A new book by Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, titled See Something Say Nothing, is filled with first-hand testimony that will make your mouth drop.
If you read the Clarion Project, then you’re aware of how U.S. governments, Democrats and Republicans, have tried to accommodate Islamism and political correctness. This book shows that it’s even worse than we thought.
A little background: Haney’s research on Islamist movements—rather than a narrow focus on membership in proscribed terrorist organizations derived from such movements– won the respect of his peers, many of whom are quoted in the book.
Haney was commended for identifying over 300 possible terrorist suspects and working on important and complex counter-terrorism cases. He and 10 colleagues were honored by a FBI Special Agent-in-Charge for proactively contributing to 98 FBI investigations, identifying 67 individuals engaged in suspicion activity who were previously known to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and identifying 24 persons of interest.
He developed a database of 185 Islamist terrorist groups in 81 countries and associated Islamist movements, believing that we need to “connect the dots” between the movements and radicalization, instead of only “connecting the dots” between individual jihadist operatives.
Here are 10 jarring revelations from DHS whistleblower Philip Haney’s new book:
Investigations into Islamist movements like the Tablighi Jamaat and Muslim Brotherhood were stopped by the federal government in the name of religious liberties.The National Targeting Center investigation into the Tablighi Jamaat networks resulted in over 1,200 law enforcement actions, such as denial of visas to Jamaat members who wanted to enter the country. Then the State Department Civil Rights Division intervened.“We know that members of the Tablighi Jamaat are fundamentalists, but they’re not terrorists,” Haney recalls a State Department representative informing him and his colleagues.They informed the State Department official that its own consular officers were rejected three out of four Tablighi Jamaat-affiliated visa applications because of security concerns. That soon came to an end.The same story happened with the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the fact that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are an intertwined network, as shown by the Justice Department in the trial of a Brotherhood front (Holy Land Foundation) for financing Hamas.
The hard work of the investigations was not only stopped; it was thrown out. Haney was ordered to delete over 800 records related to Islamist extremists.Haney calls it the “great purge” and counter-terrorism personnel unconnected to him have also talked about databases related to Islamist extremist movements being cleansed.Thanks to the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, a narrow focus on illegal activity in support of banned terrorist organizations took hold. The DHS deemed that data collection related to permitted Islamist movements like Tablighi Jamaat and Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to religious freedom and must be deleted in order to prevent profiling.
The deleted files may have prevented the “underwear” bomb plot, the Boston bombings and the San Bernardino attacks.Haney’s story, along with copious amounts of other evidence, proves the worthiness of targeting the “radicalizer” (Islamist movements) and not just the radicalized (the jihadist terrorist). Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Tsarnaev brothers, and San Bernardino shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik all associated with Islamist movements and institutions that were investigated by Haney and his colleagues. Had they continued, it is likely that they would have been denied visas into the U.S. and/or been put under surveillance.. He was exonerated each time.
When one of their own acclaimed experts offered to explain Islamism and its networks, the higher-ups didn’t even reply.This is a bipartisan problem, as Haney can attest to. He saw the problems develop starting in 2006 under the Bush Administration with each year getting progressively worse. When the Department of Homeland Security began adopting politically-correct language that avoided the ideology, setting a precedent that the Obama Administration would later intensify, Haney offered to explain the ideology and his concerns to his supervisors and anyone who would listen. No one replied.
DHS even rejected the FBI’s request to use him for investigating a Muslim Brotherhood front.Haney wasn’t just stopped from pursuing his investigations within Customs and Border Protection (which is part of DHS), his supervisors even stopped him from helping the FBI in regards to a Brotherhood front. He was not even told whether they replied to the FBI agent’s request for his help.
Senior officials intervened to let Islamists fly into the U.S. against the advice of their own personnel.In addition to the changed attitude towards letting Tablighi Jamaat members into the U.S., the federal government also granted entry to terror-linked Muslim Brotherhood activist Jamal Badawi. Customs and Border Patrol had even prepared a dossier making the case against letting him.Badawi’s complaints about receiving secondary inspections when traveling to the U.S. and lawsuit worked. The Brotherhood/Hamas-linked activist was allowed to enter the U.S. to speak at a Brotherhood/Hamas-linked organization’s conference.
Six individuals affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood fronts helped craft the Obama Administration’s Countering Violent Extremism approach to counter-terrorism.The result, as you might have expected, was Islamist-friendly training guidelines; ones that even excluded “Muslim reformers” as trainers. You can read more the Clarion Project’s review of these guidelines and the personnel responsible here. Most recently, the Obama Administration picked an activist linked to a Brotherhood front as its liaison to the Muslim-American community.
