Posted tagged ‘Islamist grievances’

DHS Denies Grant to Islamic Radicalization Enabler MPAC

June 24, 2017

DHS Denies Grant to Islamic Radicalization Enabler MPAC. Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, June 23, 2017

(One down and a bunch more to go. Does anybody CAIR care? — DM)


The Department of Homeland Security has ruled that the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) will not receive the $393,800 Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) grant approved by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson on Jan. 13, days before Johnson left office.

The DHS released its list of grant recipients on Friday. MPAC is not on it. The change came after “DHS utilized its discretion to consider other factors and information when reviewing applicants,” a spokeswoman said in an email to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “The Department considered whether applicants for CVE awards would partner with law enforcement, had a strong basis of prior experience in countering violent extremism, had a history of prior efforts to implement prevention programs targeting violent extremism, and were viable to continue after the end of the award period. These additional priorities were applied to the existing pool of applicants. Top scoring applications that were consistent with these priorities remained as awardees, while others did not.”

In a statement, MPAC acknowledged that working with law enforcement isn’t a priority: “Our position on this issue has consistently centered on community-led initiatives that improve mental health resources, access to counseling, and a host of other social services without the involvement or spectre of law enforcement.”

Still, it disputed the loss of the grant, saying it would consider “all legal options…”

“The exclusion of groups like MPAC point to a DHS that is ineffective in coordinating with communities and unconstitutional in its treatment of a religious minority,” the statement said. “MPAC will continue challenging the trajectory of the Trump administration’s efforts in this space by advocating for a holistic approach that empowers rather than sidelines communities, focuses on all forms of violent threats, and fosters a climate of trust over fear.”

MPAC pledged to use the money for targeted interventions under its Safe Spaces program for people at risk for radicalization. Created in 2014, Safe Spaces aims to improve relations between Muslim institutions and law enforcement.

MPAC Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati introduced the program as an alternative to law enforcement agencies using informants to infiltrate mosques. The roll out meeting included Johnson, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Rep. Bill Foster, D-Ill., and other Muslim community groups including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Al-Marayati vehemently objects to anything that involves mosques or informants in terror investigations.

“Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us,” he said at 2005 Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference in Dallas. “We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country. So, No. 1, we reject any effort, notion, and suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another. Everywhere I go either somebody tells me that officials have met with them publicly or they tell me that they know who those folks are that are representing law enforcement. So we know they have communicated one way or the other with the Muslim community.

“The question is how do you deal with it in a healthy, open, transparent manner? That is why we are saying have them come in community forums, in open-dialogues, so they come through the front door and you prevent them having to come from the back door,” Al-Marayati said.

Government agencies preferred CVE programs, especially during the Obama administration. But there’s no way to measure whether they work, a Government Accountability Office report issued in April said. The GAO “was not able to determine if the United States is better off today than it was in 2011 as a result” of CVE programs.”

The House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Management offered similar criticism during a hearing last September. The committee has “no way of gauging whether CVE efforts have been successful – or harmful – or if money is being spent wisely,” said U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa.

MPAC may have won the grant simply because it is “the most organized group,” said Heritage Foundation counterterrorism scholar Robin Simcox. But that “is going down the wrong path. Often this means giving it to some very, very divisive voices who will play into the Islamist narrative; they will play off grievances. They will encourage a feeling of segregation and otherness, and we are promoting other problems for the future.”

MPAC promotes a narrative that Muslims are victimized by a hostile non-Muslim society, Simcox said. That message helps breed terrorists.

“I think it creates an environment where these radical ideas are in the ether, and it’s no surprise to me that somebody then [would] take that final step into violence,” Simcox said.

Research backs up Simcox’s assertion.

Grievances “framed around victimhood against Western foreign policy and military intervention” are among “a kaleidoscope of factors” in fueling extremism, Swedish jihad researcher Magnus Ranstorp has found.

MPAC’s recent messaging has emphasized threats to Muslim Americans’ freedom and security, including promoting a conspiracy theory that internment camps could be revived for them. In February, MPAC posted an image of Star Trek actor George Takei, on its homepage, with the heading “Stand Up for Muslims in the U.S.” The image linked to a petition in which Takei described his experience during World War II: “When I was just 5, my family was rounded up at gunpoint from our home in Los Angeles into an internment camp. We were prisoners in our own country, held within barbed wire compounds, armed guards pointing guns down on us.”

“A Trump spokesperson recently stated the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II “sets a precedent” for Trump to do the same today,” Takei wrote. [Emphasis original]

But that spokesman, former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie, had no role in the Trump transition and only spoke for himself. No one in the administration has endorsed such a scheme.

But Takei’s statement, which MPAC embraced, claimed that “Trump continues to stand by his plans to establish a Muslim registry and ban immigrants from ‘certain’ Muslim countries from the U.S. It starts with a registry, with restrictions, with irrationally ascribed guilt, and with fear. But we never know where it might lead.”

