Sharia law | WarSclerotic | Page 3

Archive for the ‘Sharia law’ category

Claire Lopez FULL SPEECH- CPAC 2017

February 27, 2017

Claire Lopez FULL SPEECH- CPAC 2017, Right Side Broadcasting via YouTube, February 23, 2017

In posting the above video, The Gates of Vienna stated,

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert who focuses on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. She is a former career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, and is now a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

Ms. Lopez spoke at a CPAC event on Thursday. Below is a video of the brief talk she gave about stealth Islamization and sharia in North America:

Categories: Civilization jihad, Claire Lopez, CPAC, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: Civilization jihad, Claire Lopez, CPAC, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Sharia law

Comments: 1 Comment

Anti-Trump Women’s Movement Teams Up With Islamist Terrorist

February 27, 2017

Anti-Trump Women’s Movement Teams Up With Islamist Terrorist, Clarion Project, February 27, 2017

rasmea-odeh-screenshot-640-320

Rasmea Odeh speaking at the International Working Women’s Day 2016 (Photo: Video screenshot)

The liberal left has teamed up with extremist and violent Islamists in its next salvo against newly-inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump.

On March 8, International Women’s Day, a follow-up event to the January 21 Women’s March on Washington, will be staged.

One of the co-authors of the “militant” manifesto behind the nationwide event is convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Yousef Odeh.

Odeh was convicted in Israel in 1970 for being involved in two fatal bombings. Odeh spent 10 years in jail before she was released in a prisoner exchange in 1980.

She moved to the U.S. by omitting her terror conviction on her immigration papers and served as the associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago and later as an ObamaCare navigator. In 2014, she was convicted in the U.S. for concealing her past and thus illegally obtaining U.S. citizenship.

After claiming she forgot about her conviction and imprisonment in Israel due to post traumatic stress disorder, she was awarded a new trial which is currently pending.

The women’s event manifesto, printed as an open letter in The Guardian, calls for “striking, marching, blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work” and “boycotting” pro-Trump businesses.

All women are requested to wear red in solidarity for a day of “anti-capitalist feminism.”

Odeh’s co-authors include Angela Davis, a self-professed communist professor (now retired), who was a supporter of the original Black Panthers and a 1960s radical icon. Davis was prosecuted and acquitted in 1972 for an armed takeover of a California courtroom that resulted in the murder of a judge.

The January 21 Women’s March on Washington was organized by Islamist apologist and activist Linda Sarsour, a supporter of shariah law.

“Shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics,” tweeted Sarsour.

As for women with whom she does not agree, Sarsour tweeted, “Brigitte Gabriel=Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Categories: "Liberals", "Muslim ban", Feminists, International Women’s Day, Islamist terrorists, Islamist victimhood, Islamists and the media, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Linda Sarsour, Rasmieh Odeh, Sharia law
Tags: "Liberals", "Muslim ban", Feminists, International Women’s Day, Islamist terrorists, Islamist victimhood, Islamists and the media, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Linda Sarsour, Rasmieh Odeh, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

A Tale of Two Talks: Free Speech in the U.S.

February 14, 2017

A Tale of Two Talks: Free Speech in the U.S., Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, February 14, 2017

The proximity of these two events, the difference in the arguments and the vast chasm of difference between the outrage and violence against one, and the great silence and complicity with the other, tells us much about what we need to know about the state of free speech — and academia — in America today.

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

During his talk at Georgetown University, Jonathan A.C. Brown condemned slavery when it took place historically in America and other Western countries, but praised the practise of slavery as it happened in Muslim societies, explained that Muslim slaves lived “a pretty good life”, and claimed that it is “not immoral for one human to own another human.” Regarding the vexed matter of whether it is right or wrong to have sex with one of your slaves, Brown, who is director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, said that “consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex”.

No mob of anti-sharia people has gone to Georgetown, torn up telephone poles, set fire to things or smashed up the campus, as mobs did at Berkeley.

Milo Yiannopoulos has never argued that the Western system of slavery was benevolent and worthwhile, and that slaves in America had “a pretty good life”. He has never argued against consent being an important principle in sexual relations. If he had, then the riots at Berkeley would doubtless have been far worse than they were and even more media companies and professors would have tried to argue that Yiannopoulos had “brought the violence upon himself” or even organized it himself.

Sometimes the whole tenor of an age can be discerned by comparing two events, one commanding fury and the other, silence.

To this extent, February has already been most enlightening. On the first day of the month, the conservative activist and writer Milo Yiannopoulos was due to speak at the University of California, Berkeley. To the surprise of absolutely no one, some of the new anti-free speech brigade attempted to prevent the event from happening. But to the surprise of almost everyone, the groups who wish to prevent everyone but themselves from speaking went farther even than they have tended to of late. Before the event could even start, Yiannopoulos was evacuated by security for his own safety. A mob of 150 people proceeded to riot, smash and set fire to the campus, causing more than $100,000 of damage and otherwise asserting their revised version of Voltaire’s maxim: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to your death my right to shut you up.”

2301

When conservative activist and writer Milo Yiannopoulos was due to speak at the University of California, Berkeley on February 1, a mob of 150 people proceeded to riot, smash and set fire to the campus, causing more than $100,000 of damage. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

The riots at Berkeley caused national and international headlines. Mainstream media, including Newsweek, also attempted to do their bit for an event they would ordinarily deride as “fake news.” Following a segment on CNN, Newsweek ran a piece by Robert Reich, the chancellor’s professor of public policy at Berkeley and a former Clinton administration official, arguing that “Yiannopoulos and Brietbart [sic] were in cahoots with the agitators, in order to lay the groundwork for a Trump crackdown on universities and their federal funding.” This conspiracy theory would involve Yiannopoulos arranging for 150 masked fanatics not merely to trash a campus on his orders, but to continue to remain silent about it in the days and weeks after the event.

In Newsweek, Reich wrote, “I don’t want to add to the conspiratorial musings of so many about this very conspiratorial administration, but it strikes me there may be something worrying going on here. I wouldn’t bet against it.” And so, a tenured academic made an implausible as well as un-evidenced argument that his political opponents not merely bring violence on themselves but actually arrange violence against themselves.

All of the violence and all of these claims were made in February in the aftermath of a speech that never happened. But consider how little has been said and how little done about a speech that certainly did go ahead just one week later at another American university — not by a visiting speaker but by a resident academic and teacher.

On February 7, at the University of Georgetown, Jonathan A.C. Brown, the director of the entirely impartial Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, gave a 90-minute talk entitled “Islam and the Problem of Slavery”. Except that the white convert to Islam, Jonathan Brown, apparently did not think that there is a particular problem with slavery — at least not when it comes wrapped in Islam. During the talk (which Brown himself subsequently uploaded onto YouTube) the lecturer condemned slavery when it took place historically in America, Britain and other Western countries, but praised the practice of slavery in Muslim societies. Brown explained how Muslim slaves lived “a pretty good life”, claimed that they were protected by “sharia” and claimed that it is “not immoral for one human to own another human.” Regarding the vexed matter of whether it is right or wrong to have sex with one of your slaves, Brown said that “consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex” and that marital rape is not a legitimate concept within Islam. Concepts such as “autonomy” and “consent”, in the view of the Director of the Alwaleed Center at Georgetown, turned out to be Western “obsessions”.

Of course, Jonathan Brown’s views on Islam are by no means uncommon. One could easily demonstrate that they are all too common among experts in Islamic jurisprudence. Among such people, debates over where and when you can own a slave and what you can or cannot do with them are quite up to the minute, rather than Middle Ages, discussions to have. But until this moment, there have been no protests at Georgetown University. Under a certain amount of online pressure, from the few websites to have reported Brown’s talk, Brown has attempted to clarify or even reverse some of his views. But no mob of anti-sharia people has gone to Georgetown, torn up telephone poles, set fire to things or smashed up the campus, as mobs did at Berkeley.

Here is a stranger thing. Nothing that Yiannopoulos ever said as a visitor speaking to a room full of people has ever come near the level of what Brown said to his ordinary class of credit-seeking students. Yiannopoulos has never argued that the Western system of slavery was benevolent and worthwhile, and that slaves in America had “a pretty good life”. He has certainly spoken out vociferously against the claim that there is a “rape culture” on American universities. But he has never argued against consent being an important principle in sexual relations. If he had, then the riots at Berkeley would doubtless have been far worse than they were, and even more media companies and professors would have tried to argue that Yiannopoulos had “brought the violence upon himself” or even organized it himself.

The proximity of these two events, the difference in the arguments and the vast chasm of difference between the outrage and violence against one, and the great silence and complicity with the other, tells us much about what we need to know about the state of free speech — and academia — in America today.

Categories: Academia and freedom of speech, Academia and Islamists, Academia and the left, Freedom of speech, Media and Islam, media bias, Sharia law, UC Berkley
Tags: Academia and freedom of speech, Academia and Islamists, Academia and the left, freedom of speech, Media and Islam, media bias, Sharia law, UC Berkley

Comments: Be the first to comment

On Defining Religion

February 12, 2017

On Defining Religion, Gatestone Institute, Nonie Darwish, February 12, 2017

(Please see also, Georgetown Professor Condones Rape And Slavery Under Sharia. Does the First Amendment “free exercise” clause prohibit Federal or state intervention against enforcement of the dictates of Sharia law? If members of a religious cult from Latin America moved to the United States and required families to turn over their young virgin daughters for sacrifice to their Volcano God, would the “free exercise” clause prohibit Federal or state intervention? — DM)

What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam and that Muslims must, sooner or later, demand to live under an Islamic government.

The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader.

Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians — but to replace them, after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible.

Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and it relies on government enforcement to do so.

Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said that President Donald Trump’s 90-day ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries is “a religiously based ban,” and “if they can ban Muslims, why can’t they ban Mormons.” This has become the position of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, which has influenced not only the American public but has convinced the majority of the world that America is “bad.” How can we blame the world, and even a good segment of American citizens, for hating America when such disingenuous and misleading claims are aired to the world from US officials and broadcast by American television channels?

The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump Administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader, rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader. He ran as a Republican; meanwhile, Democrats and the mainstream media refuse to engage in respectful and legitimate debate on the most vital threat to Western civilization in the twenty-first century: Islam. Truth has become irrelevant; people seem to prefer a political game of tug-of-war to sway public opinion against the Trump Administration, and, presumably, to elect Democrats forever. That is how the system is set up.

Political discussions on television have become extremely frustrating; they have turned into shouting matches and name-calling at the least informative levels. Television hosts often become instigators and participants in the shouting matches. The thinking is apparently that the louder they get, the more attractive the program will be. Meanwhile everyone is talking at once; the viewer cannot hear anyone, so the program could not be more boring.