Haney documented over 50 meetings between members of the executive and legislative branches and members of organizations identified by the U.S. government as Muslim Brotherhood fronts between 1998 and 2009.There has been little, or no, controversy when members of the federal government, including members of Congress and the White House, meet and consult with Islamist groups that the Justice Department has labeled as Brotherhood entities and unindicted co-conspirators in terrorism financing. But when an opponent of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood teaches law enforcement, that’s a different story.
Islamist political pressure and lawfare works.You can read Haney’s book for story after story of Islamists using political pressure, provocation and lawsuits to bend U.S. government agencies to their demands, with the above example involving Jamal Badawi being only one. If the U.S. government caves from lawsuits and complaining, then what will happen in the future if these groups continue to become more powerful?
Haney was repeatedly disciplined and investigated for his approach in tackling Islamic extremism, which took on the Islamist ideology as well as the results of that ideology. He was exonerated each time.If only the government were that hostile to Islamists and their apologists.
We are all painfully familiar with the journalistic genre portraying the suffering of favored groups. That would be groups favored by the journalists. The satirical headline that captures the genre gives us the New York Times’s take on the apocalypse: “World ends, women & minorities hardest hit.”
Credit is due to someone for the shaft of light cast by that parody headline. NewsBusters credits comedian Mort Sahl, still going strong at age 89. I saw Sahl perform many times including once in June 1968 at the hungry i in San Francisco just before it closed. I loved him; it sounds like something he would say.
Minnesota’s Somali community has given rise to a subgenre of the form that has become a Tines specialty. With respect to the terrorism trial that just concluded with a raft of guilty verdicts against three “Minnesota men” charged with seeking to join ISIS, the Los Angeles Times’s Matt Pearce parachuted in for a few days on the Prince beat at the opening of the trial and promptly delivered “I was just another reporter sent to cover radicalization in Minneapolis. Then 2 local Somalis took me on a tour.”
The Washington Post’s Abigail Hauslohner visited the trial for the first week (which included just three days of testimony). Hauslohner contributed to the subgenre in “Terror dragnet sweeps up Somali-American’s sons: ‘Now everything is broken.’” Hauslohner’s article should be an embarrassment to the Post. It is pathetic. (Has Hauslohner broken it to Post readers that the son on trial was found guilty? I don’t think so.)
With their “Somalis hardest hit” stories, Pearce and Hauslohner got a jump on the Star Tribune this time around. On Friday as the jury deliberated the Star Tribune published “ISIL case triggers fear in a community.” Not in the community that is hated by the terrorist wannabes, of course, but rather in the community that decries the efforts of law enforcement to protect us from them.
I don’t think any New York Times reporter was around for even a single day of the trial. Healy and Furber would therefore have missed the scene of Judge Davis throwing community organizer Burhan Mohumed out of the courthouse for multiple violations of the protocol he enforced during the trial. Healy and Furber work a bit of the subgenre into their article on the verdicts by inserting a quote from Mohumed:
The verdict was not much of a surprise to Burhan Mohumed, 26, a friend of the defendants who had been banned from the courthouse by the judge. He called the process “purely political.”
“I left a little hope that they wouldn’t be convicted on a conspiracy to murder charge,” he said. “I didn’t think they had enough evidence to convict them on that. I think that was an overreach.”
Now this is almost funny. Having been expelled from the courthouse for a key part of the trial, Mohumed missed a lot of the evidence. He is a friend of the terrorist wannabes. He lacks any obvious qualification to opine on the the sufficiency of the evidence to support the guilty verdicts against his friends, yet the Times finds his comment worthy of a platform in the newspaper of record.
Here is a thought foreign to the subgenre under discussion. The evidence at trial and the articles above show that Minnesota has proved a welcoming host to a huge immigrant community with ambivalent feelings at best about those of us who have generously supported it with our tax dollars. How about going to one of us for a quote about our feelings?
(THE UNITED WEST) The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has called on Muslims to openly defy U.S. Customs Agents when questioned on travel from Islamic controlled countries by saying, “None of your Damn Business.”
Hassan Shibly (Executive Director CAIR, Florida) also encourages Muslims to agitate Customs Agents by saying Islamic prayers “very loudly” when questioned. Shibly also stated that he was, “Asked to do this by our friends from within the government.” Hassan Shibly was awarded by Nihad Awad (CAIR co-founder and National Executive Director) as “CAIR Chapter of the Year” in 2013.
CAIR’s open defiance of law enforcement has been well documented. In 2011 CAIR, California posted flyers on their website featuring a sinister looking FBI agent with the headlines, “Build a Wall of Resistance,” and “Don’t Talk to the FBI.”
The FBI has reportedly cut ties to CAIR after the Holy Land Foundation trial during which CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator along with its co-founder Omar Achmad as supporters of the terrorist group HAMAS.
In November 2014 the United Arab Emirates specifically listed CAIR as a “terrorist organization,” saying the group is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, promotes extremism and incites and finances terrorism, adding that it wears “a cloak of democracy and liberalism.”