Takei didn’t start the internment analogy. “Challenging patriotis (sic) of AmMuslims is un-American – what happened to Japanese Americans-loyalty test, confiscating their wealth #CruzHearing,” Al-Marayati wrote a year ago, in a Twitter post he later deleted.

Promoting the internment conspiracy theory destroys the credibility of “soft Islamist” organizations like MPAC that don’t engage in terrorist acts themselves, yet validate the jihadist narratives, Simcox said.

Al-Marayati has long promoted the narrative that the U.S. is waging “war on Islam,” one of the most potent terrorist recruitment tropes.

He called U.S. counterterrorism policies a “war on Islam” in a 2009 interview with Al-Watan Al-Arabi. Al-Marayati also engaged in “war on Islam” rhetoric when he chided U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz a year ago for using the term “radical Islam” during a hearing about the Obama administration’s avoidance of using the phrase “So @SenCruz, do you want to have a war with Islam rather than a war on terrorists?” he wrote in a tweet he later deleted.

MPAC Whitewashes Jihad

Al-Marayati appeared on C-Span in 2014, and balked when asked why Muslims weren’t speaking up against jihadism: “Well I think we’ll call this violent extremism. And one thing we have to be clear about, we should not be countering jihad,” Al-Marayati said. “Jihad to the violent extremists means holy war. But jihad in classical Islam means ‘struggle.’ So let us at least not use religious terminology in fighting groups like ISIS. It just plays into their hands. They want this to be a war on Islam, a war on religion.

“We should be at war on criminal behavior, war against terrorism.”

Al-Marayati again rejected the connection between jihad and violence during a Jan. 25 debate with American Islamic Forum for Democracy founder and President Zuhdi Jasser. Jihad is not holy war, he said, but a struggle against oneself.

“We must allow the Muslims to reclaim their faith and not let Islam be defined by the extremist distortions of Islam,” Al-Marayati said.

Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna disagreed, writing that jihad only had to do with fighting and argued that purely spiritual jihad was spurious. MPAC co-founder Maher Hathout described himself as an al-Banna disciple.

“Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one’s ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad),” al-Banna wrote in his tract On Jihad. “This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah’s way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition.”

Jasser sees a dichotomy between Al-Marayati’s public rejection of violent jihad and his group’s embrace of Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood-linked cleric Sheikh Rached Ghannouchi. MPAC hosted Ghannouchi at a 2011 dinner, and Al-Marayati flew to Paris in 2013 to attend a conference with Ghannouchi. The sheikh is a member of the International Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau.

Back in 1990, Ghannouchi spoke at a conference in Tehran, Iran where he called for the “destruction of the Jews” and invoked Ayatollah Khamenei’s “call to jihad” against America, “the Great Satan.” Ghannouchi aspired to wage “worldwide jihad,” a 1991 State Department cable said. Ghannouchi still favors violent jihad, 5 endorsing the Palestinian knife jihad against Israelis in 2015.

“The central problem with MPAC … is the schizophrenia with which they deal with American issues versus how they deal with global issues,” Jasser said. “The Islamists assume Americans are not very smart, so they are going to listen to their apologetics about jihad and then not connect it to what happens when the Ghannouchis of the world get into power.”

MPAC leaders have made their own pro-terrorist and anti-Israeli statements.

Al-Marayati didn’t seem to have a problem with Hizballah calling its terror campaign against Israel “jihad” in a November 1999 interview with PBS’s Jim Lehrer.

“If the Lebanese people are resisting Israeli intransigence on Lebanese soil, then that is the right of resistance and they have the right to target Israeli soldiers in this conflict. That is not terrorism. That is a legitimate resistance. That could be called liberation movement, that could be called anything, but it’s not terrorism,” Al-Marayati said.

Similarly, MPAC Public Affairs Consultant Edina Lekovic served as managing editor of Al-Talib, the defunct newspaper of UCLA’s Muslim Student Association, when it published an editorial saying Osama bin Laden was not a terrorist in its July 1999 issue.

“When we hear someone refer to the great Mujahid (someone who struggles in Allah’s cause) Osama bin Laden a ‘terrorist,’ we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter; someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah’s cause and speak out against oppressors,” the unsigned editorial said.

MPAC Defends Al-Qaida and Hamas Financiers

Another hit against MPAC’s credibility is its history of apologism for terrorist financiers.

Just after 9/11, Al-Marayati painted Muslims as victims after the federal government shut down the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF) on suspicion it provided material support to al-Qaida. Its leader, Enaam Arnaout, had close ties with Osama Bin Laden, court documents show.

He had similar reactions after Treasury Department asset freezes in December 2001 targeted the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), which illegally routed charity money to Hamas, and the Global Relief Foundation, which provided assistance to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida.

“Selective justice is injustice – it does not help us in the war on terror and continues to project the image that the U.S. is anti-Islam,” Al-Marayati wrote in July 2002 press release posted on MPAC’s website defending all three charities.