Under the US Constitution, freedom of religion is protected. and Islam has been welcomed inside the West on that basis as one of the three Abrahamic religions. According to Western values and the Western understanding of the word, “religion” is supposed to be a personal relationship with God, where free will is of utmost importance; the believer has authority only over himself or herself when it comes to religious laws or punishing sins (such as leaving the religion or committing adultery) — quite different from criminal laws intended to protect society. Western values also allow followers of a religion the freedom to proselytize, but never by resorting to government enforcement.

Bottom line, the Western definition of religion is in harmony with the Biblical values of the human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that all human beings are created equal under the law. It is considered a basic Western value to view God, family and country as a top priority.

Now let us compare these values to Islamic values:

Muslim citizens have the right to punish other citizens with humiliating, severe, cruel and unusual punishments such as death, flogging and amputation, for sinning against Allah, the Quran or Islam. Those “crimes” include leaving Islam, being a homosexual, or committing adultery. And if the Islamic government does not enforce such punishments, any Muslim on the street has the right to apply the punishment against another Muslim and not be prosecuted. That is why apostates, such as myself, cannot visit any Muslim county; the fear is not only from Islamic governments but from anyone on the street.
Being a Muslim is not a personal relationship with God, as it is under the Bible, but is enforced by the state at birth. When a child is born in Egypt to a Muslim father, the birth certificate is stamped “Muslim” and all government-issued documents as well. A child must learn Islamic studies in school and practice Islam throughout his life. In Egypt, the twin sons of a Christian divorced mother were forced to take Islamic studies and become Muslim just because their originally-Christian father converted to Islam. Today, in Egypt, I am still considered Muslim and such a status could never change if I ever lived there again.
Islamic law and leaders rely on government enforcement — under penalty of death — to keep Muslims within Islam and to convert the minority Christian population into Islam. Islamic sharia law, obliges Islamic states to enforce religious law, and if the Muslim head of state refuses to follow religious law, sharia permits the public to use force to remove the head of state from office.
Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book,” Jews and Christians, but to replace them — after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible. Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and relies on government enforcement to do so.

The tenets above are just a few of the differences in values between Islam, the Bible and the Western concept of religion. What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam, and Muslims must demand to live under an Islamic government sooner or later. That might explain the reason for the eternal violence in nearly all Muslim countries, between government being in the hands of a religious theocracy or of the military. Islam, as it is practiced today, has violated all Western definitions of religion and values.

Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

2294

(Image source: Brent Payne/Flickr)

Categories: First Amendment, Freedom of religion, Islamist freedom, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Sharia law
Tags: First Amendment, Freedom of religion, Islamist freedom, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Georgetown Professor Condones Rape And Slavery Under Sharia

February 12, 2017

Georgetown Professor Condones Rape And Slavery Under Sharia, Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, February 12, 2017

(Please see also, The forgotten European slaves of Islamic Barbary North Africa and Islamic Ottoman Turkey. The fifteen minute video is well worth watching. — DM)

jonathan-ac-brown-640-320

Jonathan A.C. Brown (Photo: Video screenshot)

A Georgetown professor of Islamic studies sent shockwaves through the academic and secular world for a lecture he gave essentially condoning Islamic slavery and nonconsensual sex (that’s academic for “rape”).

That would have been the opening sentence to comment on such a lecture if we lived in normal times – which we don’t. The lecture in question actually created very little stir – neither at the university where he is employed nor elsewhere save for some very astute blogs (see here and here) deconstructing the professor’s astonishing breadth of obfuscation.

In a lecture (see below) at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (a Muslim-Brotherhood-linked group) and in subsequent questions and answers following his talk, Georgetown Islamic Studies professor Jonathan Brown, a convert to Islam, declares:

“It’s not immoral for one human to own another human.”

He waxes poetic about the great life a slave has under sharia law (versus slavery under white men in the South) without actually defining that life. Perhaps, as Clarion Project has done, he should get his information from a Yazidi girl from Iraq.

Brown says slavery itself is not problematic, since the “the Prophet of God [Mohammed] had slaves … There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No you’re not.”

Rather, “The moral evil is extreme forms of deprivation of rights and extreme forms of control and extreme forms of exploitation. I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us, and we’re owned by people.”

Brown mentions examples such as an employer and an employee, taking out a mortgage and even his own marriage, since his wife held certain rights over him. Somehow, the fact that one engages in these activities from his or her own free will and has the ability to terminate such relationships went over the professor’s head, or he chose to ignore them.

Brown tells his audience Islamic slavery was fundamentally better than slavery that was practiced in the U.S., since it was not racially motivated. How that makes it better is beyond my moral compass, but one can simply look at the well documented history of the Arab slave trade of Africans to dispute this.

Although many whites were enslaved by Arab Muslims as well, an estimated 10-20 million black Africans were enslaved between 650 and 1900 by Arab slave traders. Many of these slaves were forcibly castrated to serve as eunuchs that guarded the vast harems of female slaves belonging to the rulers. Black Muslim slaves still exist today, for example, in Mauritania and Sudan. Black people suffer discrimination in Saudi Arabia, where slavery was only abolished in 1962.

The racial slur abeed, meaning slaves in Arabic, is still widely used to describe black people.

The professor then trots out academic moral relativism in two twisted points of erudition, saying:

“There is no such thing as slavery, as a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout space and time trans-historically.”

“Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself because slavery doesn’t mean anything.”

As for the permissibility of sex with a slave, Brown says, “Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex” and goes on to dig at the overrated concept of autonomy over one’s own body, saying our society is “obsessed with the idea of autonomy and consent.”

When asked if having nonconsensual sex with an enslaved woman – or any woman—is wrong, Brown asks if there is really any difference between a girl sold in a slave market in Istanbul and a poor baker’s daughter who marries a poor baker’s son out of lack of other options:

“[The girl’s owner in Istanbul] by the way, might treat her badly, might treat her incredibly well … that baker’s son might treat her well. He might treat her horribly. The difference between these two people is not that big. We see it as enormous because we’re obsessed with the idea of autonomy and consent, would be my first response. It’s not a solution to the problem. I think it does help frame it.”

“Frame it” or not, there is a world of difference between the two situations and a simple answer that consent is not a relativistic concept when we are talking about a raping of women would have sufficed.

The fact that a college professor can get away with such apologetic views on such serious moral issues surrounding Islamic thought – issues that entire populations who have been taken over by Islamic State are facing with horrific consequences — is truly staggering.

One can only imagine the response by the university if a professor of Christian thought had expounded such views about Christianity.

Categories: Academia and Islamists, Islam and slavery, Sharia law
Tags: Academia and Islamists, Islam and slavery, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Flynn: “If we can’t tackle enemy doctrines that call for our domination or extinction, we aren’t going to destroy their jihadis”

February 9, 2017

Flynn: “If we can’t tackle enemy doctrines that call for our domination or extinction, we aren’t going to destroy their jihadis”, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, February 8, 2017

“The war against Radical Islamists must begin at home,” he writes. “Muslims want to apply Sharia law by using our own legal system to strengthen what many believe to be a violent religious law that has no place in the United States,” he writes, adding the government must stop implying Islamic and Western civilizations “are morally equivalent.”

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

It is so refreshing to see this realism and common sense after eight years of Obama’s denial and willful ignorance.

michael-flynn

“Flynn’s plan to beat radical Islam starts with schools and social media,” by Paul Sperry, New York Post, February 4, 2017:

President Trump’s national security adviser wants to fight not just Islamic terrorists but the “radical ideology of Islam,” and he plans to do it from the grass roots up, starting with our children at schools while also using social media.

Dealing with the global Islamist threat on a tactical level through drone strikes and arrests hasn’t worked, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn argues, according to his largely overlooked 2016 book, “The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies.” He wants to combat it more broadly, using informational warfare, among other things, on a scale not seen since World War II.

But first, he writes, the government has to overcome the political taboo of tying Islamic violence to the religion of Islam, including its sacred texts, which he says the enemy is using as a manual of warfare….

“If we can’t tackle enemy doctrines that call for our domination or extinction,” Flynn writes, “we aren’t going to destroy their jihadis.”…

“It’s long past time for us to denounce the many evils of Radical Islam,” he writes, while highlighting the many defeats of ISIS and al Qaeda to show potential recruits that “the Almighty has changed sides in the holy war.”Fired by former President Barack Obama from the Defense Intelligence Agency for taking such stands, Flynn vows to reverse the longstanding government practice of whitewashing the violent nature of the enemy’s faith through pleasant platitudes like, “The terrorists are hijacking a religion of peace” and other apologia. He calls such policies “Islamophilia,” and complains they border on appeasement.

“I firmly believe that Radical Islam is a tribal cult, and must be crushed,” he writes.

In his book, Flynn says the Islamist enemy studies our culture “very carefully” and excels at “identifying our weaknesses,” while we, on the other hand, have done very little to exploit weak points in their ideology. We suffer pangs of guilt just “calling them by name and identifying them as fanatical killers acting on behalf of a failed civilization.”

That “failed civilization,” he notes, is Islam, and he says the government must publicly point out its failures, from depressed economies to high illiteracy rates to oppression of women, while supporting “a complete reformation of the Islamic religion” throughout the Muslim world.

He suggests working closely with the president of Egypt, who has called for a renewal of Islam. He also praises reforms pushed by Singapore to convince Muslims that there’s no requirement to follow Sharia in a secular state and that Allah hasn’t blessed jihad against the West. He also cites the half dozen countries that have banned Islamic headscarves around the world.

“We’ve got to get inside the minds of the jihadis” and understand the doctrinal justification for “the cult of killing, the worship of death” and why they, literally, “eagerly drink the blood of their dying enemies,” Flynn writes. What in their scripture brainwashes them into thinking, “We love death more than you love life?” Once that doctrine is exposed, it can be undermined to the point where it loses its potency….

“The war against Radical Islamists must begin at home,” he writes. “Muslims want to apply Sharia law by using our own legal system to strengthen what many believe to be a violent religious law that has no place in the United States,” he writes, adding the government must stop implying Islamic and Western civilizations “are morally equivalent.”“Let us accept what we were founded upon: a Judeo-Christian ideology built on a moral set of rules and laws,” he writes. “Let us not fear, but instead fight those who want to impose Sharia law and their Radical Islamist views.”…

“We can’t win this war by treating Radical Islamic terrorists as a handful of crazies and dealing with them as a policing issue,” he writes. “The political and theological underpinnings of their immoral actions have to be demolished.”