In July 2014, Breitbart released a story showing video of Shibly’s CAIR, FL group sponsoring an pro HAMAS rally in Miami where members were chanting, “We are HAMAS. We are Jihad.”
President Obama sharply criticized the suggestion that persecuted Christians be given preference for admission as refugees. He said that “when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted… that’s shameful.” Obama added: “That’s not American, it’s not who we are.”
The Obama-Trudeau policy of opening doors widely to Muslim refugees, while allowing hardly a crack to open for the Christian and Yazidi victims of jihadi-inspired genocide, is risky, to be sure. It is also immoral.
*********************
The Obama administration is rapidly accelerating its admission and resettlement of Syrian refugees. The administration is well on its way to meeting its target of taking 10,000 Syrians into the country by the end of the current fiscal year on September 30th. In the first five months of 2016, 2,099 Syrian refugees have been admitted, compared with 2,192 for the whole of 2015, according to a report by CNS News. However, only a very tiny percentage are Christians, a beleaguered minority who are facing genocide in their home country. The Obama administration is immorally discriminating against Christian Syrian refugees.
“Out of the 2,099 Syrian refugees admitted so far this year, six (0.28 percent) are Christians,” CNS reported. Ten (0.3 percent) are Yazidis. Over 99 percent are Muslims. And the trend line is worsening as the year progresses. Last month, only two Christians (0.19 percent) were admitted compared to 1,035 Muslims.
Christians are estimated to have made up approximately ten percent of the total Syrian population at the outset of the conflict in Syria, according to the CIA Factbook. As Christians have come under attack by both the regime and jihadist groups, including ISIS, the Christian population in Syria has declined.
Patrick Sookhdeo, the founder and international director of the charity group the Barnabas Fund, which has worked to rescue Syrian Christians, said: “In Aleppo, to give you one illustration, there used to be 400,000 Christians four years ago. Today there may be between 45,000 and 65,000.”
Yet, according to data compiled by the U.S. State Department Refugee Processing Center, only 47 Syrian Christians have been admitted to the United States in all that time – slightly over 1 percent of the total number of Syrian refugees admitted. The current rate of Christian admissions is running far below even that miniscule level.
The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the crime of genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
After receiving significant pressure, the Obama administration finally yielded to the obvious. Secretary of State John Kerry declared last March that the Islamic State has been committing genocide against Christians, Yazidis and other minorities in the Middle East.
Note that while Kerry included Shiite Muslims on his list of ISIS’s genocide victims, Sunni Muslims were not included. Nor should they be, considering the fact that ISIS jihadists are themselves Sunni Muslims. Al Qaeda jihadists are Sunni Muslims. The ideology of Wahhabism fueling the jihadists’ reign of terror, exported by Saudi Arabia, is of Sunni Muslim origin.
Therefore, one would think that Christians and other targeted minorities would receive preference for refugee status in the United States, not Sunni Muslims. Think again. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict, approximately 96% of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States by the Obama administration have been Sunni Muslims.
President Obama sharply criticized the suggestion that persecuted Christians be given preference for admission as refugees. He said that “when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted… that’s shameful.” Obama added: “That’s not American, it’s not who we are.”
It is President Obama’s Syrian refugee policy that is both “shameful” and “not American.” It has amounted to what is in effect a “religious test,” vastly favoring the one group of migrants from Syria who needs refugee protection the least– Sunni Muslims. Moreover, some of these Sunni Muslims are bringing their Wahhabi jihadist ideology with them.
Whatever self-righteous statements Obama, Pope Francis and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon make regarding the moral responsibility of Western nations to admit many more refugees, there is no moral imperative to commit cultural suicide. That is perhaps why the Dali Lama warned a German newspaper this week that “too many” refugees from the Middle East and North Africa are heading into Europe. He knows of the problems Buddhists have been having with their own Muslim populations. He is also aware of the history of many Buddhist countries that were converted to Islam, including Afghanistan where invading Muslims overran the native Buddhist and Hindu populations.
We don’t even have to look as far as Europe to see what can happen to a culture under the increasing influence of Islamization. For example, the Muslim population in Canada is growing faster than that of any other religion. A majority of Muslims already living in Canada have favored being able to live under some form of sharia law, and a number of local governments have made accommodations in that direction.
Now enters the Barack Obama of Canada, Justin Trudeau, as Canada’s new prime minister. His Liberal government is hoping to admit 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. 25,000 Syrian refugees have been admitted in just four months. Trudeau also appointed Member of Parliament and senior adviser Omar Alghabra, a sharia law supporter who has denied that Hamas is a terrorist group, as Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Alghabra was born in Saudi Arabia, but emigrated to Canada from Syria several decades ago.
While Trudeau’s predecessor Stephen Harper had prioritized the admission of persecuted Christians, Yazidis and Kurds, Trudeau said that he will “absolutely not” continue that practice. He and Obama are in sync that saving persecuted Christians from an ongoing genocide is less important than reaching out to Muslim refugees as proof of the country’s diversity and inclusiveness. When the two leaders met at the White House last March, they were effusive in mutual admiration for each other’s compassion towards the refugees. However, they are oblivious to the enhanced security risk to both countries they have created.
For example, some of the recently arrived refugees in Canada were welcomed last February with a call for jihad by the Imam of a Muslim congregation in Edmonton, Alberta, who was previously a “scholar” at al-Azhar theological school in Egypt:
“O Allah! Strengthen the mujahideen [jihad fighters in the path of Allah] everywhere, make their hearts firm and strong, let them hit their targets, give them victory over their enemies.
“O Allah! Destroy the oppressors.
“O Allah! Destroy your enemies, the enemies of religion (Islam).”
The Obama-Trudeau policy of opening doors widely to Muslim refugees, while allowing hardly a crack to open for the Christian and Yazidi victims of jihadi-inspired genocide, is risky, to be sure. It is also immoral.
Haitham Ibn Thbait, of the American chapter of Hizb Ut-Tahrir, recently exhorted American Muslims to avoid falling into the “electoral trap” and called upon them not to vote in the U.S. elections, saying that getting Muslims to vote was part of an effort to assimilate them and that they had been “tricked” into voting for Clinton, Bush, and Obama in the past. Speaking at the Khilafah 2016 conference, held in Chicago on May 15, Ibn Thbait further called Obama a “terrorist” and said that “Islam is here to dominate.” The address was posted on YouTube by Hizb Ut-Tahrir on May 20.
The official, Zaki Barzinji, previously served as the deputy director of intergovernmental affairs for Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (more on that further down in this article), who is now under investigation for possible political corruption. Before that, Barzinjiw as the president of the Muslim Youth of North America, whichdescribes itself as the youth wing of ISNA.
ISNA was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history, with the Justice Department specifically listing it as an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood’s own documents list ISNA at the top of its list of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”
ISNA’s links to the Brotherhood and Hamas are laid out in bipartisan legislation titled the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. The bill now has over 75 supporters in the House and Senate.
How did Zaki Barzinji rise through the ranks in ISNA and McAuliffe’s office to become the new associate director of public engagement for the White House?
He is the grandson of a prominent Islamist leader named Jamal Barzinji, who passed away last year. Indeed, Jamal Barzinji was a founder and/or senior official in virtually every group identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front in America. He also frequently donated to political campaigns. He was nearly prosecuted, but the Obama Justice Department dropped the planned indictment.
Zaki accepted an award on his grandfather’s behalf in 2013 at the Hamas/Brotherhood-linked Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Virginia, which the late Barzinji helped found. The mosque is most known for having Al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki as its imam in 2001 before he officially joined the terrorist group.
Jamal Barzinji was most involved with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). The group’s office, Jamal Barzinji’s home and the offices of other organizations that Jamal Barzinji was affiliated with were raided in 2002 as part of a terrorism investigation. The affidavit said has being investigated because of evidence leading the U.S. government to “believe that [Jamal] Barzinji is not only closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad (as evidenced by ties to [Sami] Al-Arian…), but also with Hamas.”
Jamal Barzinji’s group was so close to Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian that IIIT’s president considered his group and Al-Arian’s to be essentially one entity. The indictment of Al-Arian and his colleagues says that they “would and did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights.”
Keep that quote and the investigation into McAuliffe’s political contributions in mind when you consider how Zaki Barzinji apparently rose to his new position with some help from his grandfather’s political connections.
In 2011, IIIT (again, the late Jamal Barzini’s organization) donated $10,000 to the New Dominion PAC, which has strong Democratic party ties in the state, particularly as a donor to current Senator (former Governor) Tim Kaine, who spoke at a New Dominion PAC event honoring Jamal Barzinji in 2011.
Barzinji’s grandson became the outreach coordinator for McAuliffe’s campaign for governor in April 2013, per his LinkedIn profile. The Barzini/IIIT-linked PAC raised $15,000 for McAuliffe’s campaign two years later on September 29, 2013.
Zaki Barzinji became McAuliffe’s special assistant for policy in January 2014 and was promoted to deputy director of intergovernmental affairs in July 2014. This month, he became the White House’s liaison to the Muslim-American community as its new associate director of public engagement. Quite a rapid rise for a 27-year old.
There are no Islamist-sounding quotes from Zaki Barzinji but important questions remain.
Is it really wise to have the grandson of a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect, who served as the head of the youth wing of an identified Muslim Brotherhood identity with Hamas links, as the White House’s liaison to the Muslim-American community?
What role did the political ties and donations of his Islamist grandfather and IIIT play in his remarkably fast rise through state politics and to the White House?
And what about his own work as president of the youth wing of ISNA, an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood?
The Islamic revival is continuing. The evil nature of U.S. plans are clear to most Muslims, especially the youth and especially the active practicing Muslim youth living in the U.S. itself. They plot and plan, but Allaah is the Best of Planners. In fact, the popularity and understanding of the true message of Islam continues to grow in the Muslim world and the concept of re-establishing the Islamic State, or re-establishing the Khilafah is everywhere seen as much more realistic and likely than it was even 15 years ago.
************************
That this jihadi would have a job at DePaul or any American university shows what a radioactive wasteland of filth American academia has become. DePaul (and other universities) wouldn’t hesitate to employ a man who openly praises jihad terrorists, but they wouldn’t be caught dead hiring an outspoken foe of jihad terrorists.
Breitbart has more on Ryan here. “DePaul Islamic Chaplain Abdul-Malik Ryan Supports ISIS and Has Connections to Muslim Terrorists,” by Matt Forney, May 27, 2016:
Abdul-Malik Ryan is the Islamic chaplain of Chicago’s DePaul University and also serves as Assistant Director of Religious Diversity at the college’s Loop campus. He also goes by the alias “Abu Noor al-Irlandee” (“al-Irlandee” is Arabic for “the Irishman”). Ryan is not only an open supporter of Muslim terrorist groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda, he has ties to traitor and convicted terrorist John Walker Lindh.
Meet Abdul-Malik Ryan
Abdul-Malik Ryan is an American of Irish descent who obtained his bachelor’s degree from DePaul and also attended Georgetown Law School. Prior to becoming DePaul’s Islamic chaplain, he worked as an attorney in the Cook County child protection system.
Ryan converted to Islam in 1994 when he was a student at DePaul, initially joining the Nation of Islam, the radical black nationalist organization led by Louis Farrakhan; he would later become an Orthodox Muslim. According to my contacts, prior to his conversion, Ryan also served as the president of DePaul’s Communist club, though I haven’t turned up any evidence of this so far.
Some of Abdul-Malik Ryan’s radical left-wing beliefs are well-known: according to Breitbart’s Tom Ciccotta, he has cheered on the declining white majority in America, supports cop killers, and believes that it is immoral for the U.S. to refuse to accept Syrian refugees. However, at his blog Abu Noor al-Irlandee, he has openly expressed support for Muslim terrorists who kill Americans and Europeans.
Abdul-Malik Ryan’s Terrorist Problem
On his blog, Abdul-Malik Ryan refers to himself as an “unrepentant Fenian Islamist” and posts articles supportive of Islamic terrorism. In a deleted post from 2008, he praises Anwar al-Awlaki, the leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was the mastermind behind the 2009 Fort Hood massacre by Nidal Hasan and the attempted Christmas day bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
Ryan writes:
…Shaykh al-Awlaki is one of those rare speakers that combines articulateness with being blunt and clear and fearless in his analysis. Most people who are articulate and can speak well use those skills in order to make less clear what they are actually saying or in order to speak to multiple audiences at once, or to create “plausible deniability” in the future if someone wants to come after them for what they “seem to be saying.” There may be reasons for all of this, but when someone speaks clear and directly (as Allaah (swt) says speak clearly and directly to the point Surah Ahzab Ayah 70) then it naturally appeals to people, even when people don’t agree with everything you say. This is why someone like Al Hajj Malik Shabazz became beloved even by people who did not agree with some of his message, because they knew where he stood, knew he was on their side, and loved how he spoke the truth. All of which makes Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki and his thought a perfect topic for my “Alternative Visions” series!
Ryan also heaps praise on the “Mujahideen” (guerrilla terrorists) killing American soldiers in Iraq and affirms his support for establishing an “Islamic State”:
But despite all of that, the plans of the United States are not working. The Islamic revival is continuing. The evil nature of U.S. plans are clear to most Muslims, especially the youth and especially the active practicing Muslim youth living in the U.S. itself. They plot and plan, but Allaah is the Best of Planners. In fact, the popularity and understanding of the true message of Islam continues to grow in the Muslim world and the concept of re-establishing the Islamic State, or re-establishing the Khilafah is everywhere seen as much more realistic and likely than it was even 15 years ago. [Text bolded by me – ed.]
At the end of the post, Ryan states that there are only a “few minor areas” where he “perhaps disagree[s]” with al-Awlaki and prays that Allah “protect and preserve him and keep him free!” He also prays for the release of several other Muslim terrorists and captured enemy combatants, including John Walker Lindh, and advocates that Muslims use “mass civil disobedience” to resist Islamic terrorist groups from being designated as such by the U.S. government:
The next recommendation is that stories of corruption, immorality, etc. should be promoted about the “extremist” Muslims. This of course means, that if these Muslims, have not committed any crimes you simply make things up or take basic Islamic beliefs and actions and criminalize them.Shaykh al-Awlaki specifically cites what the govenrment did with Imam Jamil Al-Amin (May Allaah free him!) in this context. One can also look to examples like Shaykh Ali al-Timimi (May Allaah free him!), John Walker Lindh (May Allaah free him!), or Muhammad Salah (May Allaah free him!). The only notion of criminalizing any aid or support for a “designated terrorist” organization and then being able to designate whomever you wish as a terrorist organization is nothing less than the criminalization of being a Muslim and daring to support any cause not approved by the U.S. government. (I continue to believe that the only response to this that will be effective at the end of the day is to demonstrate the pure injustice of such laws by mass civil disobedience in which the Muslims in hundreds of thousands publicly and openly support these groups in ways which are clearly moral and right, daring the government to punish us for it. Until then, it will continue to pick off the truly strong among us, but those seen to be weak because they are not supported by the community). [Text bolded by me – ed.]
In another post, Ryan pays homage to Sayyid Qutb, a Wahabbist theologian, leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood and the spiritual father of al-Qaeda and ISIS:
May Allaah (swt) accept Sayyid Qutb as a martyr forgive him any mistakes, sins and shortcomings. May Allaah (swt) show his mercy to all the Muslims and to all of the oppressed during the blessed month of Ramadan. [Text bolded by me – ed.]
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Whether Islam will eventually be reformed is an open question. The topic is much discussed by Muslims, a few of whom favor reformation and more of whom oppose it. The issue is important for America, and indeed the free world in general. There is little that non-Muslims can do to assist a reformation beyond recognizing the substantial differences between moderate and radical (mainstream) Muslims, supporting the former and purging the latter. Please don’t conflate the cops with the killers.
Reformation of Islam
Here’s are comments by an American Muslim reformer, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser
In the following December 2015 video, the Fox News host misrepresented Donald Trump’s position as banning “all” Muslims, apparently permanently. Trump’s proposal was to ban Muslims until we can vet them adequately. Dr. Jasser agreed that Muslims advocating Islamist political ideology should be banned and that we should temporarily ban them alluntil we can distinguish moderate Muslims from “radical” Muslims. His suggestions for vetting Muslims included cessation of reliance on the Council on American – Islamic Relations (CAIR), et al, which are on the side of the Islamists.
An article by Raymond Ibrahim delves into Muslim perceptions of moderate vs. “radical” (i.e., mainstream) Islam and posts these views, as articulated by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr, an Islamist. Dr. Khadr stated,
“Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘moderate Muslims’ is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘radical Islam’ has no basis in Islam — neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Among the major distinctions (translated verbatim) made in Khadr’s article are:
Radicals want the caliphate to return; moderates reject the caliphate.
Radicals want to apply Sharia (Islamic law); moderates reject the application of Sharia.
Radicals reject the idea of renewal and reform, seeing it as a way to conform Islam to Western culture; moderates accept it.
Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.
Radicals reject any criticism whatsoever of Islam; moderates welcome it on the basis of freedom of speech.
Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.
Radicals respond to any insult against Islam or the prophet Muhammad — peace and blessing upon him — with great violence and anger; moderates respond calmly and peacefully on the basis of freedom of expression.
Radicals respect and revere every deed and every word of the prophet — peace be upon him — in the hadith; moderates do not.
Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.
Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis[barely tolerated subjects]; moderates oppose this [view].
Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.
Radicals reject the idea that men and women are equal; moderates accept it, according to Western views.
Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.
Radicals desire to see Islam reign supreme; moderates oppose this.
Radicals place the Koran over the constitution; moderates reject this [assumption].
Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.
Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.
Radicals accept killing young girls who commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family’s honor; moderates reject this [response].
Radicals reject the status of women today and think that the status of women today should be like the status of women in the time of the prophet; moderates oppose that women should be as in the time of the prophet.
Radicals vehemently reject that women should have the freedom to choose partners; moderates accept that she can choose a boyfriend without marriage.
Radicals agree to clitorectomies; moderates reject them.
Radicals reject the so-called war on terror and see it as a war on Islam; moderates accept it.
Radicals support jihadi groups; moderates reject them.
Radicals reject the terms “Islamic terrorism” or “Islamic fascism”; moderates accept them.
Radicals reject universal human rights, including the right to be homosexual; moderates accept them.
Radicals reject the idea of allying with the West; moderates support it.
Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it. [Emphasis added.]
Dr. Jasser’s views on what American Islam should be are remarkably similar to the perceptions of moderate Islam set forth by Dr. Khadr, albeit with contempt as “a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them.” Mr. Ibrahim concludes his article by suggesting that “the West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.” I agree. What is being done now is actually furthering “radical” Islam.
Here’s an address to the Canadian Parliament by a moderate Muslim journalist. Please watch the whole thing, because it sets forth quite well the differences between Islamists who want to overpower us and moderate Muslims who support freedom and want to eliminate Islamism.