Closing these terror-linked charities could send the message to Muslims abroad that America is intolerant of religious minorities, Al-Marayati said that October in a New York Times op-ed.

When the Treasury Department shut down the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA) in 2004, saying it “provided direct financial support for” Osama bin Laden, Al-Marayati described it as “a bit disturbing that the announcement of shutting down another charity… [took] place just before the month of Ramadan in the peak of the election season.”

Arnaout pleaded guilty to violating the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and acknowledged that his group hid the fact it used a portion of its donations to fund terrorists overseas.

HLF’s leaders were convicted of providing material support to Hamas in 2008.

MPAC’s magazine, The Minaret, cast these charity closures in an anti-Semitic light in a political cartoon it published in its March 2002 issue. It shows President George W. Bush doing the bidding of Israel and the Anti-Defamation League knocking down a building with a foundation labeled “Islamic Foundations (Holy Land, Global Relief, etc.” The top of the building being knocked down says, “Relief for Muslim Orphans” and “Support for U.S. Muslim Free Speech.”

This was not an isolated incident. A January 2000 Minaret cartoon showed “The West” apologizing for the Holocaust and handing over money to an old woman holding a cane with the label “Jewish holocaust.” At the same time, an Arab wearing a keffiyeh labeled “Palestine” says, “Ahem ‘scuse me” followed by a person with a crutch and bandaged foot labeled “Indian genocide” and a black person emblazoned with “African slavery.”

During the 2006 Israeli war with Hizballah in Lebanon Al-Marayati similarly diminished the Holocaust.

“And as far as the Holocaust is concerned, we’ve come out very clearly saying that the Holocaust is the worst genocide, war crime, in the 20th century. We’re against Holocaust denial, but we’re also against people who exploit that as a way of shoving this kind of war propaganda and dehumanization of the Arab peoples and the Muslim peoples as if they have to pay the price for what Nazi Germany did to the Jews back in the 20th century,” Al-Marayati said in an interview.

“MPAC’s default position is that the government is on a witch hunt against Muslims, and that any identification of organizations or non-profits doing quote end quote humanitarian work must be anti-Muslim if they are identified as a terror group,” Jasser said. “And if they are found to support terror, they say they are not the rule; they are the exception.”

MPAC’s statements and actions suggest that DHS’s decision to rescind Johnson’s decision to award the CVE grant was the right thing to do.

CAIR Smears and Tries to Silence an IPT Fellow

March 30, 2017

CAIR Smears and Tries to Silence an IPT Fellow, Investigative Project on Terrorism, March 30, 2017

Using misleading claims and engaging in rank hypocrisy, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is waging a campaign to silence an Investigative Project on Terrorism senior fellow.

CAIR issued a news release Wednesday announcing its efforts to pressure the United States Air Force Special Operations School (USAFSOS) into dropping Patrick Dunleavy as an instructor in “The Dynamics of International Terrorism” course. Dunleavy, who served as deputy inspector general for New York State’s Department of Corrections, focuses on prison radicalization.

It’s a topic he learned about first hand, including work on “Operation Hades,” an investigation into radical Islamist recruitment both in and out of prison.

CAIR’s release, however, ignored Dunleavy’s long record of accomplishment which includes serving as a consultant for the FBI and the International Association of Chiefs of Police on the National Data Exchange Program. He also has been a featured speaker at the United States Army’s Counter Terrorism Conference.

Instead, CAIR described a letter it sent to U.S. Air Force Special Operations Commander, Lieutenant General Marshall B. Webb, demanding Dunleavy be dropped from future programs. It cited three statements CAIR sees as “Islamophobic”:

1) “To Americans [morality] means individual liberty, equal rights for men and women, religious freedom, free speech, etc. But these are contrary to the moral code of Islam.” 2) “The concept of ‘friendship,’ . . .is a relationship based on at least some degree of shared moral and political ideals. By that standard no Muslim nation is a friend of the U.S.” and 3) “To many Muslim parents, visions of violence and death are indeed the ‘better future.'”

All three come from a 2011 article Dunleavy co-authored with Peter Gadiel, whose son James was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. As we’ll show, none of these statements is Islamophobic, as each is rooted in Quranic verses or is exhibited by disturbing numbers of Muslims throughout the world.

CAIR’s credibility should be considered first.

This is an organization deemed persona non grata by the FBI in 2008, based upon evidence agents uncovered which prove that CAIR was created as part of a Muslim Brotherhood-run Hamas support network in the United States. In addition to internal documents which place CAIR under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee,” CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad – the only executive director in the organization’s 23 year existence – is on the Palestine Committee’s telephone list. He also participated in a secret 1993 gathering of Hamas supporters in America who debated ways to “derail” the fledgling, U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords that at the time offered hope for a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Palestine Committee members could not accept a deal that recognized Israel’s right to exist and felt politically threatened by the elevation of the secular Palestine Liberation Organization to run a newly autonomous Palestinian Authority. Participants were encouraged not to mention Hamas by name. Rather, they were instructed to flip the spelling of the name, and talk about “Samah.” As this FBI translation shows, Awad dutifully followed these instructions.

In addition, CAIR not only defends people caught supporting terrorists, it often lauds them. Among many examples, it defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member Sami Al-Arian for years even after his conviction for supporting the terrorist group, and in 2014, chose to honor his family with a “Promoting Justice Award.”

It continues to laud convicted Palestinian bomber Rasmieh Odeh, who was responsible for a 1969 Jerusalem bombing that killed two college students.

This is the organization that finds Dunleavy unacceptable.

Officials already have reviewed all of Dunleavy’s USAFSOS presentations and told him that they found nothing offensive, and he has logged no complaints after teaching multiple courses a year for the past five years.

It’s worth noting that CAIR relies on one five-year-old article as the basis for its complaint. Potomac Books published Dunleavy’s The Fertile Soil of Jihad in 2011 and he is frequently published by the IPT and elsewhere. The absence of any truly bigoted statements is telling.

So is CAIR’s hypocrisy. Its website features a page devoted to debunking what it calls “Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories About CAIR.” (See the IPT’s analysis of CAIR’s false claims here.) On that “misinformation” page, CAIR whines twice about “guilt by association,” including a response to the number of CAIR officials who were implicated in terrorism-related cases.

Yet, the only other reason CAIR cites to disqualify him from the Air Force training is the fact that he’s an IPT senior fellow and CAIR does not like the IPT. It’s easy to understand why. We’ve done more to expose its history and highlight the radical views of its top officials and its opposition to law enforcement counter-terrorism efforts than anyone else.

But, again, Dunleavy has written more than two dozen articles for the IPT. CAIR cited none in arguing he “does not fit the U.S. military’s standards for a subject-matter expert” working with the dreadfully “Islamophobic” IPT.

The example CAIR does cite, as mentioned above, utterly fails to make CAIR’s case. First is the statement, “To Americans [morality] means individual liberty, equal rights for men and women, religious freedom, free speech, etc. But these are contrary to the moral code of Islam.”

That could sound bad. But looking at the world today, and the treatment of women, gays and other minorities living in majority-Muslim nations, individual liberty and equal rights are sorely missing. Right now, a Twitter hashtag is calling for the death of a Pakistani blogger named Ayaz Nizami. Nizami, an atheist, was among three people arrested last week and charged with blasphemy. #HangAyazNizami trended on Twitter in Pakistan afterward.

Polling indicates a shocking number of Muslims agree that death is the appropriate punishment for apostasy. In 2013, the Pew Research Center found 88 percent support among Egypt’s Muslims and among 62 percent of Pakistanis. Majority support also exists in Malaysia, Jordan and inside the Palestinian territories. More than a third of young British Muslims agreed.

No other religion today carries such risks for those who leave. Even Scientology stops at merely disconnecting people from their families when someone leaves the church.

Both Iran and the Islamic State execute homosexuals.

Meanwhile, most American mosques still segregate men and women during prayer, often sending the women into sparse and cramped back areas and side rooms. American clerics like Yasir Qadhi advocate a Saudi Arabian lifestyle for American Muslim women. Stay home and tend to your husbands, he preached. They “should not work, because their role is as wives and mothers.”

“You please your husband,” Qadhi said. “And in return your husband will give you the far more difficult things to do of earning money and doing this and that.”

This is a Muslim American cleric prominent enough to warrant an 8,500 word New York Times profile, preaching his view of Islam’s moral code in the 21st century.

There are Muslim reformers who want to change this mindset, and advocate for genuine equality for women and minorities. CAIR, like other Islamist groups, has refused to endorse their agenda and generally pretends they do not exist.

The second Dunleavy statement CAIR singles out: “The concept of ‘friendship,’ . . .is a relationship based on at least some degree of shared moral and political ideals. By that standard no Muslim nation is a friend of the U.S.”

In the Quran, verse 5:51 instructs Muslims not to “take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people. Verse 9:30 calls on Allah to “destroy” Jews and Christians.

Finally, CAIR takes issue with his 2011 statement that, “To many Muslim parents, visions of violence and death are indeed the ‘better future.'”

This is certainly true among a disturbing number of Palestinians. Parents of Palestinians killed attempting to carry out terrorist attacks against Israelis speak of their pride. It is routine for deadly attacks to be celebrated with people handing out sweets on Palestinian streets. Hamas media for years has indoctrinated children into jihad, using everything from training camps to plays and video productions showing young children pretending to be in combat. Hamas television even “martyred” a Mickey Mouse rip-off, and then sent a puppet bumblebee “to continue the path of Islam, of heroism, of martyrdom and of the mujahideen.”

CAIR has never condemned this indoctrination, and on a broader level, its officials refuse to condemn Hamas by name. In fact, they take great umbrage at the suggestion this is something worth doing.

But the organization does find time to smear a veteran law enforcement official and expert on radicalization because it does not agree with his message. It does not appear that the tactic will work in Dunleavy’s case. But it’s time for law enforcement officials, the military and the media to follow the FBI’s lead and recognize CAIR for what it is and simply dismiss such baseless attacks out of hand.

European Immigration: Mainly Muslim, Mainly Male, Mainly Young

January 5, 2017

European Immigration: Mainly Muslim, Mainly Male, Mainly Young, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, January 5, 2017

In the wake of the attack in Nice, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day.

Or there could have been a wide public debate over whether, with so many radicalised Muslims already in France, it was a wise or foolish idea to continue to import large numbers of Muslims into this already simmering situation.

Merkel seems to hope that with this raising of a burka ban the German public will forgive or forget the fact that here is a political leader so devoid of foresight that she unilaterally chose to allow an extra 1-2% of the population to be added to her country in a single year, mainly Muslim, mainly male and mainly young.

The burka and burkini, like the headscarf, are only issues because millions of people have been allowed, unchecked, into Europe for years. The garment is merely the simplest issue at which to take aim. Far harder are the issues of immigration and integration. It is possible that Europe’s politicians cannot answer these questions, because any and all answers would point the finger at their own failings.

The European publics might get fed up with the distraction tactics of talking about garments and instead seek answers to the challenge we now face, as well as retribution at the polls for the politicians who brought us here.

2016 was a fine year for Islamist terrorism and an even finer year for Western political distraction. While Islamic terrorists repeatedly succeeded in carrying out mass-casualty terrorist attacks, as well as a constant run of smaller-scale strikes, the political leadership of the free world continued to try to divert their public.

The most striking example of the year came in the summer with the French debate over whether or not to ban the “burkini” from the beaches of France. The row erupted in the days after another 86 people were murdered in a jihadist terrorist assault — this time in Nice, France. With no one sure how to prevent access to vehicles or any idea how many French Muslims might want to follow suit, the French media and authorities chose to debate an item of beachwear. The carefully staged decision by an Australian Muslim woman to have herself filmed while wearing a burkini on a French beach ignited the row, which was eagerly seized upon by politicians.

At the local and national level, the decision to discuss the burkini allowed all the larger political issues behind Europe’s growing security problem to be ignored. In the wake of Nice, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day. Or there could have been a wide public debate over whether, with so many radicalised Muslims already in France, it was a wise or foolish idea to continue to import large numbers of Muslims into this already simmering situation.

As it was, neither of these debates did occur, and no meaningful political action was taken. Instead, the issue of the burkini sucked all the oxygen out of the debate, leaving no room to discuss anything more serious or longer term than beachwear.

1696-1In the wake of the July 14 attack in Nice, France, in which 86 people were murdered, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day. (Image source: France24 video screenshot)

Across the continent in 2016, it appeared that other politicians realised the enormous advantage of such distraction debates. For instance, in the Netherlands in November, the country’s MPs voted for a ban on wearing a burka in public places. Prime Minister Mark Rutte apparently found this an enormously convenient debate. Not only did it temporarily reduce some of the pressure that his government is feeling at the rise of Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party to the top of opinion polls, but it also distracted attention from the years of mass immigration and lax integration demands which have been a hallmark of the Dutch experience.

After importing hundreds of thousands of people whose beliefs the Dutch authorities rarely bothered to question, the public would be satisfied — the Rutte government hoped — if only the small number of Dutch Muslim women who wear the burka were prevented from doing so. The Netherlands will have to see whether its implementation of such a law works any better than it does in neighbouring France, where “white knights” routinely show up to pay the fines of women fined for violating the burka ban there.

The Rutte government was not the only one to adopt this cynical strategy. Its most cynical deployment of all came in December, with the announcement by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that she would ban the burka in Germany.

As with the Dutch government, Merkel clearly hoped that in throwing this tidbit to the German public she might head off the threat that the Alternative for Germany party (AfD), among others, now poses to her party in this year’s election. But the move also raises the question of just how stupid does Angela Merkel believe the German people to be? It would seem that Merkel hopes that with this burka ban the German public will forgive or forget that here is a political leader so devoid of foresight that she unilaterally chose to allow an extra 1-2% of the population to be added to her country in a single year, mainly Muslim, mainly male and mainly young.

This is a Chancellor who, even having previously admitted that Germany’s multicultural model had “failed,” revved immigration up to unprecedented and unsustainable levels. Now, like her counterparts across the continent, she must hope that the German public are satisfied by this burka morsel and that, as a result, they will return Merkel and her party to power so that they can repeat whichever of their mistakes they choose in the years ahead.

It is possible, of course, that the European publics are wiser than their leaders and that they will see through these cynical and distracting tactics. There are extremely good reasons to ban any garment which covers a person’s face and allows them to wander as an anonymous stranger in our societies. There are some — though fewer — reasons to ban wearing a burkini on a beach. Certainly the governments of France, the Netherlands and Germany are within their rights to instigate and enforce any and all such bans. Such moves, however, are but the smallest register imaginable of a problem that seems far beyond this generation of politicians.

The burka and burkini, like the headscarf, are only issues because millions of people have been allowed, unchecked, into Europe for years. The garment is merely the simplest issue at which to take aim. Far harder are the issues of immigration and integration. It is possible that Europe’s politicians cannot answer these questions because any and all answers would point the finger at their own failings. Or it is possible that they have no answers to the problems with which they have presented the continent. Whichever it is, they would do well to reflect that in 2017, the European publics might get fed up with the distraction tactics of talking about clothing and instead seek answers to the challenge we now face, as well as retribution at the polls for the politicians who brought us here.

Terror Experts ‘Very Concerned’ About Sen. Warren Aide and His Radical Mosque

December 13, 2016

Terror Experts ‘Very Concerned’ About Sen. Warren Aide and His Radical Mosque, Counter JihadPaul Sperry, December 12, 2016

warren-1

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she made an ill-advised appearance at a Boston mosque linked to several major terrorism cases at the request of an office aide who attends the radical mosque.

The Massachusetts Democrat said she agreed to speak Sunday at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center at the urging of staffer Hamza Abdelgany, who is a member of the mosque, which has graduated no fewer than 13 terrorists and recently was caught on video defending many of the terrorists, even after they were convicted in federal court.

Warren spoke before the congregation for several minutes chiefly to complain about “anti-Muslim hate” allegedly inspired by the election of GOP President-elect Donald Trump.

Charles Jacobs, founder of Boston-based Americans for Peace and Tolerance, told CJ that he is “very concerned” that a member of a mosque that supports and even raises money for the legal defense of known terrorists has such political clout. He said that Warren’s ill-considered visit bestowed undue legitimacy on ISB.

ISB operates two mosques: one in Roxbury, where the so-called “interfaith” event attended by Warren was held, and the other in Cambridge, where several terrorists and terrorist supporters have worshipped, including:

  • Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev;
  • Aafia Siddiqui, aka Lady al-Qaida, who raised money for the terror group in area mosques and is serving an 86-year federal sentence for trying to murder a US Army captain in Afghanistan, where she was captured with plans to carry out a chemical attack on New York City;
  • ISB imam Abdullah Faaruuq, who was heard on tape urging Boston Muslims to “pick up the gun and the sword” to defend Siddiqui during her 2010 trial.
  • Tarek Mehanna, who in 2012 got 17 years in federal prison for conspiring to use automatic weapons to murder shoppers in a suburban Boston mall, as well as for conspiring to aid Al Qaeda;
  • Ahmad Abousamra, an indicted terrorist co-conspirator of Mehanna who fled to Syria in 2006 where he resurfaced as a top ISIS propagandist and was added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list in 2013, where he remains today.
  • ISB congregant Rezwan Ferdaus, who in 2012 got 17 years in federal prison for plotting to attack the Pentagon and US Capitol with remote-controlled airplane bombs.
  • ISB major donor Oussama Ziade, who was indicted in 2009 for dealing with terrorist funds and is now a fugitive living in Lebanon.
  • ISB co-founder Abduraham Alamoudi, who was sentenced in 2004 to 23 years in prison for plotting terrorism and identified by the US government as a top Muslim Brotherhood figure as well as a key al-Qaida fundraiser in America.
  • ISB founding trustee Yusuf Qaradawi, who was placed on the US terror watchlist after calling for violent jihad against US troops in Iraq and is currently the subject of an Interpol arrest warrant on charges of incitement to murder.
  • Jamal Badawi, another former trustee who in 2007 was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian suicide bombers.

ISB leadership also includes Abdul-Malik Merchant, an associate imam who recently was forced to apologize to the Jewish community for posting anti-Semitic posts on social media.

ISB member Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was caught on surveillance videotape planting a bomb along the Boston Marathon route, became an angry jihadist after joining the mosque. According to his ex-girlfriend, “One minute he was a normal guy, the next minute he is watching these crazy Muslim videos.”

In 2011, ISB hosted an event in support of no fewer than 22 terrorists who were convicted of providing material support for al-Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Jihad and Pakistani terrorist groups — including Siddiqui, Alamoudi and Mehanna. During the event, which was caught on video, relatives of the terrorists bashed the FBI, the Justice Department and the US government; and at least one speaker called for violent jihad against the US.

Still, Warren stood where they stood and bashed the president-elect.

“I am very concerned about how Donald trump is beginning to define his administration with the people he personally is picking to lead this country,” Warren said, while claiming that “since the election attacks on racial and religious groups have skyrocketed.”

“Now is a time when we must be willing to say loud and clear there is no room for bigotry anywhere in the United States of America — none,” she said. “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us, and we will fight back against discrimination whenever and wherever it occurs.”

Six prominent religious leaders fired off a letter criticizing Warren for agreeing to appear at the mosque, arguing she provided “political cover to one of the most intolerant jihadist mosques in America.”

Warren was invited by ISB member Hamza Abdelgany, a staff assistant working out of Warren’s Quincy, Mass., office. Abdelgany was involved with the Muslim Students Association while attending the University of Massachusetts at Boston. The US government says MSA is a front group for the radical Muslim Brotherhood, which supports violent jihad and conspires to one day bring the US and other Western nations under Islamic rule.

“The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt … Its ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law,” U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks said in a 2008 court filing related to a major terrorism case. “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.”

ISB is run by the Muslim American Society, a known Muslim Brotherhood front group which also runs the so-called “9/11 mosque” in the Washington area, Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center.

Ilya Feoktistov, director of research for Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said that by ignoring ISB’s well-documented ties to terrorists, Warren is serving as an “enabler” of jihad.

Mainstream Media Still Omits Uncomfortable Truth About Muslim ‘Grievances’

December 7, 2016

Mainstream Media Still Omits Uncomfortable Truth About Muslim ‘Grievances’, PJ Media, Raymond Ibrahim, December 7, 2016

ht-ohio-attack-suspect-lantern-jc-161128_12x5_1600-sized-770x415xt

Do you know the difference between a supremacist grievance and an egalitarian grievance? This is the key to understanding the widely held claim that Muslim grievances are the source of Muslim violence.

Take the latest Muslim attack on U.S. soil. Last week, Abdul Razak Ali Artan — an 18-year-old Muslim refugee from Somalia, who was receiving aid from Catholic charities — rammed his car into a building at The Ohio State University. He then got out and stabbed people with a butcher knife. He was eventually shot and killed by a guard; 13 people were hospitalized.

Why did he do it?

According to the “experts,” Artan — like so many other violent Muslim refugees before him — had grievances. CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, and many others cited a Facebook post by Artan:

I am sick and tired of seeing my fellow Muslim Brothers and Sisters being killed and tortured EVERYWHERE.

Yet despite this claim of ubiquity, he only cited one nation:

Seeing my fellow Muslims being tortured, raped and killed in Burma led to a boiling point. I can’t take it anymore.

The question before us is simple: Was Artan provoked to go on a murderous rampage in America because of grievances concerning the treatment of Muslims in Burma?

For about a decade now, I’ve argued that the “Muslim grievance” narrative is a myth meant to shield Islamic teachings from scrutiny. The “Muslim grievance” narrative goes like this: if Islam is a religion of peace yet Muslims everywhere are behaving violently, then the explanation we must all cling to is that they are really, really pissed off about something being done to them.

Most recently, the Islamic State, instead of disseminating and taking advantage of the “grievance” claim, could not have been clearer as they told the West the truth: no matter what the West does, the true reason ISIS hates and terrorizes us is because we are infidels.

Millions of Muslims — including Artan — do harbor strong grievances against the West and others. The problem is that they define “grievance” in a manner incompatible with liberty.

When most Westerners think of the word “grievance,” they think in egalitarian terms: X has a grievance against Y because Y doesn’t treat X with equality. For example, your boss or your teacher treats you worse — without equality — than other employees or other students. You then have a grievance which most in the West would say is legitimate: because the people of the West were raised on the unique idea of treating others as they would be treated.

This is not the sort of grievance that animates many Muslims – and certainly not those who resort to terrorism.

Rather, they are animated by a supremacist-based grievance: they get angry seeing infidels on an equal footing with Muslims. And they get murderous seeing infidels actually lording over Muslims.

Islamic doctrine, which persuades Muslims into believing they are superior to non-Muslims — to the degree that they are dogs and cattle — imbues Muslims with this sense of entitlement.

For example, in Pakistan, as Christian children were singing carols inside a church, Muslim men from a nearby mosque barged into the church with an axe, destroyed the furniture and altar, and beat the children. “You are disturbing our prayers. … How dare you use the mike and speakers?” explained the enraged Muslims. When a Muslim slapped a Christian and the latter reciprocated, the Muslim exclaimed: “How dare a Christian slap me!” Anti-Christian violence immediately ensued.

Islamic grievances are based on what I call Islam’s “How Dare You?” phenomenon. Remember it the next time media, politicians, and other talking heads tell you that Muslim mayhem and outbursts of violence are products of grievances. Missing from their rationale is the supremacist basis of these grievances.

Consider the Conditions of Omar, a foundational medieval Muslim text dealing with how “infidels” living under Muslim authority must behave, attributed to the second caliph and close friend of Muhammad, Omar.

Among other stipulations, it commands conquered Christians not to raise their “voices during prayer or readings in churches anywhere near Muslims” (hence the axe attack in Pakistan). It also commands them not to display any signs of Christianity — specifically listing Bibles and crosses — and not to build churches.

(See Crucified AgainExposing Islam’s New War on Christians, for my translation of “The Conditions of Omar.”)

If the supremacist nature of Islamic law is still not clear enough, the Conditions literally commands Christians to give up their seats to Muslims as a show of respect. By way of analogy, consider when Rosa Parks, a black woman, refused to give up her bus seat to white passengers. Any white supremacist at the time had sincere grievances: how dare she think herself equal?

But were such grievances legitimate? Should they have been accommodated? Similarly, are the endless supremacist-based “grievances” of Muslims legitimate and should they be accommodated?

These are the questions missing from the debate about easily bruised Muslim sensitivities.

One can go on and on with examples from all around the Islamic world:

— In Turkey, a Bible publishing house was stormed and three of its Christian employees tortured, disemboweled, and finally murdered. One suspect later said: “We didn’t do this for ourselves, but for our religion [Islam] … Our religion is being destroyed.”

— In Egypt, after a 17-year-old Christian student refused to obey his Muslim teacher’s orders to cover up his cross, the teacher and some Muslim students attacked, beat, and ultimately murdered the youth.

— These Turkish and Egyptian Muslims were truly aggrieved: As seen, Islam’s Conditions makes clear that Christians must not “produce a cross or Bible” around Muslims. How dare the Egyptian student and Turkish Bible publishers refuse to comply — thus grieving Muslims into murdering them?

— In parts of Indonesia, because it is becoming next to impossible for Christians to build churches, they often congregate outside to celebrate Christmas — only to be attacked by Muslims hurling cow dung and bags of urine at the Christians as they pray.

— In Egypt, the mere rumor that Christians are trying to build, or even renovate, an existing church sets off mass riots and attacks on Christians. The Muslims of Indonesia and Egypt are also sincerely aggrieved: how dare these Christians think they can build or renovate a church when the Conditions forbid it?

In short, anytime non-Muslims dare to overstep their Sharia-designated “inferior” status, supremacist Muslims become violently aggrieved.

From here, one can begin to understand the ultimate Muslim grievance: Israel.

For if “infidel” Christian minorities are deemed inferior and attacked by aggrieved Muslims for exercising their basic human rights, like freedom of worship, how must Muslims feel about Jews — the descendants of pigs and apes, according to the Koran — exercising power and authority over fellow Muslims in what is perceived to be Muslim land?

How dare they?!

Of course, if grievances against Israel were really about universal justice and displaced Palestinians, Muslims would be aggrieved at the fact that millions of Christians are currently being displaced in the name of jihad.

Needless to say, they are not.

Which brings us back to Artan’s “grievances.” Recall his Facebook lament:

I am sick and tired of seeing my fellow Muslim Brothers and Sisters being killed and tortured EVERYWHERE. Seeing my fellow Muslims being tortured, raped and killed in Burma led to a boiling point. I can’t take it anymore.

Note, he is aggrieved because his “Muslim Brothers and Sisters” are being abused. Key word: Muslim. He didn’t care about universal justice.

Otherwise, he would have been expressing his anger at the brutal persecution experienced by a tiny minority in his own home country of Somalia. There, any Somali discovered practicing Christianity is ruthlessly persecuted and sometimes butchered, especially by the popular Islamic organization Al-Shabaab — “The Youth.”

Somali Christians share the same looks, nationality, ethnicity, language, and culture as Artan. They are literally his true “brothers.” Yet their unjust persecution didn’t matter to him; his sympathies belonged instead with a people in distant Burma who have nothing in common with him other than being Muslim.

And it was that fact — that “subhuman infidels” dared to mistreat “superior Muslims” — that so irked the young Somali. Hence why he concluded his Facebook rant with the following sentence — often omitted by the same media that cited his post as evidence of “grievances”:

By Allah, I am willing to kill a billion infidels in retribution for a single disabled Muslim/Musliman.

Incidentally, like Muslim minorities in other nations, Muslims in Burma have long antagonized their Buddhist hosts — through the usual Muslim-on-infidel attacks, murders, rapes, temple burnings, etc. — and their current unenviable lot is in great part due to this fact.

In the words of Wirathu, the leading anti-Muslim Buddhist monk in Burma: “If we are weak, our land will become Muslim.” The theme song of his party speaks of people who “live in our land, drink our water, and are ungrateful to us,” a reference to Muslims. And that “we will build a fence with our bones if necessary” to keep them out. His pamphlets say “Myanmar [Burma] is currently facing a most dangerous and fearful poison that is severe enough to eradicate all civilization.”

In short, the next time you hear that Muslim rage and terrorism are products of grievances — from cartoons to territorial disputes to the treatment of Muslims in distant nations — remember that this is absolutely true. But these “grievances” are not predicated on any rational standards of equality or justice, but on a supremacist worldview.