Categories: Islamist objectives, Michael T. Flynn, Sharia law, Trump agenda, Trump and Islamic terrorism, Trump and Islamists
Tags: Islamist objectives, Michael T. Flynn, Sharia law, Trump agenda, Trump and Islamic terrorism, Trump and Islamists

Comments: Be the first to comment

To Fix Counterterrorism, End Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Strategy

February 6, 2017

To Fix Counterterrorism, End Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Strategy, PJ Media, Andrew C. McCarthy, February 5, 2017

(Please see also, Trump Seeks to End Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Scam. — DM)

grief

Last June, the jihadist terrorist Omar Mateen opened fire at a gay night club in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 and wounding several other revelers. It quickly became clear that Mateen was yet another “known wolf” – the term popularized by my friend and colleague Patrick Poole to describe the frequent phenomenon of terrorists who manage to plot and strike against the West notwithstanding that their patent radicalism has put them on the radar screen of law-enforcement and intelligence agents.

I have long argued that the cause of this phenomenon is the restrictions on common sense placed on our agents by political correctness, which essentially blind them to the well-known but rarely acknowledged progression from Islamic scripture to sharia-supremacist ideology (what we call “radical Islam”), to enclaves populated by adherents and sympathizers of this ideology, and inevitably to jihadist terror. This iteration of political correctness has been the backbone of Obama administration counterterrorism strategy, known as “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). Shortly after the Orlando attack, I delivered a speech at the Westminster Institute – entitled, “Defenseless in the Face of Our Enemies” – in which I addressed CVE. The new Trump administration is in the process of formulating its own counterterrorism strategy. Below, for what it may be worth, is the portion of my speech that addressed CVE:

Of the nearly 36,000 people who work for the FBI, fewer than 14,000 are investigative agents. National security is a crucial part of the Bureau’s portfolio, but the FBI is statutorily the lead investigative agency in virtually every category of criminal offense in federal law. At most, there are a couple thousand agents assigned full-time to counterterrorism. Those numbers are multiplied somewhat by joint federal-state efforts — the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in several metropolitan areas across the nation. Even so, because the Bureau is an intelligence agency as well as a law-enforcement agency, there are over a thousand terrorism investigations ongoing at any one time. The FBI director indicates that there is activity that must be monitored in all 50 states. Unless there are flashing neon signs of imminent attack, the small number of investigators can only spend so much time on any one suspect.

Of course, that time can be maximized, or wasted, depending on whether investigators know what they’re looking for . . . and whether they are permitted to look for it.

Clearly, the FBI spent a lot of time on Mateen. It sent confidential informants to interact with him, conducted physical surveillance, covertly monitored some of his phone calls, and interviewed him face-to-face three separate times. It concluded that his bark was bad, but his bite was non-existent. Honoring guidelines imposed on terrorism investigations, the FBI closed its case. That is, in addition to concluding that no charges should be filed, the Bureau further decided that additional monitoring of Mateen was not warranted.

In retrospect, this seems reckless. But the FBI is not incompetent, far from it. The agency knew Mateen was worth a heavy investigative investment. The problem is that the FBI answers to the Washington political class. The bipartisan Beltway has long ruled that advocacy of radical Islam is protected by the Constitution. It has long instructed its investigators, preposterously, that seditious beliefs and agitation are immune, not just from prosecution, but even from mere inquiry.

What passes for Obama’s national-security strategy, known as “Countering Violent Extremism,” exacerbates this problem. CVE delusionally forbids the conclusion that radical Islamic ideology has any causative effect on terrorist plotting. The FBI is in the impossible position of trying to conduct investigations that follow the facts wherever they lead, while fearing that such investigations — by illuminating the logical progression from Islamic scripture to sharia supremacism to jihadist terror — will enrage its political masters.

Understand: Nothing in the Constitution mandates this suicidal betrayal of national security. It flows from Washington’s lunatic concoction of an imaginary Islam — a belief system the sole tenets of which are peace and anti-terrorism. President Obama and the counsel he keeps (many of whom are connected to insidious Islamist organizations tied to the Muslim Brotherhood) insist this “anti-terrorist” “Religion of Peace” is the only viable interpretation of Islam. We are not just to believe, we are pressured to endorse, the fantasy that sharia supremacism is a “false Islam.” Its palpable mainstream status in the Middle East and elsewhere is not to be spoken of.

The FBI is bound by guidelines promulgated by the Justice Department, most of which have been in place since the administration of President George W. Bush. They impose a caveat on every investigation:

These Guidelines do not authorize investigating or collecting or maintaining information on United States persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

On its face, this admonition should not be problematic. It instructs that agents may not investigate for the sole purpose of monitoring activities protected by federal law. Consequently, if agents have other legitimate purposes for investigating — such as preventing terrorist attacks or probing terrorism conspiracies — the Justice Department guidance is no bar to conducting an investigation in which a mosque or a protest rally may foreseeably come under scrutiny.

Political dissent and the exercise of religion are protected by the First Amendment. But this is a protection against being prosecuted merely for one’s words or religious observance. It is not a shield against investigation for criminal activities that are motivated by religious or political belief.

Not only may one be investigated and prosecuted for criminal offenses that are motivated by one’s beliefs or speech; it has long been the law that evidence of one’s beliefs and speech, which is often highly relevant to proving criminal intent, may be admitted in a prosecution for such offenses.

Simply stated, if you are a Muslim who believes sharia law must be imposed on society, and you tell people that Allah commands the commission of violent jihad to impose sharia, that belief and statement are admissible evidence if you are charged with bombing or terrorism conspiracy crimes. You are not being prosecuted for what you believe or what you said; you are being prosecuted for the crimes. The beliefs and statements are evidence of your state of mind — just as they are in all kinds of criminal cases beyond terrorism.

That being the case, there is nothing inherently wrong with, much less constitutionally offensive about, the concept that radical religious or political beliefs should trigger investigations. That is especially the case if those beliefs are conveyed by aggressive language, or by association with other radicals or mosques known to endorse jihadism.

Here’s an important principle we must get right: It cannot be that evidence an investigator may use to prove guilt of terrorism offenses is somehow insulated from an investigator’s suspicions about potential terrorism offenses. The goal of counterterrorism is supposed to be the prevention of jihadist attacks, not the hope that there may be a living terrorist or two still around to be indicted and tried only after Americans have been murdered.

In law enforcement, however, what matters most is not what the law allows investigators to do. It is what the investigators’ superiors allow them to do.

That brings us to “Countering Violent Extremism.” In essence, CVE holds that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, or even with Islamist ideology that reviles the United States. President Obama has conclusively proclaimed: “Muslim American communities have categorically condemned terrorism” — end of discussion . . . as if that were an incontestable proposition or one that told the whole story.

Thus, the administration narrative continues, the real threat to our security is not Muslim terrorist plots against us but our provocation of Muslims. By the Obama administration’s lights, our national-defense measures following the 9/11 attacks have conveyed the misimpression that America is at war with Islam.

Remember, we’re in Fantasy Land, so we’re not supposed to pause at this point to ask: What, then, prompted the 9/11 attacks in the first place? What prompted the increasingly audacious series of attacks from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center to the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole — all during those sensitive, Islamophilic Clinton years when, we’re to believe, jihadists didn’t think America was “at war with Islam”?

Instead of asking such impertinent questions, we are simply to accept the president’s say-so that the key to our security is to “partner” with the leadership in Muslim communities — much of which just happens to be tied to or heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a major 2007–08 prosecution (the Holy Land Foundation case), the Justice Department proved that the Brotherhood financed the Hamas terrorist organization to the tune of millions of dollars. That same Muslim Brotherhood is the main subject of my 2010 book, The Grand Jihad. The title is lifted from an internal Brotherhood memo seized by the FBI and presented at the Holy Land trial — a memo in which Brotherhood honchos stationed in the United States explained that their mission here is a “grand jihad” to “eliminate and destroy Western Civilization from within” — by “sabotage.”

Under CVE, we are to let our Islamist “partners” train the police, and let them be our eyes and ears in Muslim communities. Because we all share the same interests, you see, we should rest assured that these Islamist leaders will alert us if there is any cause for concern.

Makes perfect sense, right?

If it is possible, the practice of CVE is even more of a national-security disaster than the theory. This is probably best documented by my friend Stephen Coughlin in a recent and essential book: Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

Apart from being an exceptional lawyer, Steve is a trained military intelligence officer who has studied our enemies’ threat doctrine, Islamic supremacism. Again, to be precise, it may be best to call it “sharia supremacism” because it reflects the classic sharia-based Islam that is mainstream in the Middle East. Catastrophic Failure is about how the United States government has systematically stifled the study of this doctrine since before 9/11. CVE is the paragon illustration of how the Obama administration has exacerbated this catastrophic failure — a failure that I have branded “willful blindness” since first encountering it as a prosecutor two decades ago.

As Coughlin demonstrates, CVE is no secret. For example, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties — which is every bit as radical as the infamous Civil Rights Division in the Obama Justice Department — has worked with the National Counterterrorism Center to develop government-agency training programs that “bring together best [CVE] practices.”

One product of this effort is a handy two-page instruction document of CVE “Do’s and Don’ts.” The “Don’ts” tell agents to avoid, among other things, “ventur[ing] too deep into the weeds of religious doctrine and history” or examining the “role of Islam in majority Muslim nations.” The guidance further admonishes:

Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally protected activity, with criminal activity. One can have radical thoughts/ideas, including disliking the U.S. government, without being violent; for example, trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.

As we’ve already observed, this interpretation of the First Amendment is patent rubbish. Again, there is no free-speech protection against having one’s words examined for intelligence or investigative purposes. Free-expression principles protect Americans against laws that subject speech to penalty or prosecution — a protection, by the way, that the Obama administration seeks to deny to speech unflattering to Islam, under a UN resolution it jointly sponsored with several Islamic nations.

In sum, Obama’s CVE strategy expressly instructs our investigators to consider only violent or criminal conduct. They are told to ignore radical ideology, particularly if it has the patina of “religious expression.” They are directed to turn a deaf ear to anti-Americanism and the desire to impose sharia, which just happens to be the principal objective of all violent jihadists, and of the Obama administration’s oft-time consultants, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our agents, furthermore, are cautioned to avoid doing anything that smacks of subjecting particular groups to heightened scrutiny. After all, that might imply that terrorism committed by Muslims has some connection to Islam — specifically, to the undeniable, unambiguous commands to violent jihad found in Muslim scripture.

Obviously, this CVE guidance is exactly what our investigators follow when they consciously avoid scrutinizing jihadist social-media postings by visa applicants from Muslim-majority countries — such as Tashfeen Malik. She was the Pakistani immigrant who joined her jihadist husband, Syed Farook, in carrying out last December’s mass-murder attack in San Bernardino (in which 14 people were killed and dozens wounded).

There is nothing secret about CVE. Willful blindness is right there in black and white.