Islamic apologists routinely claim that violent Qur’an verses have no validity beyond Muhammad’s time, but this story illustrates that this is not the mainstream view in Islam. The persecution of Mouhanad Khorchide also shows the uphill battle that genuine Muslim reformers face: branded as heretics and/or apostates, they’re often shunned (or worse) by the very community that needs their ideas the most. [Emphasis added.]
The author, Robert Spencer, quotes a May 23rd article by Susanne Schröter in a German periodical:
When the theologian Mouhanad Khorchide, who teaches at the University of Münster, published “Islam Is Compassion” in 2012, he received a variety of diverse reactions. Many non-Muslims celebrated the work as the revelation of a humanistic Islam: an Islam that no one needs to fear. This feeling arose in part because the author created a picture of God that is not “interested in the labels of Muslim or Christian or Jewish, believer or nonbeliever.”
Korchide threw out the idea that Koran verses that appear violent or hostile toward women or non-Muslims may be valid for all eternity. He wanted them to be viewed as the words of a bygone era.
It seemed that the professor, with the swoop of his pen, managed to brush aside all those reservations that made people wonder whether Islam really “belonged to Germany,” as former President Christian Wulff said famously in a 2010. One might even have thought that Muslims would offer Khorchide a pat on the back.
On the website for DITIB, Germany’s Turkish Islamic union and the country’s largest Muslim organization, one can read that Khorchide’s statements were a “rejection of the teachings of classical Islam” and an “insult to Muslim identity.” For this reason, the professor was removed from his post at the university.
In November 2014, while testifying before the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, I raised the issue of Islamic clerics using mosque sermons to attack the foundational principles of Western civilization and liberal secular democracy.
The Senate Committee session referred to is the one presented in the video referenced above.
Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell was outraged by my testimony that at most Canadian mosques, the Friday congregation includes a ritual prayer asking, “Allah to give victory to Muslims over the ‘Kufaar’ (non-Muslims).” In a heated exchange with me, the senator suggested I wasn’t telling the truth, implying I was motivated by Islamophobia. Sadly, Sen. Mitchell is not alone in such views.
But neither is there any let-up in the attacks on Canadian values emanating from many mosque pulpits and Islamic conferences hosted by radical Islamist groups.
For example, in a sermon on Friday, May 6, delivered at a mosque in Edmonton, an imam invoked the memory of Prophet Muhammad to whip up hatred against Israel. He declared peace accords with Israel are “useless garbage” and vowed that Jerusalem will be conquered “through blood.”
In February, the same cleric predicted Islam would soon conquer Rome, “the heart of the Christian state.”
The Edmonton mosque diatribe was not isolated.
On May 13, just north of Toronto, an Islamic society hosted a celebration of Iranian mass murderer, Ayatollah Khomeini. The poster promoting the event described Khomeini as a, “Liberator and Reformer of the Masses.”
On Saturday, the Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, banned in some countries, hosted a conference to discuss the re-establishment of a global Islamic caliphate.
The first speaker was Brother Mostafa, of Arabic roots. Mostafa started by calling nationalism and sectarian conflict the main reasons for division in the Ummah (Islamic nation). He reminded Muslims that they are obligated to implement Allah’s demands that fulfill the Islamic State. It is “not permissible for us to choose, ” he said. He cited the verse: [Emphasis added]
“It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.” — Surat-Al-Ahzab (33), verse 36. ]Emphasis added.]
. . . .
As the event started late, Naeema [a woman in the audience] began a conversation. We talked about our origins and how long we had been in Canada. She said she had been here 40 years, so I asked about the disconnect between enjoying 40 years of democracy, yet trying to end it. I mentioned a book published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir:
“Democracy is Infidelity: its use, application and promotion are prohibited.”
“الديمقراطية نظام كفر، يحرم أخذها أو تطبيقها أو الدعوة إليها”
Naeema said she was not qualified to debate the topic, but that democracy had done nothing good for people, so she and other believers would follow the rule of Allah. [Emphasis added]
The meeting participants are comparable to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood – Hamas affiliated organization which, along with similar groups, provides Obama and His “fighting violent extremism” cohorts their marching orders on fighting, not Islamist jihad or Islamisation , but “Islamophobia.”
Conclusions
America would fare better in fighting “violent extremism” if the principal enemy were named: it is political Islam — Islamism. Presently, naming it is forbidden and those engaged in “fighting” it — supposedly on our behalf — are Islamists dedicated to the Islamisation of America.
Suppose that, instead of relying on CAIR, et al, as representative of “peaceful” Islam, our government rejected CAIR and its Islamist colleagues favored by Obama and instead supported and relied upon Dr. Jasser’s moderate group, American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
A devout Muslim, Dr. Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States as an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. Dr. Jasser is a first generation American Muslim whose parents fled the oppressive Baath regime of Syria in the mid-1960’s for American freedom. He is leading the fight to shake the hold that the Muslim Brotherhood and their network of American Islamist organizations and mosques seek to exert on organized Islam in America. [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps, if our next president is neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders, we will do that. If we don’t, the Islamists will continue to win, the Islamisation of America will continue and American principles will go down the toilet. We cannot permit that to happen.
We only have the right to live on as free men, so long as we show ourselves worthy of the privileges we enjoy. We must remember that the republic can only be kept pure by the individual purity of its members, and that if it once becomes thoroughly corrupt it will surely cease to exist.
. . . .
All American citizens whether born here or elsewhere, whether of one creed or another, stand on the same footing; we welcome every honest immigrant, no matter from what country he comes, provided only that he leaves behind him his former nationality and remains neither Celt nor Saxon, neither Frenchman nor German, but becomes an American, desirous of fulfilling in good faith the duties of American citizenship. [Emphasis added]
When we thus rule ourselves we have the responsibilities of sovereigns not of subjects. We must never exercise our rights either wickedly or thoughtlessly; we can continue to preserve them in but one possible way – by making the proper use of them.
It has been my observation (and to a substantial extent that of the Canadian journalist and moderate Muslim in a video embedded above) that the principal loyalty of many Islamists is not geographical or to a state. Rather, it is to their version of Islam, be it Shiite, Sunni or some variation thereof. For example, Hezbollah members fight, not to help Lebanon or Syria, but to support the Iranian version of Shiite Islam — an apocalyptic vision in which the hidden iman will return and bring the world to an end. It is reasonable to assume that the principal loyalty of mainstream Muslims (Islamists) in America is, and will continue to be, to Islam, not to America.
American origins and views are very different and perhaps uniquely so.
This land was made, not for Islamists but for immigrants who leave behind their former nationalities and remain “neither Celt nor Saxon, neither Frenchman nor German, but become an American, desirous of fulfilling in good faith the duties of American citizenship.” How many of America’s current crop of immigrants do that?
We have had little of this thus far. How much do we want? It’s pretty much up to us.
Well, I went to the trial yesterday and a fight broke out. Waiting in the hallway to enter the courtroom at the appointed hour, The hallway was thick with those of us waiting to be admitted to the courtroom. I stood directly behind a young Somali lady wearing a hijab. As she started pushing and shoving, she repeatedly dropped the F-bomb at maximum volume within shouting distance of the jury. And here I thought I’d seen it all.
The fight, as it turns out, was between the mother of Abdirizak Warsame and her daughter, Warsame’s sister. As Warsame was about to resume testifying against the three defendants under a cooperation agreement with the prosecution, daughter took went after mother. The conflict represented their divided loyalties in the case. The Star Tribune’s Stephen Montemayor picks up on the trial’s undercard here. Warsame’s sister put up a better fight in the hall than Warsame did on the stand.
Warsame was the third and weakest of three key witnesses called by the government. He completed his testimony yesterday. The government seems to me to be ending its case on a low note. That’s generally not how you’re supposed to do it.
Without going into details, it seemed to me that defense counsel Bruce Nestor turned Warsame to use on behalf of his client, Abdirahman Daud. I may be missing something, but I’m not sure whether, on balance, Warsame was more helpful to the government or to the defense.
Warsame made me reflect on my understanding of the case against the “Minnesota men.” In a sense, they are products of the vacuous America of 2016. They have been Americanized in that sense. These young men had boundless opportunities of a conventional sort before them, yet they chose to squander them. They are talented and resourceful, yet they represent a great threat. They are seriously misguided young men. What happened?
Warsame is a graduate of the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Inver Grove Heights. With a little help from the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the school has now been shuttered. I wore out a keyboard writing about the school before it closed. For years the school operated, illegally in my opinion, as a publicly funded Islamic charter school.
From TIZA Warsame proceeded to Heritage Academy, a mostly Somali high school in Minneapolis. This year the Minneapolis school district moved to retake control of Heritage from its board.
After high school Warsame attended a local community college and worked for several employers. Indeed, he worked for two on the tarmac at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport while he was pursuing his interest in ISIS.
Islam filled the life of Warsame and his friends. It filled the vacuum now served up by American culture to immigrants. The “Minnesota men” could have succumbed to drugs or alcohol in a pattern that has devastated the lives of so many American families. In this case, however, they fell prey to Islam. It was Islam that intoxicated them.
Judge Davis himself took up this point with Warsame yesterday. “You understood that if you committed jihad you would die,” the judge said. “What attracted you to that?”
“The reward you would get and the fact that this life is temporary,” Warsame said. “If you were to go sacrifice yourself and go fight in jihad, the reward would be bigger. You’d save your family and save yourself.”
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments