your God” and Quran 98:5’s stipulation that believers “were not commanded except to worship Allah.” Yet this worship must have the “correct religion,” as the subsequent verse 98:6 condemns rejecters of Islam as the “worst of creatures” who “will be in the fire of Hell,” an important caveat considering the differences between Christianity and Islam. As Husain herself wrote in 2010, Islam claims that Jesus was not crucified, but rather “God saved Jesus and took him to paradise until the hour would come to complete his mission in the end of time.”

Husain’s dubious assessments of Islam extend beyond theology to more temporal matters like women’s rights as shown by her participation in a 2006 St. Edward’s University panel in Austin, Texas. As a reporter recounted, Husain “felt privileged to be a part of a religion that gave so many rights to its women” and believed that the “fight for feminism in the West has been done already for Muslim women in Islam.” While women worldwide have struggled for equality for centuries, supposedly “all those rights were given to women 1,400 years ago” in Islam, according to her and notwithstanding numerous Islamic doctrines oppressing women internationally today. While she has recounted the lasting success of her arranged marriage at the age of 17 in India to a man she had never met, abusive Islamic child marriages in Nigeria, for example, have been far less blissful.

Like Husain, other CAIR officials unswervingly express a Panglossian optimism about the House of Islam’s condition. CAIR’s website proclaims that “several scholarly works suggest that religion (Islam) is not the cause of terrorism,” while the executive director of CAIR’s Minnesota chapter, Jaylani Hussein, argued during a terrorism case that jihad did not mean “holy war.” “In America the greatest threat to any American is right-wing extremism,” Syed stated in 2015.

CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter executive director Adam Soltani tweeted after Orlando jihadist slaughter that “there is absolutely nothing in Islam that calls for the killing of homosexuals or anyone else for that matter.” Siddiqui made similar claims completely contrary to the lethal facts concerning Islamic doctrinal condemnation of homosexuality. In turn, Ahmed Bedier, CAIR-Tampa’s founder and past leader who has accused Israel of “Nazi-like tactics,” presented at CAIR-CT’s 2010 banquet various World War II Muslims who, he said, were heroic because they sheltered Jews during the Holocaust while the “Catholic Church looked the other way.” His analysis not only involves discredited accusations against the Vatican, but ignores various Islamic genocidal ambitions against the Jews both during and after the Holocaust.

For CAIR officials like Cyrus McGoldrick, CAIR-New York’s America- and Israel-hating former civil rights director, a top concern is an irrational “Islamophobia” prejudicially targeting Muslims. “War depends on Islamophobia. Zionism depends on Islamophobia,” he said in 2012. “This goes back to the original colonization of this country and moving Native Americans into concentration camps that we call reservations.”

CAIR’s “Islamophobia” obsession often reaches absurd dimensions, such as when CAIR-Florida in April “condemned a xenophobic alert sent out by the University of Central Florida.” In this case involving a false report of a gunman on campus, CAIR-Florida inexplicably criticized “‘Middle Eastern origin’ as part of the alleged suspect description.” CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper urged in 2013 with like ludicrousness that media avoid the now ubiquitous term “Islamist.” This “has become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like’” and a word “currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.”

In CAIR’s twisted understanding moderate Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser who publicly confront dangers from within their faith face derision as “Uncle Tom Muslims” and “Uncle Zuhdi” from Billoo and Dhaouadi respectively. Billoo has repeatedly condemned American military personnel on several Memorial Days, leveling the accusation that they are “engaged in terrorism.” Yet Dhaouadi has uncritically quoted Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and Billoo has expressed admiration for convicted terrorism supporter (and CAIR-SFBA honoree) Sami Al-Arian and faux moderate Muslim Tariq Ramadan.

For all of their vitriol against United States Navy veteran Jasser and his fellow service members, Billoo and Dhaouadi have never condemned their fellow CAIR chapter executive director in Michigan, Dawud Walid. He has supported Hamas involvement in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, claimed that Muslims have “no other choice” but suicide bombing attacks against Israel, and espoused various conspiracy accusations against law enforcement. In glaring contradiction to Sarwat Husain, one of his 2016 Facebook postings condemned saying “Happy Easter” to Christians as a blasphemous affirmation of Christianity’s triune understanding of God. “Who are those who incurred the wrath of Allah?” Walid asked in a 2012 sermon. “They are the Jews.”

Nonetheless, no one should expect Husain to expose Walid’s assaults on interfaith harmony, given her history of duplicity. The Investigative Project on Terrorism caught her in 2008 observing that “it is very important, media in the United States is very gullible” and “especially as a Muslim, if you have something to say, they’ll come running to you. And take advantage of that.” A CAIR slide also revealed by the Investigative Project revealingly described the “Characteristics of a Journalist” as “They will expect you to do their work. Let them … Does little primary research … Under extreme deadline pressure … Fears charges of inaccuracy.”

While journalists may labor under such shortcomings, the double games of Husain and others provide a clear, compelling indictment of CAIR’s nefariousness. There is simply no justification for responsible authorities to respect CAIR’s claim to be the “nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization” when the group conceals its jihadist agenda. The group’s harmful actions were devastating in 2011, when CAIR and 56 other organizations successfully convinced the federal government to purge training materials of derogatory information about Islamic doctrine. Instead, government officials should follow the FBI’s 2008 decision to end normal relations with CAIR, an organization that is freedom’s foe, not friend, more meriting of prosecution than policy influence.

Categories: CAIR, CAIR funding, Civil rights, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Israel, Sharia law
Tags: CAIR, CAIR funding, Civil rights, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Israel, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary Clinton accepts cash from Hamas-linked CAIR, leads 2016 list of pols getting money from Islamic supremacists

October 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton accepts cash from Hamas-linked CAIR, leads 2016 list of pols getting money from Islamic supremacists, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, October 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton: bought and paid for, and not by those who have America’s best interests at heart.

cairhil

“Hillary Clinton Accepts Cash From CAIR, Leads 2016 List of Islamist Donations,” by John Hayward, Breitbart, October 27, 2016:

The Middle East Forum’s “Islamist Money in Politics” project compiles an annual list of politicians who receive campaign contributions from Islamist groups and “individuals who subscribe to the same Islamic supremacism as Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS.”

The top-ranking recipient in the 2015-2016 list is Hillary Clinton, who raked in $41,165 from prominent Islamists, says the report:

This includes $19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates on November 15, 2014. For example, Mrs. Clinton has accepted $3,900 from former CAIR vice-chairman Ahmad Al-Akhras, who has defended numerous Islamists in Ohio indicted – and later convicted – on terrorism charges.

The top ten list includes nine Democrats, one independent (who just happens to have been Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders) and zero Republicans.

Donald Trump received no Islamist money, and neither did Libertarian Gary Johnson. Jill Stein of the Green Party accepted $250 in such donations.

“While the amounts of Islamist donations are relatively small, the information: (1) holds politicians accountable for accepting funds from soiled sources; (2) signals the Islamist lobby’s affections and intentions; and (3) tells voters who takes money from individuals linked to enemies of the United States and its allies,” the Middle East Forum argues.

CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.

CAIR is closely entwined with Islamists and with jihadis that court documents and news reports show that at least five of its people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated for various 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.

In 2009, a federal judge concluded that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with Hamas.”

Awad has a long history of pro-HAMAS statements, according to critics. CAIR has posted its defense online.

Categories: 2016 elections, CAIR, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islamists in America
Tags: CAIR, Hillary Clinton and Islamists, Islamists in America

Comments: Be the first to comment

The New Anti-Racist Racists

October 28, 2016

The New Anti-Racist Racists, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, October 28, 2016

There is a trait campaigning groups have that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more.

Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons.

One got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

Here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black immigrant woman. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

The SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC), based in Montgomery, Alabama, has struck again. The self-appointed boundary-markers and policemen of free discussion have issued what they call a “Field Guide” to help “guide” the media in “countering prominent anti-Muslim extremists.” It is hard to know where to start with such idiocy, so let us start from the beginning.

The SPLC was founded in 1971, ostensibly to fight for civil rights among other good causes. By the end of its first decade it was targeting the KKK and other racist organisations. So far so good. But like many a campaigning organisation, they experienced the happy blow of basically winning their argument. By the 1990s, there were mercifully few racist groups in America going about unchallenged. When a member of the KKK cropped up everybody in civil society pretty much understood that here was a bad person who should not be given a free pass.

But there is an odd trait in campaigning groups that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Why is this so? Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more. Campaigning for a particular thing or against a particular thing has become their way of life and their means of earning. And so they find a way to continue. For some years, the SPLC staggered around in such a manner, as pointless and purposeless an organisation as could be imagined.

And then in the last decade something happened to this increasingly obscure institution. It is not for me to speculate why or how this happened, whether it had to do with new staff or new money, but the focus of the organisation changed. Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. They did not spy it in people who flew planes into skyscrapers, decapitated American journalists and aid workers or blew up the finish line of marathons. No, the SPLC saw it somewhere else. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons. For the SPLC, the big threat on the horizon was not Islamists but those people who objected to Islamists — that is, people they called “Islamophobes.” In the same way, they did not seem to have any particular problem with jihad, but they developed a huge problem with people they called “counter-jihadists.” To their existing lists of designated “hate-groups” they now added such people.

More honest groups might have balked at such a stance. More informed groups would have walked a thousand miles from such a stance. But the SPLC did no such thing. In fact, one got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

The media today in America are increasingly wary of Islamic extremists. Most journalists do not want the parameters of what should be discussed dictated by Islamic fanatics. Whereas an organisation such as the SPLC, which did something good forty years ago, is the sort of institution that the media is for the time-being happy to hear from. Perhaps after this latest development that will no longer be the case.

The SPLC’s latest production is disgraceful, discrediting and sloppy even by its own increasingly disgraceful, discredited and sloppy standards. For this publication, they have listed “Fifteen anti-Muslim activists,” most likely in the hope that they will scare the media off inviting them on, or the wider public from being allowed to listen to them.

Among the list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC lists a set of allegedly outrageous things that she has said, which have appeared in such obscure and extreme venues as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. They mention in passing — as though it were an incidental mishap — that Hirsi Ali’s film-making partner, Theo van Gogh, was slaughtered on an Amsterdam street by a jihadist, with a death-threat to Hirsi Ali pinned into van Gogh’s dying body. But they still clearly cannot imagine why anybody would have a problem with such a thing. One wonders how the staff of the SPLC would feel if one of their colleagues was murdered in such a manner? Doubtless they would shrug it off. Yet it remains that case that here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking a black immigrant woman.

Hirsi Ali is of course well known for being an ex-Muslim. But the SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim. Of course, if Maajid Nawaz were an Islamic extremist then SPLC would have nothing to say about him. But Maajid Nawaz is not an extremist — he is one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself. If the jihadists within Islam are ever going to be defeated, it will be because of Muslims like Nawaz, who are willing to argue for reform on liberal, progressive, pluralistic and democratic grounds.

Yet for the SPLC, this Muslim is not just not the right type of Muslim — he is “anti-Muslim.” The charges that SPLC levels against Nawaz are (this is not satire) that he has (a) co-operated with, rather than worked against, the British police (b) suggested that customers in banks should have to show their faces (c) once failed to abide by the most hardline interpretation of Islamic blasphemy law (d) once visited a strip club on his stag-night.

2001

The Southern Poverty Law Center decided to turn itself into a racist organization, with its attacks on principled and courageous critics of radical Islamism such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (left), a prominent ex-Muslim writer, and Maajid Nawaz (right), a moderate practising Muslim writer, radio host and politician. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

Who knows what lapses in personal decorum have occurred among the staff of the SPLC? Perhaps one of them once had extra-marital intercourse? Or perhaps one of them once consumed a glass of Merlot, in contravention of the hardest-line interpretations of Islamic scripture? Who knows, but who the hell would anybody else be to judge, and who the hell do the SPLC think they are? It seems that the SPLC has decided to turn itself from an anti-racist organisation into a racist one. An organisation that used to prosecute white racists has ended up attacking black and Muslim immigrants. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

Categories: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Islamophobia, Racism, Southern Poverty Law Center
Tags: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Islamophobia, Racism, Southern Poverty Law Center

Comments: Be the first to comment

Muslim Appreciation Month and “Islamapalooza” Come to the University of Florida

October 27, 2016

Muslim Appreciation Month and “Islamapalooza” Come to the University of Florida, Counter Jihad, Bruce Cornibe, October 27, 2016

There’s no doubt Islam enjoys a favored status in much of the West. Because of this Islamists can penetrate ‘educational’ and ‘cultural’ events with the message of Islam in attempts to push their political agenda as well as dawah (evangelism). This seems to be the underlying objective of a group named Islam on Campus-UF (University of Florida), who are commencing Muslim Appreciation Month by sponsoring a two-day event called “Islamapalooza[.]” The Alligator describes the event by stating:

The monthlong celebration is starting with Islamapalooza, formerly named Islam Fair, on the Plaza of the Americas today from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m., and it will continue Wednesday from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. The event will feature booths where students can get henna tattoos, play trivia about Islam and eat falafels, pita and samosas.

The festivities seem harmless as the event is under the guise of education (“learn about Islam”) and cultural experience. For the president of Islam On Campus, Maria Ilyas, the event was more of a way for people to better understand Muslims and their beliefs saying, “We’re trying to bring an awareness and appreciation to who Muslims are and what Islam is really about[.]” Okay, so we’re just talking about some misperceptions that lead to miscommunication between Muslims and non-Muslims right? Despite the deceptive language, Islam on Campus’ website reveals a mission that includes more than just education. An excerpt from the website’s “About Us” page reads:

Islam on Campus is an organization devoted to strengthening the Muslim community through service and activism as well as to educating Muslims and non-Muslims alike about the religion of Islam. We also seek to be a source of unity for Muslim students here at the University of Florida. We contribute to the development of the Muslim community here in America and try to remove any barriers to the growth of Islam and the lasting prosperity of Muslims. We struggle for positive social change in all aspects of life and try to provide an atmosphere conducive to the development of future Muslim leaders. All so that we may be of those who are in a constant struggle to perfect their submission to the will of Allah.

It sounds like the organization wants to also spread the message of Islam and Sharia campus wide. Their duplicity shouldn’t come as a surprise considering how they invite speakers from Muslim Brotherhood front organizations to promote their message of ‘understanding’ and ‘dialogue’ better. One such speaker is Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – California, the San Francisco Chapter. Billoo spoke at an event part of Islam Appreciation Month called Coexisting in Faith with Zahra Billoo – which she apparently discussed “the different issues faced by people of different faiths in the United States.” Of course, the language used such as “coexisting” captures the attention of liberals, but Billoo’s ideology represents nothing of the sort. Billoo praises terrorist sympathizers and supporters like “the HLF convicts and Al-Arian” (tweet below). Billoo also is an unashamed anti-American that frequently bashes our U.S. military and law enforcement – comparing them to ISIS (tweets below). That kind of equivalence is not only radical but it is essentially inciting revolutionary actions against our government, which is probably the reason why she supports anti-government groups like Black Lives Matter.

Islam on Campus also appears to have connections with other Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Muslim Students Association (MSA) National – snippets from Islam on Campus’ Facebook posts are below.

picture41-768x357

picture51-768x439

If the University of Florida wants to truly get into the multiculturalist spirit maybe they should host Christianity and Judaism appreciation months. Yet, even though multiculturalists should give different cultures and religions equal treatment, in reality that is rarely the case – in fact, Muslims oftentimes receive preferential treatment. For example, “a Dirty Dozen jihadists” have been linked to the Islamic Society of Boston. Instead of the mosque being shut down for good, “the Islamic Society of Boston, was singled out by President Obama as an example of how his Countering Violent Extremism program is keeping us all safe.” Could one imagine the kind a treatment a church would receive if just one of its congregants was involved in terrorism? Let’s just say that church wouldn’t be in operation too long.

There’s no doubt Islam on Campus is using its religious minority status to subtlety advocate for Islam and Sharia at these ‘educational’ and ‘cultural’ type events. This activism is going to continue to occur and get even worse unless if our public officials and the media call these groups out. Our government leaders must also decide to break off all ties with Islamist mosques and other entities as well as shut down organizations with terrorism ties. The prevalence of events like “Islamapalooza” throughout the West reveals how are leaders are willing to sacrifice the minds of our kids in order for political expedience. Sharia doesn’t respect freedom and dignity for all human life so why should we respect it?

Categories: CAIR, Islam - submission, Islamic indoctrination, Islamisation, Islamists in America, ISNA
Tags: CAIR, Islam - submission, Islamic indoctrination, Islamisation, Islamists in America, ISNA

Comments: Be the first to comment

The unseen war: The Islamist assault on dissidents

October 21, 2016

The unseen war: The Islamist assault on dissidents, Asia Times, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, October 20, 2016

Since September 2001, terrorism has dominated the headlines. But there is a much less discussed form of terrorism — assault on dissidents in which the very systems meant to protect them fail and hand them over to their killers.

The attack on dissidents is robbing families of their loved ones, instilling fear in communities, and obstructing many pathways toward deep reform within the House of Islam. It is long overdue for security forces and governments to modify their policies and stand unwaveringly by the universal human right of free speech.

Last month, Jordanian writer and political activist Nahed Hattar was murdered in cold blood outside a local court for “insulting Islam” by sharing a satirical cartoon on his Facebook page.

2016-09-28t150210z_88909722_s1beudxnneab_rtrmadp_3_jordan-writer-shooting-580x387

Relatives and activists cry during the funeral of Jordanian writer Nahed Hattar, who was shot dead, in the town of Al-Fuheis near Amman, Jordan. Photo: REUTERS/Muhammad Hamed

Hattar was murdered by a “known extremist” cleric as he was facing trial by his own government which opposed his freedom expression. These autocratic and quasi-theocratic governments often light the fuses of radicalism which at times they explode themselves and other times hand over blindly to rogue assassins who they empower.

In Bangladesh, bloggers who question theocracy are slaughtered in broad daylight – this year alone, at least eight dissident bloggers have been murdered. In Pakistan, dissidents and even lawmakers who break rank with the religious establishment are murdered with impunity – often with their own bodyguards tipping off and aiding the killers. When they are not killed, Muslim reformers, dissidents and freethinkers are threatened, stalked and made to live in fear. With the continued advance of Islamic State and those who are inspired by them, the problem is growing.

While some of these cases make headlines, many go unnoticed by the broader public. Worst of all, those who tacitly endorse such crimes are more prevalent than ever. Even in the United States, non-violent Islamists enthusiastically harass reformists on social media and at public events, spotlighting them with slanderous comments, inciting others to hate them, and leaking false personal information about them online.

You’d think that the broader society would completely marginalize such malignant actors. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong in many cases.

Nonviolent Islamists who knowingly cause dissidents to be targeted with harassment and threats aren’t just allowed to continue their malicious activities – they are positioned as representatives of the Muslim community in the media and even in the halls of political power, from Washington to London and even at the United Nations. It is when these individuals are granted legitimacy through political and social clout that they become even more dangerous.

For example, in the United States, Islamist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose leadership has targeted members of the Muslim Reform Movement (including myself) as well as women’s rights and LGBT activists, have trained law enforcement on how to treat Muslims – when they themselves incite hate campaigns against minorities within the Muslim community.

At the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) claims to represent all of the world’s Muslims and even purporting to fight anti-Muslim bigotry. However, the OIC’s ideology and resulting actions – which include seeking to criminalize any speech or art they deem “offensive” to their interpretation of Islam – are exactly what inspire radicals to slit the throats of dissidents. Their governments and attendant systems are the malignant cauldrons that brew the ideas, culture, legalisms, and ideologues that suffocate reform.

The OIC, true to its name, has one purpose and that is to maintain control of the “House of Islam” by Islamists and suppress the diverse voices of anti-Islamist, pro-liberty reformers. Each Islamist regime does both domestically and globally. Domestically, they do so either directly or passive-aggressively by giving militants impunity over the murder of reformers, and globally they do so by making the free world in the West believe that Islamism and its attendant sharia states is the only possible form of Islam.

How can this be stopped? Through the education of the Muslim community as to the nefarious aims of Islamist regimes and their sympathizers; and by holding politicians, the media and national security establishments worldwide accountable for their empowerment of the worst within the Muslim community. While we must pay urgent heed to stopping violent extremism, that is only a tactic among many tried by Islamist movements. We must more importantly engage boldly and take sides in the war of ideas within the “House of Islam.” We must disarm non-violent Islamists as the theocrats they are in their war against dissidents, minorities and truth-sayers.

Categories: CAIR, Islamic dissidents, Islamic reformation, Islamist "democracy", Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, OIC, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: CAIR, Islamic dissidents, Islamic reformation, Islamist "democracy", Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, OIC, Zuhdi Jasser

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK Cleric and High School Rector: “No Son of a Bastard Will Remain Alive After Swearing at My Prophet”

October 19, 2016

UK Cleric and High School Rector: “No Son of a Bastard Will Remain Alive After Swearing at My Prophet”, Counter Jihad, Bruce Cornibe, October 19, 2016

shah-sadruddin

In the West governments have the duty to protect free speech as well as other freedoms (exceptions for reasonable censorship – for example, sexually explicit content). The point is that ideas and concepts should be up for debate in order for society to learn and advance. Unfortunately, in much of the Islamic world certain ideas are not only prohibited by they can be punishable up to a death sentence. Let’s take a look at some examples of Muslim support for blasphemy laws.

First, a case in the UK reveals how Mufti Shah Sadruddin, a prominent figure among Bangladeshi Brits, has advocated for the death of those who insult Islam. This is the same Sadruddin who apparently ran for a “local councillor” position a couple years ago, the UK’s Mirror reports:

Footage has emerged of Mufti Shah Sadruddin making a shocking hate speech in London – a year before he tried to become a local councillor.

In his hate-filled rant, he rages against atheists and suggests those who insult his religion should be killed.

The shocking comments were unearthed ahead of a documentary about the abuse, violence and hatred suffered by some Muslims who choose to leave the religion.

Raging against non-believers, Sadruddin says in the video clip: “No son of a b*****d will remain alive after swearing at my prophet.”

The comment was filmed a year before he stood as a Conservativecandidate for Newham council in 2014.

In the run-up to the election, he claimed: “I believe in equality, I believe in fairness, I believe in loving the human race and I hate to hate anybody.”

So basically equality, fairness, and love are being defined by Sharia standards or Sadruddin is blatantly lying in order to advance his Islamist agenda in the UK. An ICM Unlimited survey released earlier this year shows that other British Muslim adults (18 years and older) also have particular sensitivities in matters regarding Islam’s prophet. For example, when asked: “In your opinion, should any publication have the right to publish pictures of the Prophet?” – 4% of the Muslims surveyed said “Yes” while 78% responded by saying “No[.]” And that question just deals with simply posting a picture – whether it’s a positive or negative portrayal of Muhammad is irrelevant here! Another question the survey asked reads: “And in your opinion, should any publication have the right to publish pictures which make fun of the Prophet?” – 1% of Muslims said “Yes” while 87% said “No[.]” While no one who is serious about their faith typically enjoys when other people insult or mock one’s beliefs, the fact that just the mere drawing of Muhammad causes such ire within the Islamic community is a real cause for concern within the UK.

A second case reveals how blasphemy laws are not only enforced in Pakistan but they also apply to non-Muslims as well – and an influential segment of Pakistanis support such laws. A recent article from the Pakistan Christian Post shows that “about 150 top Muslim Clerics (Muftis) issued a religious decree and demanded from Government to hang Asia bibi and all other prisoners of blasphemy laws and also demanded speedy trial of pending cases of blasphemy in Pakistani courts.” Asia Bibi is the Christian mother of five children who has been behind bars since 2009, and is facing the death penalty because of “allegations of blasphemy.” This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise considering a 2013 Pew Research Center article shows that 81% of Muslims in Pakistan believe “sharia is the revealed word of God[.]” The same Pew article found that “[a]mong Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land” (84% in Pakistan) about one third (34%) of those believe Sharia should apply to non-Muslims as well.

Another case exposes how even in America there’s an influential sector of Muslims that essentially help enforce de-facto blasphemy laws by stoking anti-blasphemy anger within the Islamic community when a Muslim Reformer wants to be truthful about the life of Muhammad. Recently, Muslim Reformer (and writer at Counterjihad.com), Shireen Qudosi, testified in front of a House Homeland Security Committee about the subject of radical Islam. At one point during the hearing Qudosi explained how Muhammad switched from being non-violent to violent during his “prophethood[,]” while he and his followers conducted jihad on their adversaries – however, CAIR clipped the segment into a video and basically suggested that Qudosi insulted the Islamic prophet (video here). Not only does the Hamas linked CAIR (professed to be “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties organization”) know that such a video stirs up animosities within the Muslim community that threatens the very life of Qudosi, but they are also trying to shut down any reasonable analysis of Muhammad’s life. One would like to see CAIR try and refute the fact that Muhammad did wage jihad, which included the vicious killings of innocent people. How long are Islamists going to keep painting Muhammad as a peaceful saint when the Quran and Sunnah tell a different story? We must be able to discuss these things without the fear of physical retaliation for offending somebody’s religion.

Categories: Britain and Islam, CAIR, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic reformation, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law
Tags: Britain and Islam, CAIR, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic reformation, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law

Comments: 2 Comments

Archives