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama and law enforcement, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia law
Tags: Countering violent extremism, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama and law enforcement, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia law

Comments: 1 Comment

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Slams Women’s March Organizer Linda Sarsour: ‘Defender Of Sharia’

February 2, 2017

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Slams Women’s March Organizer Linda Sarsour: ‘Defender Of Sharia’, Fox News via YouTube, February 1, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH3qzCQBavU

Categories: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Feminists, Islam and females, Linda Sarsour, Sharia law, Women's march
Tags: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Feminists, Islam and females, Linda Sarsour, Sharia law, Women's march

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Could Follow Clinton’s Hamas Order In Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood

January 27, 2017

Trump Could Follow Clinton’s Hamas Order In Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood, Counter Jihad, Paul Sperry, January 27, 2017

There is a quick and easy way to designate the Brotherhood as the terrorist organization that it is. Thank Bill Clinton.

Instead of waiting for a bill authorizing a Muslim Brotherhood designation to wend its way through Congress, the State Department could blacklist the Brotherhood directly. All it would take is President Trump signing an executive order.

That’s what happened in January 1995, when President Clinton issued an executive order making it illegal for US funds to support Hamas, following a bus bombing in Tel Aviv and other horrific acts of terrorism carried out by the Palestinian terrorist group. In turn, the State Department officially declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization, making it a felony to provide any material support to Hamas or its related charities and front organizations, and the Treasury Department ordered a freeze on all Hamas banking assets.

While the Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in other countries, the US has not yet designated the group a terrorist entity or foreign threat, even though it has stated clearly that it supports violent jihad and is dedicated to replacing the US with an Islamic theocracy.

That is expected to change with this administration.

In testimony earlier this month, soon-to-be-confirmed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson lumped the Muslim Brotherhood in with terrorist groups ISIS, al-Qaida and Hezbollah. He suggested America’s first priority in dealing with global terrorism must be to first defeat ISIS, then al-Qaida, followed by the Muslim Brotherhood, in that order.

Tillerson stated at his Senate confirmation hearing: “The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran.”

Founded more than 80 years ago in Cairo, Egypt, where the “mother group” is based, the Muslim Brotherhood is a secretive Islamist society that gave birth to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and al-Qaida. In fact, it is the ideological catalyst behind the entire global jihadist movement now threatening the West, and its tentacles have reached deep inside the United States.

Before joining al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Anwar al-Awlaki and the Blind Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman were all members of the Brotherhood, known in Arabic as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. Its credo is: “The Quran is our constitution, Jihad is our way, and death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition.” Through both violent and political means, the Brotherhood seeks to impose Sharia — the rule of Islamic law — on the West. It also seeks the overthrow of Middle Eastern nations it views as too secular or close to the West.

As a result of recent violent unrest fomented by the Brotherhood, several Arab nations — including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — have designated the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, with UAE adding the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Brotherhood front organizations to the terrorist list. Russia has also outlawed the Brotherhood. US investigators have long sought to outlaw the group, complaining that Brotherhood-run mosques, charities and other elements show up in countless US terrorism cases, including the 9/11 attacks.

As former FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before the House Intelligence Committee in 2011, “I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.”

“Its ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law,” former federal prosecutor James T. Jacks asserted in a 2008 court filing linking US Brotherhood front groups to terrorism, including moderate-sounding groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust.

“Muslim Brotherhood members first migrated to the United States in the 1960s, where they began their grassroots work on campuses through an organization called the Muslim Students Association,” Jacks explained. “By the mid-1980s, the US-Muslim Brotherhood had grown exponentially, established numerous front organizations, developed a solid hierarchical structure, and received direction from the International Muslim Brotherhood’s General Guide.”

“Hamas was established in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Jacks continued, further outlining the conspiracy. “In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the US-Muslim Brotherhood was controlled by Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood members,” including CAIR’s founders.

Since 9/11, several known US-Muslim Brotherhood leaders — including Sami al-Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi — have been convicted of terrorist activities, with Alamoudi accused by the government of actively raising money for al-Qaida. Others, including CAIR founder Omar Ahmad, have been formally implicated by the government in major terrorism cases.

Some Brotherhood operatives have infiltrated US law enforcement and the military. Ali Mohamed, who emigrated from Egypt to spy for the Brotherhood in America, used his US Special Forces training to assist al-Qaida. Last decade, he pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy for his role in helping plan the al-Qaida bombings of the US embassies in Africa.

White House National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn says the Brotherhood has operated a terrorism-support network in America dating back to the first World Trade Center bombing. “We knew of close operational cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood” in that 1993 attack, he wrote in his 2016 book, “The Field of Fight.”

A Brotherhood manifesto seized by FBI agents during a 2004 raid of a Brotherhood leader’s home in the Washington DC area revealed that the US branch of the Brotherhood seeks the destruction of the US system — “from within.” Chillingly, the document directs Brotherhood members to engage in subversive action against the US:

“The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Investigators believe the Brotherhood conspiracy may involve a network of as many as 2,000 organizations working inside the US to support jihad and subvert the US government. Hard evidence links CAIR, ISNA and many other radical Islamist organizations masquerading as moderate groups — as well as some of the nation’s largest mosques — to this massive infrastructure financed and controlled by the Brotherhood.

Investigators call it an insurgency run by “terrorists in suits,” and the new White House, led by Flynn’s team, is said to want to shut the entire network down.

“It is no accident that radical Islamists in America are pushing very hard and very systematically to gain legal standing for Sharia, and to forbid any and all criticism of Islam,” Flynn said. “These are all steps toward creating an Islamic state right here at home. We have to thwart these efforts.”

Categories: Executive order, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, President Trump, Sharia law, Terrorism, US Congress
Tags: Executive order, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, President Trump, Sharia law, Terrorism, US Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s Ominous Post-Election Statement

January 24, 2017

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s Ominous Post-Election Statement, Front Page Magazine, Philip Haney, January 23, 2017

(This is a very long and, at times, tedious article. However, it is well worth not only reading but also studying since it gives excellent insights into Islamists and why they despise President Trump’s opposition to “radical Islam” and what he is likely to do to fight it. — DM)

salah-al-sawy

With the unexpected election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President, America has reached an historic crossroads vis-à-vis our domestic and foreign counter-terrorism and immigration policies. As will be seen as we walk through the Roadmap’s text, the AMJA regards the election of President Trump as a disruptive calamity – a potentially devastating setback – in its multi-generational strategy to promote Islam, and relentlessly integrate (not assimilate) the core principles of Shariah law into mainstream American society.

As we work our way through the Roadmap, we will soon discover that it is actually laid on the solid foundation of a crucially important strategic concept that supports the GIM (as authorized by the Muslim Brotherhood). In Arabic, this strategic approach is known as Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia, while in English, it is known as the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.

Yes, Al-Qaeda, the word translated here as ‘base,’ is the same word we commonly associate with Jihadist groups throughout the world. However, in its original meaning, Al-Qaeda is actually a concept, i.e., a ‘base of operations,’ rather than a subversive, violent terrorist organization operating somewhere far away in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

Remarkably, an overt example of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the American political arena was seen in the January 21, 2017 appearance of Imam Mohamed Magid at an interfaith religious service for President Donald J. Trump.

Mohamed Magid, who is Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), has also served as both President and Vice-President of ISNA (an HLF co-conspirator which is also closely linked to ADAMS), was scheduled to recite a simple opening prayer. Instead, he went ‘off script’ and recited two verses from the Quran that just happen to reflect concepts included in both the AMJA Roadmap, and in Article 1 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (also see Paragraph 4 above).

The two verses (as quoted by Imam Magid at the prayer service) are Quran 49.13: “O humankind, We have created you a single male and female (Adam and Eve) and made you into nations and tribes and communities, that you may know one another. Really, the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you, and God has all knowledge,” and Quran 30.22: “And among the signs of God is the creation of heaven and earth, and the variation in your languages and your colors. Verily, in that are signs for those who know.”

In addition to co-conspirator ISNA, ADAMS has close ties to several other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, including HLF co-conspirator International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the SAFA Trust, which was raided by the FBI after 9/11 because organizations and leaders “in the SAFA Group maintained a financial and ideological relationship with persons and entities with known affiliations to the designated terrorist Groups PIJ (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and HAMAS.”

Incredibly, one of the SAFA Trust’s sub-organizations was the Sterling Charitable Gift Fund, whose 6 primary advisors included Imam Mohamed Magid.

What is the link between all of these groups and the AMJA Roadmap? The link is Imam Magid himself, who in addition to serving as past President and Vice-President of the ISNA, and as Imam of ADAMS, currently serves as AMJA Expert number 26, where he is listed as “Shaykh Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center in Virginia.”

Since Imam (Shaykh) Magid is a current member of AMJA, it is very plausible that he deliberately went ‘off script’ at the prayer service, in order to make a public declaration (sound the alarm) to the entire Islamic world, while using his opportunity to speak at a high-profile public forum to reiterate one of the concepts discussed in the Roadmap.

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

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to decipher the ominous, but heavily camouflaged language embedded within the English text of a recent scholarly document, published on the website of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which is entitled Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap(aka the Roadmap).

As a 40-year specialist in the Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM) and founding member of the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (retired), my intention is to ‘pull out the threads’ of references in the Shariah-compliant Roadmap that are derived from the Quran and Hadith (and other academic sources), so that the general public sees more clearly that the AMJA is more than a simple ‘home-grown’ American Islamic organization.

Other ‘threads’ (fundamental Islamic doctrines) that are tightly woven into the fabric of the AMJA Roadmap include explicit religious Obligations (Paragraph 3), the Shariah-authorized response to the Oppression of Islamic civil rights (Paragraph 6), Loyalty & Enmity (Paragraph 10), the doctrine of Unity & Brotherhood within the global Islamic community (Paragraph 10), and allusions to the Islamic Revival Movement (Paragraph 13).

Why is the AMJA Roadmap even important? Could a scholarly article written by the leaders of a harmless-sounding American Islamic organization possibly have a corrosive influence on our Constitutionally protected values of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness?

The answer is: Yes.

With the unexpected election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President, America has reached an historic crossroads vis-à-vis our domestic and foreign counter-terrorism and immigration policies. As will be seen as we walk through the Roadmap’s text, the AMJA regards the election of President Trump as a disruptive calamity – a potentially devastating setback – in its multi-generational strategy to promote Islam, and relentlessly integrate (not assimilate) the core principles of Shariah law into mainstream American society.

As we work our way through the Roadmap, we will soon discover that it is actually laid on the solid foundation of a crucially important strategic concept that supports the GIM (as authorized by the Muslim Brotherhood). In Arabic, this strategic approach is known as Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia, while in English, it is known as the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.

Yes, Al-Qaeda, the word translated here as ‘base,’ is the same word we commonly associate with Jihadist groups throughout the world. However, in its original meaning, Al-Qaeda is actually a concept, i.e., a ‘base of operations,’ rather than a subversive, violent terrorist organization operating somewhere far away in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

To continue, in order for the GIM to integrate Shariah into a non-Islamic societies (like America), it is essential that an obedient, well-organized Islamic Al-Qaeda (base) first be established, with each member of the community striving to his or her utmost to promote Islam, which in Arabic is called Dawah.

For at least three generations, right here in America, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) have been building up the Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia.

During this process, what organization has provided the gravitational force – acting as the sun in the center of the Islamic solar system – to the Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia here in America? Or, what unifying force holds these Muslim Brotherhood planets (organizations) in their respective orbits?

The answer is the AMJA, which maintains an archive of reliable, Shariah-compliant Fatwas needed to assure the Muslim community (and their leaders) that they are all following the correct, straight path of Allah.

Note: For several additional examples of AMJA Fatwas, please see Appendix I – AMJA Fatwas below.

AMJA Background

In English, the AMJA is known as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. However, this benign-sounding title is dramatically different, and much more ominous, when translated directly from the Arabic, i.e., the Majama Fuqaha Al-Shariah B’Amrikia (Group of Shariah Specialists in America).

More specifically, the covert use of the term Al-Shariah B’Amrikia (Shariah in America) should send up an immediate ‘red flag.’ After all, haven’t we been reassured repeatedly that Muslims have no intention of implementing Shariah law here in America, and that Shariah poses no threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms? Aren’t those who raise concerns about Shariah routinely branded as bigots, raving conspiracy theorists and dubious Islamophobes?

If there is no intention of implementing Shariah law here in America, then why does the AMJA include the Arabic term Al-Shariah B’Amrikia in its official title and logo? And, if these reassurances are really true, then why are Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR so consistently and vehemently opposed to efforts to pass legislation known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC)?

In fact, Shariah law does pose a threat to American (and Western) freedoms and values. According to Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, “Islamic civilization, since the time of Prophet Muhammad until now, is firmly founded on the concept of ‘rule of law’ For that reason, the law is published and known, and citizens and courts are expected to uphold it. In addition, Muslim citizens must adhere to Islamic law – Shariah…the disciplines and principles that govern the behavior of a Muslim individual towards his or herself, family, neighbors, community, city, nation and the Muslim polity as a whole, the Ummah.”

The current AMJA leadership structure includes six members of the Leadership Council (aka Majlis Al-Shura, or the Shura Council), nearly all of whom are graduates of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, plus eight Scholars, 46 Experts and 41 Members. Combined together, this roster of 100 Islamic scholars is a Who’s Who of prominent Muslim Brotherhood leaders and Salafi Muslims affiliated with the Global Islamic Movement.

It is also important to recognize that the AMJA is much more than a simple ‘home-grown’ group of American Muslim clergymen. Instead, it is part of a constellation of influential Islamic organizations, such as the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), and the Islamic Research Foundation International (IRFI).

Together, such groups form a global coalition of tightly integrated Muslim scholars known as the Ulema, which gather together periodically for Ijtimah (Consensus) Conferences, where problems that Muslims face in non-Islamic countries are reviewed (more about Ijtimah / Ijtihad is also discussed in Paragraph 10 of the Roadmap).

In turn, these scholars are authorized to issue legal rulings (Fatwa), and to provide guidance to the global Islamic community (Ummah), which are based exclusively on the unalterable authority of Islamic Shariah law – never on the ‘man-made’ U.S. Constitution, let alone state or federal civil law.

Analysis of AMJA Roadmap Text

Note: I use the Sahih International translation of the Quran, which is often (but not always) used by the AMJA scholars. Also, since many words in the Quran (for example, Alamina) can be translated several different ways, I may include additional synonyms. For example, in the case of Alamina, it can be accurately translated as either animals, beasts, created beings, creatures, mankind or men.

Each one of the original 14 paragraphs in the Roadmap has been numbered for clarity and quoted in italics below. After each paragraph is quoted, I provide commentary with highlighted phrases taken from that paragraph of the Roadmap text, along with hyperlinks to the sources.

(1) “In the name of Allah, the Ever-Compassionate, the Ever-Merciful.”

This comes directly from Quran 1.1: “In the name of Allah , the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.”

(2) “All praise be to Allah alone and may blessings and peace be upon he who was sent as a mercy for all of humanity.”

Also taken directly from Quran 1.2: “[All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds”; it is combined with a phrase from Quran 21.107: “And We have not sent you, except as a mercy to created beings/creatures/humanity/man/mankind/people/worlds.”

In addition, Mohammed is also well known within the Islamic world as ‘the mercy for all humanity,’ as discussed extensively in Prophet Muhammad: A Mercy to Humanity, Part I & Part II.

(3) “No one could possibly be unaware of the political storm that has recently overtaken this country. Some see it as a real threat to the principles of security, freedom, equality, well-being and social justice that form the basis of the American Dream which millions from various ethnic and religious backgrounds seek to achieve. As Muslims are one slice of this society, national and religious obligations demand that they deal with these news events in a way that will protect the nation and its people from any evils, in a manner benefitting all citizens. For this reason, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America is addressing the Imams, Islamic workers and the entire Muslim community with permanent values that must be emphasized during this stage as well as a number of principles to be used in dealing with these events, what has happened as well as what is expected to happen.”

Political Storm: It is intriguing that no mention is made here of the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring, or of the current storms of violence raging across the Middle East and in the Far East. Instead, the election of Donald Trump as President is seen here as a test, or as a trial, storm, and even as a calamity (as in Paragraph 5 below).

Religious Obligations: This is a direct reference to Articles 1(a), 8 & 9 of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which was drafted and ratified by all 57 members nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which was renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on June 28, 2011. Article 24 of the Declaration states “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah,” while Article 25 states “The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

Religious Obligation (Obligatory Duty) in Arabic is Fard, i.e., “what the Islamic Lawgiver [Mohammed] strictly requires to be done, and whose obligatory character is proved by definitive evidence. Someone who denies the Fard is considered a disbeliever (Kafir), as he or she is denying what has been ordained by clear-cut and decisive texts.”

Fard is separated in to groups: [1] “Fard Al-Ayn (Individual duty): The group of tasks that are every Muslim is required to perform individually as a duty, such as Salah (Daily Prayer), Hijab (Covering) or the Hajj (Pilgrimage) to Mecca at least once in a lifetime,” and [2] “Fard Al-Kifaya(Sufficiency/Communal duty): The duty which is imposed on the whole Ummah. One is not required to perform it as long as a sufficient number of community members fulfill it.”

Religious Obligation (Fard) is also discussed extensively in the definitive, authorized English translation of Shariah law, known as The Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat Al-Salik).

Entire Muslim Community: This refers to the global Islamic community, i.e., the Ummah aka Nation (as in Nation of Islam)

Permanent Values: This concept is derived from Quran 3.110: You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. The concept of permanent values is also based on Quran 2.41: And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear [only] Me.

Permanent Values: For a detailed discussion of this subject, see article by G. A. Parwez entitled Quranic Permanent Values

What Is Expected To Happen: This is a plain and direct call to the Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia(the Observant Muslim Base) to maintain a heightened state of awareness and engagement, for the purpose of defending Islam from disbelievers.

(4) “Muslims of America are neither guests nor strangers here. Muslims, due to them being descended from humanity’s parents, Adam and Eve, and being created from this earth, are part of the greater family of humanity. They are also citizens here like the other citizens with both rights and responsibilities. This land is ruled by a constitution and the rule of law that protects the rights of all its minorities with due respect at all levels, even though the visceral speech of the recent heated election may have seemed to deny this. We shall adhere to our rights and the rights of other Americans and shall strengthen our bonds with the civil rights organizations, Muslim or non-Muslim. We shall work with them and defend them whenever needed. However, at the same time, we must always fulfill our obligations completely and be active participants in society working to protect the security and well-being of its inhabitants.”

Humanity’s Parents, Adam and Eve: Another allusion derived from Article 1 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which reads: All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, color, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.

This is also a direct allusion to Quran 49.13: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.”

Quran Rights And Responsibilities: It is important to reiterate here that the AMJA’s definitions of ‘rights and responsibilities’ are not drawn from the U.S. Constitution & American civil law, but solely from Shariah, and from the Cairo Declaration.

Muslim or non-Muslim: It is intriguing that while the AMJA strictly prohibits American Muslims from working for the FBI, the military, or for U.S. security (and law enforcement) services, because such work could possibly involve “spying on Muslims” (see Appendix I below), it grants specific permission the American Muslim community to work with non-Muslim civil rights organizations, presumably with such ‘allies’ as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), or the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Fulfill Our Obligations: In the last sentence of this paragraph, the Roadmap adds a caveat, reminding Muslims who chose to work with such secular, non-Muslim groups, that “we must always fulfill our obligations completely.” Such obligations would no doubt include Dawah (as discussed above).

Obligations: Also discussed in Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 11

(5) “It is known that patience, perseverance, prudence and discernment are among the most important tools for success and happiness, especially during times of calamities. These are needed to establish one’s position on certainty or, at the very least, the preponderance of the evidence. One’s stance cannot be simply a matter of making proclamations in front of cameras or under the pressure of provocations. The Messenger of Allah told Ashaj Abdul-Qais, ‘You have two qualities that Allah loves: forbearance and deliberateness.’ The Muslim Community must proceed with calmness and clarity and must refer matters to the knowledgeable people who are specialists in the relevant fields. Allah has said, ‘But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it.’”

During Times Of Calamities: This paragraph introduces a founding concept in Islam, that the Muslim community should always defer to trained scholars whenever calamities arise. This practice is followed to prevent individual Muslims (and entire communities) from violating any provisions of Shariah law.

Calamities: Although the Arabic word for calamity (Sawaba) may also be translated as an affliction, disaster or misfortune, it always implies a direct assault on the community, or the faith, of Islam. Variants of Sawaba occur about 77 times in the Quran, including verse 2.156, which says: “Who, when affliction/disaster/misfortune strikes them, say, ‘Indeed we belong to Allah , and indeed to Him we will return.’”

This very passage was cited in the January 05, 2017 CAIR Texas Executive Director’s Message, which is entitled A New Year For Civil Rights And Political Empowerment.

You Have Two Qualities: This reference is from Al-Bukhari and Muslim, two Hadith sources (the sayings of Mohammed): “The Prophet, praised the delegation of ‘Abd Al-Qays from the Hajar region for their deliberation and tolerance, as he said to Ashajj ‘Abd Al-Qays: ‘You have two characteristics that Allah and His Messenger like: forbearance and deliberation.’”

But If They Had Referred It / Those Of Authority: This passage is found in Quran 4.83: “And when there comes to them information about [public] security or fear, they spread it around. But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Satan, except for a few.”

Note: The subject of submitting (deferring) to ‘those in authority’ is also reiterated in Paragraph 8 and Paragraph 9.

As also discussed in Paragraph 3, this submission to authority also the Fard (Obligatory Duty) of the Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia, i.e., the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.

(6) “There is no blame upon a country if it does what is needed to protect its interests and security as long as it does not transgress or oppress by denying or violating rights. America, even given its excesses, is still one of the best nations when it comes to protecting human rights and the sanctity of humanity. It is a must upon us that we not over generalize or spread fear. Our dealings with the current events must be wise and objective.”

Transgress Or Oppress: The concepts of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Transgression and Oppression are deeply embedded within the ideology of Islam. The consequences of transgressing the statutes and commandments of Shariah law, or of oppressing (opposing) the efforts of the Islamic community, are severe. For three examples, see Quran 2.190: “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors,” Quran 21.9: “Then We fulfilled for them the promise, and We saved them and whom We willed and destroyed the transgressors,” and Quran 2.193: “Fight them until there is no [more] Fitnah [oppression] and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression, except against the oppressors.”

Oppression is also discussed in extensive detail in the Hadith (Bukhari), Volume 4, Section 43.

In 2014, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, wrote to President Barack Obama about his views on the situation in Iraq, Gaza and Palestine, while also commenting about “Muslim oppression at the hands of the West in general and the United States in particular.”

Human Rights: Discussed specifically in Article 23 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, and in the preamble of the Cairo Declaration, which states: “Agrees to issue the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a general guidance for Member States in the Field of human rights,” and “In contribution to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shariah.”

On January 13, 2016, the Dearborn, MI based American Human Rights Council (AHRC) announced that it had co-signed a petition asking President Obama to commute the sentence of the five Holy Land Foundation (HLF) defendants to time served. The AHRC website states that “Five well- regarded members of the Muslim American community, Mufid Abdulqader, Shukri Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammad El-Mezain, and Abdulrahman Odeh, were given unusually lengthy sentences that shocked the American Muslim community for their harshness,” adding that “The Holy Land Foundation case if one of the most traumatic experiences of the American Muslim community. The case sent shock waves through the humanitarian sector worldwide,” said Imad Hamad, AHRC Executive director. “We believe that given the equities, it is in the interest of justice to commute their sentences to time served,” concluded Hamad.

From an Islamic perspective, it appears that sentencing five individuals to prison for material support of Hamas, a globally designated terrorist organization, is a violation of their civil and human rights, which is another form of Fitnah.

(7) “Testing humans with good or evil is how Allah deals with His servants. Whoever sells his faith for this world has suffered a clear loss. The Muslim believes that his religion is the dearest of all things. Any time in which the worldly goods will be accepted in exchange for one’s faith will be a time of ignobility and treachery. The trials and punishments that can come from humans cannot possibly be like that which will come from Allah – and it is only the people of hypocrisy that could ever equate those two. Allah has said, ‘And of the people is he who worships Allah on an edge. If he is touched by good, he is reassured by it; but if he is struck by trial he turns on his face [to the other direction]. He has lost [this] world and the Hereafter. That is what is the manifest loss.’”

Testing / Trials And Punishments: In Arabic, this is known as Fitnah فِتْنَةَ, which occurs 60 times in the Quran. Fitnah is another powerful concept that is woven tightly into the theological fabric of Islam. In fact, Fitnah is the catalyst that leads to outbreaks of violence and chronic terrorism throughout the world. For example, Quran 2.191 says: “And kill [slaughter] them wherever you overtake them and expel them [violently] from wherever they have expelled you, and Fitnah is worse than killing [slaughter]. And do not fight them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram [the Great Mosque in Mecca] until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill [slaughter] them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”

The concept of Fitnah is a powerful catalyst, leading directly to Jihad, as illustrated in sections Q 1.2(3) and 2.4(4) of Reliance of the Traveller: “The best Jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler.” The word unjust used here is yet another adjective used to describe Fitnah.

Reliance (page 615) also makes the following ominous declaration of Ijtimah (Consensus), effectively shattering the concept of what is known in the West as the self-radicalized ‘Lone Wolf’ (or ‘Known Wolf’, as per Patrick Poole): There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battle lines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed. But if one knows it will not hurt them at all, such as if a blind man were to hurl himself against them, then it is unlawful. Likewise, if someone who is alone sees a corrupt person with a bottle of wine beside him and a sword in his hand, and he knows that the person will chop his neck if he censures him for drinking, it is not permissible for him to do so, as it would not entail any religious advantage worth giving one’s life for. Such censure is only praiseworthy when one is able to eliminate the wrong and one’s action will produce some benefit.

Sells His Faith / Suffered A Clear Loss are derived from Quran 2.207: “And of the people is he who sells himself, seeking means to the approval of Allah. And Allah is kind to [His] servants,” and from Quran 4.119: “And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah. And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss.”

And Of The People: This is taken directly from Quran 22.11: “And of the people is he who worships Allah on an edge. If he is touched by good, he is reassured by it; but if he is struck by trial [Fitnah], he turns on his face [to the other direction]. He has lost [this] world and the Hereafter. That is what is the manifest loss.”

(8) “Islam, with respect to its belief and legal foundations is unalterably fixed. It does not accept any replacement for change. With its branches and rulings, though, it can accommodate people under any time or place. By its legal principles, it is able to absorb changes of time and places and circumstances of necessity and need. However, the law of necessity has its specific legal parameters that one must adhere to. One must refer to the people of knowledge to ensure that the principle is being applied properly. A Muslim must comply with his faith and refer confusing or troublesome matters to the well-grounded scholars. AMJA is of the view that there has yet to occur – and they do not expect to occur – a situation in which one is required to flee with one’s faith, or wherein one is excused from performing some parts of the faith’s teachings.”

Legal Foundations / Legal Principles / Legal Parameters: This is a direct reference to Shariahlaw. As found in section A1.1 of Reliance of the Traveller, “There is no disagreement among the scholars of the Muslims that the source of legal rulings for all the acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah Most Glorious.”

Muslim Brotherhood founder Syed Qutb stated: “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.”

Jamaat-e-Islami founder Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi wrote: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.”

Is there any room here for the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence?

Unalterably Fixed / Any Replacement For Change: These two phrases touch the heart of the looming conflict between the certain unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness that have been endowed by our Creator, versus the emphatic declaration that the legal foundations of Islam (Shariah law) are unalterably fixed, and that no replacement for change can ever be accepted.

This is not just AMJA’s position. An August 09, 2012 Pew Research Center survey entitled The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity asked Muslims whether they believe there is only one true way to understand Islam’s teachings, or if multiple interpretations are possible. In 32 of the 39 countries surveyed, well more than half of all Muslims agreed there is only one correct way to understand the teachings of Islam.

Must Comply With His Faith: Alluded to in Quran 2.207: “And of the people is he who sells himself, seeking means to the approval of Allah. And Allah is kind to [His] servants.”

Well-Grounded Scholars: Reinforcing a principle that was first introduced in Paragraph 5, and reiterated in Paragraphs 9 and Paragraph 10 below, section A1.2 of Reliance of the Traveller states: Unaided Intellect Cannot Know Allah’s Rules. The question arises. Is it possible for the mind alone, unaided by Allah’s messengers and revealed scriptures, to know rulings, such that someone not reached by a prophet’s invitation would be able through his own reason to know Allah’s rule concerning his actions? Or is this impossible?

Flee With One’s Faith: This refers to the Hijrah (Migration), another fundamental concept in Islam, with connotations going back 1,400 years, to the founding history of Islam. At this point, the Roadmap introduces the possibility that Muslims in America may have to flee to a safer location, for the sake of their faith. Socially, this is a very provocative (and potentially inflammatory) statement by the AMJA. It engenders immediate animosity and tension, and serves to further alienate and marginalize the Muslim community in America.

Notice also that in this time of crisis, the AMJA is not encouraging Muslims to assimilate into American mainstream culture, but instead advises them to further distance themselves from it, while surrounding themselves with the protective wall of Shariah law, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.

For example, in a January 14, 2017 Huffington Post article about a mosque fire in Seattle, CAIR representative Joseph Shoji Lachman included this statement: “Even in a city with as liberal a reputation as Seattle, people of Middle Eastern descent fear for their lives simply because of their appearance and religion.” As discussed in Paragraph 7 above, this is an example of Fitnah, i.e., Muslims living in a hostile, oppressive, non-Islamic culture, where fear becomes a way of life.

Quoting directly from The Significance of the Hijrah by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph.D., President of the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc: The significance of Hijrah…is not limited to the Islamic history or to the Muslims. The Hijrah not only reshaped – socially and politically – the Arab Peninsula, but also had its impact on worldwide civilizations. Throughout the history of Islam, the migration was a transitional line between the two major eras, regarding to the message of Islam; the era of Makkah [Mecca] and the era of Madinah. In its essence, this signified a transition from one phase to another, as follows:

Transition from the position of weakness, where the non-believers of Makkah – particularly the people of Quraish – humiliated, tortured and killed Muslims, to the position of strength. This is where Muslims were allowed to defend themselves and were able to defeat their adversaries. Transition, which is most significantly for early Muslims, to the phase in which Islam was not only the act of worship, but a way of life. This was encompassing (surrounding) politics, economy, social interactions and every other aspect of life. This was the first time when Islam was looked upon as a comprehensive religion.

(9) “Both Muslims and non-Muslims bring harm to Islam and Muslims. Muslims do so via ignorance, taking knowledge from the unqualified, blind zealotry, extremism or by betraying Allah, His Messenger and the believers. The non-Muslims harm Islam and Muslims via enmity and hatred, which is also built upon ignorance and intolerance. You should eagerly learn your faith and its regulations. You should fortify your knowledge and understanding via learning from the well-grounded, pious scholars. Then you should be a Muslim whose deeds, above and beyond his speech, are truthful and sincere. You should be an excellent ambassador for your faith. Representing Islam well and displaying its realities is of great importance during these times.”

Well-Grounded, Pious Scholars: First introduced in Paragraph 5 and reiterated in Paragraph 8 andParagraph 10.

Truthful And Sincere: This concept is derived from Quran 9.119: “O you who have believed, fear Allah and be with those who are true (in word and deed).” For more on this subject from a Quranic perspective, see article entitled The Importance and Reward For The One Who Is Honest.

(10) “The time has come to leave off calling to groups and sectarianism and to stop the division and differences. Truly, togetherness is mercy and division is a form of punishment. It is obligatory upon us now, O Muslims, to spread the feelings of mutual love, mercy and compassion in all dealings with all believers, regardless of their divisions that they align with or the paths that they follow in their Dawah efforts. We must leave behind us all forms of fanaticism and bigotry. Instead, we must form the bond of brotherhood upon the Quran and Sunnah. Those two, and nothing else are the basis of our allegiance or disavowing. We should also avoid delving into those heated discussions of matters of Ijtihad (juristic reasoning) and details of the law. The issues concerning which scholars differ based on juristic reasoning or policy are numerous and if every time two Muslims differed with another over such issues they would flee from one another, there would be no sanctity or brotherhood left between any Muslims. We must not drive away and make enemies out of anyone that we could join our hearts with upon the religion and agree with them on the basics of righteousness and piety. This is especially true during this cautious time. Since this principle of understanding is accepted when dealing with people of other faiths, it must even more so be accepted when dealing with people of one’s own faith.”

Division / Bond of Brotherhood: The subject of Division vs. a Unified Brotherhood (thus the name Muslim Brotherhood) is frequently discussed in Islamic theology (Quran & Hadith), as in Quran 3.103: And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers.

This is also another example of the insidious, kaleidoscopic nature of Fitnah, as discussed in more detail under the heading Testing And Trials in Paragraph 7 above.

Those Two, And Nothing Else: Once again, net even the U.S. Constitution and/or Western values of freedom and liberty, are exempt for the dominating influence of Shariah law, as derived from the Quran and Hadith.

Allegiance Or Disavowing: Code words for another deeply embedded Islamic doctrine, known as Al-Wala Wa’l Bara, or the doctrine of Loyalty & Enmity. Other adjectives used as synonyms of Loyalty & Enmity include Enjoin & Forbid, or, as found here in the AMJA Roadmap, Allegiance & Disavowal.

The basis for Loyalty and Enmity, which calls on Muslims to be loyal to one another (even if they dislike each other), is found in Quran 9.71: “The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give Zakah[Charity] and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those, Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” The same concept is reiterated in Quran 8.73: “And those who disbelieved are allies of one another. If you do not do so, there will be Fitnah on earth and great corruption.”

In other words, those who oppose the global (and local) unity of the Islamic brotherhood, and who refuse to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, are guilty of Fitnah, a serious crime against Islam.

For two additional detailed discussions of this extremely significant topic, see Part 1 & Part 2 of Al‐Wala Wa’l‐Bara, According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf by Shaykh Muhammad Saeed al‐Qahtan. Also see The Doctrine of Loyalty and Disavowal, by Mahmud Dwaikat.

Matters Of Ijtihad: Unified Reasoning, which is derived from the same root verb as Ijtimah(Consensus), is synonymous with a firm reliance on the scholars. This is a major theme of the Roadmap, as already seen in Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9.

(11) “Among the most important of obligations during these days is to open our doors to all sectors of our society and to reach out to the other ethnic and religious groups as well as political movements on both the left and right of the political spectrum. This will be the only way to stop those who deal in hate. The majority of Americans are the best when it comes to dealing with ‘the other.’ We must not allow the ugliness of a few in this society to prevent us from seeing its goodness. The recent election ended in the way that it did for a number of reasons, perhaps most importantly the economic conditions that a large slice of the population is facing. It is not true that racism or rejection of foreigners alone decided this election. Even for those who are afflicted with racist attitudes, the best cure for them is found in Allah’s instruction, ‘Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend.’”

Most Important Of Obligations: Also discussed in Paragraph 3, 4 and 12.

This is a call (and official authorization) for American Muslims to form coalitions with a diversity of ethnic and religious groups, as well as movements on the left and right of the political spectrum. In other words, to start forming new alliances, in as many different arenas as possible, to build a wall of resistance.

Some of the organizations involved in this AMJA-authorized effort to develop common-cause alliances include the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, the Black Lives Matter movement, ANSWER Coalition, the Tides Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

What overlapping goals does the religion of Islam have with left-wing, progressive groups like these? A concise answer is provided by the anti-Trump protest group #DisruptJ20, which “rejects all forms of domination and oppression [i.e., Fitnah], particularly those based on racism, poverty, gender & sexuality, organizes by consensus, and embraces a diversity of tactics.”

Repel [Evil] By That [Deed]: This is from Quran 41:34: And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend.

(12) “From among the most important obligations during this stage is to support those institutions and organizations that serve the Muslim community, such as those interested in defending freedoms, civil rights and political activism, those dedicated to social services and relief, and those dedicated to Dawah, religious instruction and providing religious rulings. It is most unbelievable that there are some who cry over the state of the community and then they are too stingy to donate their time or money to such organizations. Worse than that are those who are even too stingy to pray for them or give them a kind word. But the worst of all are those who seek to destroy such organizations.”

Most Important Of Obligations: Discussed earlier in Paragraph 3, 4 and 11.

During This Stage: We’re now coming to the key take-away messages of the AMJA Roadmap, which is actually describing the Shariah-approved course of action that Muslims in America (or anywhere else) should take whenever calamities, oppression and/or resistance to the ultimate implementation of Shariah law are encountered. This concept – of an allegorical journey (Roadmap) – was first discussed by Sayyid Qutb, one of the founding fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood, in his famous book entitled Milestones.

It is also important to notice the continuity of language used in the AMJA Roadmap, from similar concepts (‘stages’ and ‘oppression’) addressed in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones, to the terms used in the HLF’s formal name (‘Relief’), while also reflecting language used in the Reliance of the Traveller.

Support Those Institutions And Organizations: Who are these institutions and organizations? The list would include groups such as the American Human Rights Council (AHRC), the Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA), Islamic Shura Council of Southern California (ISCSC), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), and the dozens of affiliated organizations named as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 federal criminal trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), which proved irrefutably that American Muslim organizations were providing direct financial support to Hamas, twice designated as a Global Terrorist Organization (also see US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, TX).

Defending Freedoms, Civil Rights And Political Activism: On January 13, 2017, Executive Director Imad Hamad stated that AHRC “joins its voice to the voices of many in the nongovernmental community who have called on President Obama to commute the sentence of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) defendants to time served.” Mr. Hamad also characterized the five defendants (Mufid Abdulqader, Shukri Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammad El-Mezain and Abdulrahman Odeh) as “well-regarded members of the Muslim American community, [who] were given unusually lengthy sentences that shocked the American Muslim community for their harshness.” This is just the most recent salvo in an long-term barrage of disinformation after the five HLF defendants were indicted on July 26, 2004 for financial support of Hamas. For a few other examples, see here (2006), here (2009), here (2010), here (2010), here (2011) and here (2011).

Social Services And Relief: Islamic organizations that are dedicated to social services and relief include are created to comply with Shariah law, as found in Reliance, section H8.7 (page 226): It is obligatory to distribute one’s among eight categories of recipients (meaning that Zakat goes to none besides them), one-eighth of the Zakat to each category. (in the Hanafi school [of Shariah law], it is valid for the giver to distribute his Zakat to all of the categories, some of them, or to confine himself to just one of them).

The eight categories include [1] the Poor, [2] Someone separated from his money, or short of money, [3] Zakat workers dispatched by the Imam, [4] Those whose hearts are to be reconciled, [5] Those purchasing their freedom, [6] Those in debt, [7] Those fighting Jihad for the sake of Allah and [8] Those traveling for the sake of Allah.

Yes, one-eighth of all Zakat must be given directly to those are fighting Jihad, which is the reason why HLF leaders had no problem giving financial aid to Hamas.

Dawah, Religious Instruction And Providing Religious Rulings: This category would include Shariah-promoting organizations such as the AMJA itself, as well as the Fatwa Center of America, the North American Imam’s Federation (NAIT), and the Institute of Islamic Education (IIE), which is part of a network of Islamic schools (Madrassas) operating across America.

The Worst Of All: This critical Islamic concept, i.e., that those who opposes or resist the cause of Islam are the worst of all, is also derived directly from the Quran. For example, see Quran 8.55: Indeed, the worst of all animals/beasts/created beings/creatures/mankind/men in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe, and Quran 98.6: Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of all animals/beasts/created beings/creatures/mankind/men.

For more on this subject, see the 2008 QuranicTopics.com article entitled Disbelievers Are The Worst of Creatures.

According to several sources, President Donald Trump intends to support legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. If the effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization actually proves successful, America would be following the lead of several other countries who have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Also, during his August 15, 2016 speech on fighting terrorism, President Trump said: “[O]ne of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam, which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions. The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.”

On January 10, 2017, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) reintroduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017 (also see H.R. 3892, which was introduced November 03, 2015). During his January 15, 2017 Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson stated that “The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran.” This signals that Mr. Tillerson is aware of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he will seriously consider implementing the 2017 Terrorist Designation Act.

(13) “No one knows the unseen except Allah. It is possible that an individual hates something while Allah has placed a lot of good for him in it. We must prepare for any possibility while hoping for the best outcomes. Before all of the above, and with all of the above, and after all of the above, one must know that there is no bringer of harm and no bringer of benefit except Allah. Nothing can guard an individual from what he fears greater than the protection of his Lord. Therefore, come with us to revive true piety and renew the spirit of repenting to Allah. Certainly, trials and tribulations are not to be repelled simply by material means alone. Instead, they will be overcome by a sincere turning to Allah, submitting to Him, having good expectations of Him and trusting Him in a beautiful manner. Be mindful of Allah’s commands and He will protect you. Be mindful of Allah’s commands and you will find Him in front of you, guiding you. Increase your remembrance of Allah and you will find Allah with you every step of the way, leading you through fear and to security.”

This concluding paragraph of the Roadmap reiterates all of the key points made throughout the document, and ends with a series of Quranic emphatic exhortations for Muslims in America to put their hope and trust fully in Allah, and in his commands (Shariah).

Knows The Unseen: Quran 6.59: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record.”

Also see a study from the Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir, entitled The One Who Knows The Unseen Is Allah.

An Individual Hates Something / Placed A Lot Of Good: This statement is derived from Quran 2.216: “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.”

An Individual Hates Something: For further insight, see the July 07, 2010 AbdurRachman.orgarticle by Imam Ibn al Qayyim, entitled And It May Be That You Dislike A Thing Which Is Good For You.

Revive True Piety And Renew The Spirit: This is an allusion to what is known as the Islamic Revival (Renaissance) Movement, which is a worldwide effort to encourage Muslims to return to SalafiIslam, i.e., the original, pure version of Islam practiced by Mohammed and his early followers. Also see this link to Reviving The Islamic Spirit Conventions worldwide, including a major North American venue in Toronto, Canada.

Trials And Tribulations: Another reference to Fitnah, which is also discussed in Paragraph 6, 7 and 8.

Trusting Him In A Beautiful Manner: Derived from Quran 16.125: “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful/good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.”

Be Mindful Of Allah’s Commands: The entire last sentence derived from a Hadith, which states: “Young man, I will teach you some words. Be mindful of Allah, and He will take care of you. Be mindful of Him, and you shall find Him at your side. If you ask, ask of God. If you need help, seek it from God. Know that if the whole world were to gather together in order to help you, they would not be able to help you except if God had written so.”

In turn, this Hadith is linked to Quran 2.156-157: “Who, when disaster strikes them, say, ‘Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we will return.’ Those are the ones upon whom are blessings from their Lord and mercy. And it is those who are the [rightly] guided.”

(14) “O Allah, be gentle with Your servants. All praise is due to Allah alone.”

Be Gentle: Derived from Al-Latif, one of the 99 Names of Allah, and from Quran 42.19: “Allah is Gentle/Gracious/Kind/Subtle with His servants; He gives provisions to whom He wills. And He is the Powerful, the Exalted in Might.”

All Praise: Part of the Aqidah (Authentic Creed): All praise is due to Allah, and Allah’s Peace and Blessings be upon His Final Messenger, his pure family, his noble Companions, and all those who follow them with righteousness until the Day of Judgment. Why is this important to a Muslim? Because, according to a publication also entitled The Authentic Creed, “It is evident from texts of the Noble Quran and the Sunnah that a person’s words and deeds will not be accepted unless they emanate from a true creed. If the creed is not authentic, all words and deeds emanating there from are bound to be rejected.”

Conclusion

Much like a storm siren, fire alarm or warning signal, the AMJA Roadmap is meant to be not only a warning of impending danger, but a call to deliberate, responsive action. The concept of sounding a warning is also emphasized many times in the Quran, as in verse 7.63: “Then do you wonder that there has come to you a reminder from your Lord through a man from among you, that he may warn you and that you may fear Allah, so you might receive mercy.”

Thus, if the AMJA expects the American Muslim community not only to take this warning seriously, but to also take appropriate action(s), then perhaps those of us who are not Muslim would be wise to take heed to the warning as well, lest we be caught unprepared.

Now that we have methodically reviewed the Roadmap, a question arises: “How will leaders of the American Muslim community respond (react), if the Trump Administration actually designates the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, thus ‘destroying’ the affiliated institutions and groups that have been endorsed and supported by the AMJA?”

As plainly stated in Paragraph 12 of the Roadmap, those who attempt to shut down the network of organizations that support the American Islamic community are characterized as the “the worst of all.”

Therefore, if we take the Roadmap seriously, we must ask a second question: “What actions (resistance) will the AMJA feel compelled to endorse, if the Designation Act of 2017 effectively bans leaders of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR, ISNA and MPAC from any further legal involvement in the arenas of politics, social activism, and law enforcement?”

Remarkably, an overt example of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the American political arena was seen in the January 21, 2017 appearance of Imam Mohamed Magid at an interfaith religious service for President Donald J. Trump.

Mohamed Magid, who is Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), has also served as both President and Vice-President of ISNA (an HLF co-conspirator which is also closely linked to ADAMS), was scheduled to recite a simple opening prayer. Instead, he went ‘off script’ and recited two verses from the Quran that just happen to reflect concepts included in both the AMJA Roadmap, and in Article 1 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (also see Paragraph 4 above).

The two verses (as quoted by Imam Magid at the prayer service) are Quran 49.13: “O humankind, We have created you a single male and female (Adam and Eve) and made you into nations and tribes and communities, that you may know one another. Really, the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you, and God has all knowledge,” and Quran 30.22: “And among the signs of God is the creation of heaven and earth, and the variation in your languages and your colors. Verily, in that are signs for those who know.”

In addition to co-conspirator ISNA, ADAMS has close ties to several other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, including HLF co-conspirator International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the SAFA Trust, which was raided by the FBI after 9/11 because organizations and leaders “in the SAFA Group maintained a financial and ideological relationship with persons and entities with known affiliations to the designated terrorist Groups PIJ (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and HAMAS.”

Incredibly, one of the SAFA Trust’s sub-organizations was the Sterling Charitable Gift Fund, whose 6 primary advisors included Imam Mohamed Magid.

What is the link between all of these groups and the AMJA Roadmap? The link is Imam Magid himself, who in addition to serving as past President and Vice-President of the ISNA, and as Imam of ADAMS, currently serves as AMJA Expert number 26, where he is listed as “Shaykh Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center in Virginia.”

Since Imam (Shaykh) Magid is a current member of AMJA, it is very plausible that he deliberately went ‘off script’ at the prayer service, in order to make a public declaration (sound the alarm) to the entire Islamic world, while using his opportunity to speak at a high-profile public forum to reiterate one of the concepts discussed in the Roadmap.

Meanwhile, in a example of simultaneous, overlapping social activism, Hussam Ayloush, who heads the CAIR Los Angeles chapter, compared Trump on Facebook to the proverbial emperor without any clothes, while urging Imam Magid not to “hand him a towel,” while Ahmed Rehab, Executive Director of CAIR Chicago, said on Facebook that he was “thoroughly disappointed” by Imam Magid’s “unilateral decision” to join the prayer service, which “goes against the consensus of our community’s leadership and grassroots.”

So, if the one-day-old Trump Administration already “goes against the consensus of our community’s leadership and grassroots,” what effect(s) will designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group have on the community’s pro-Jihad sympathizers, both here in America, and in other parts of the world?

Will fellow members of the global Ummah feel compelled to help their oppressed brethren, who are facing calamities/disasters and Fitnah from disbelievers here in America?

Is it even vaguely possible that some may take to heart the admonition found in Quran 8.12, which says: “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip’”?

Or, perhaps these aspiring Jihadists would prefer to follow the guidance found in Quran 47.4: “So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command].”

As first reported by Andrew Bostom in March of 2011, AMJA Secretary-General Dr. Salah Al-Sawy was asked by a reader whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West…[was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad.”

Then, in a Fatwa published in Arabic on his own website, Dr. Al-Sawy provided the following carefully written endorsement of both offensive and defensive Jihad: “The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence [Shariahlaw] at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.”

This is essentially the same tactical approach the AMJA Roadmap is following. In other words, to paraphrase Dr. Al-Sawy’s Fatwa: Since the Islamic community in America does not possess the strength or current capabilities to engage in offensive jihad at this time, it should continue to aspire toward defensive jihad, and strive to improve its position with regards to jurisprudence Shariah law at this stage (as in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones).

Is my premise just so much hyperbole? Exaggeration? A misunderstanding? Misguided Islamophobia? That remains to be seen.

However, as we move into the Trump Administration, which is expected to be completely antithetical the counter-terrorism and immigration policies of the Obama Administration, this would certainly be an excellent opportunity for the AMJA (and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR, ISNA & MPAC) to show America (and the world), once and for all, that Islam really is the Religion of Peace®.

Appendix I – AMJA Fatwas

In April of 2006, AMJA Shariah scholar Dr. Katem Al-Hajj authorized capital punishment for Muslim apostates in America, stating that “as for the Shariah ruling [for apostasy], it is the punishment of killing for the man…as the prophet said: “Whoever a Muslim changes his/her religion, kill him/her,” and his saying “A Muslim`s blood, who testifies that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not made permissible except by three reasons: the life for the life; the married adulterer and the that who abandons his/her religion.”

In June of 2006, Dr. Al-Hajj issued a fatwa reiterating the Shariah-endorsed punishment [Al-Hadd] of stoning for committing adultery: “All praise be to Allah, and may his peace and blessings be on the last and best prophet and messenger, Muhammad. Since you are ashamed and you have repented sincerely, Allah is all forgiving, so don`t lose hope in his mercy and forgiveness. The act you have committed – as you appear to know – is an offensive sin, and it is a form of fornication, as the Prophet indicated…Yet, it is not the absolute Zina [sexual sin] punishable by Al-Hadd (which is stoning in the case of a married man).”

In July of 2007, AMJA scholar Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah issued a fatwa sanctioning animosity and hostility (derived from Quran 5.51) toward non-Muslim “Disbelievers” [Kufar]: “Our belief is that Islam is the final divine religion, supersedes all other divine religions, and that all other religions are abrogated by the prophet-hood of Mohammad. In another words; no one has the right to stay on his/her Christianity or Judaism after the prophecy of Mohammad. Based on the above, if any one from the people of scriptures has received the message of Islam clearly, yet, insisted on his belief, then he is – from an Islamic perspective – a disbeliever. Meanwhile, we believe that hellfire is granted for the disbelievers, which include anyone did not believe in the prophet-hood of the messenger that he/she lived during his/her life.”

In November of 2007, Dr. Al-Hajj posted a 23-page fatwa forbidding Muslims in America to work for the FBI, the military, or for U.S. security (and law enforcement) services, because such work could possibly involve “spying on Muslims,” and because Muslim minorities in non-Islamic countries are “subject to man-made laws, which Islamic law [Shariah] does not recognize, either fully or in part..”

This AMJA-authorized prohibition against involvement with law enforcement was on full display in 2011, when CAIR published a poster admonishing Muslims in America to “Build a Wall of Resistance” and “Don’t Talk to the FBI.” The same precedent was expressed again in 2016, when CAIR called on Muslims to openly defy Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers when questioned on travel from Islamic controlled countries by saying, “None of your Damn Business,” and to “agitate Customs Agents by saying Islamic prayers “very loudly” when questioned”

In January of 2009, AMJA Secretary-General Dr. Salah Al-Sawy issued a fatwa on the penalty for blaspheming the prophet Muhammad: “[F]or those scholars who say that repentance of a person who insults Allah or His Messenger shall not accepted, [they] mean that repentance does not lift up the set punishment for cursing and insulting the Prophet, i.e., execution. Because the Prophet is the one who was actually wronged and insulted and he is no longer alive, therefore, he is not alive to practice his right to forgive him [the blasphemer] for what he did. Also, no Muslim is ever is entitled or authorized to forgive on the Prophet’s behalf.”

In January of 2009, Dr. Al-Qudah issued a fatwa on the death penalty for apostasy, stating that “Under the authority of the Muslim state, the People of the Book have the right to stay on their belief without being compelled to embrace Islam. But if one of them has embraced Islam, it would not be acceptable from him to go back to his original religion. The same rule applies to those who are born into Muslim families. According to the Islamic Law, they cannot commit apostasy. Implementing the punishment of killing the apostate is the sole and the exclusive responsibility of the Muslim state (were there any nowadays). Nobody else has the right to implement it.”

Three months later, in April of 2009, Dr. Al-Qudah issued another fatwa on Shariah-endorsed death sentences for apostates, stating that “The fact that there is no compulsion in religion does not negate the other fact that someone who has embrace Islam cannot change his mind afterward and embrace polytheism.”

Categories: 2016 elections, Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, Dept. of Homeland Security, Imam Magid, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, National Prayer Service, President Trump, Sharia law, Trump administration, Trump and Islamists
Tags: Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, Dept. of Homeland Security, Imam Magid, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, National Prayer Service, President Trump, Sharia law, Trump administration, Trump and Islamists

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives