Posted tagged ‘Moderate Islamists’

Illogically Choosing Friends & Allies in This War

September 25, 2017

Illogically Choosing Friends & Allies in This War, Understanding the Threat, September 25, 2017

If the Bonnano crime family (mafia) initiated a turf war against the Gambino family in New York, does that mean the Gambino crime family is a friend to the New York Police Department?

If the Islamic State publicly condemns the Muslim Brotherhood, does that mean the Muslim Brotherhood is a “friend” of the United States?

In today’s illogical world, the answer seems to be yes to both these questions when you ask senior U.S. government officials.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s objective from its inception until today is to wage jihad to establish an Islamic State (caliphate) encompassing the entire world.  This is the same objective as Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and all other jihadi groups across the globe.

Last spring the Islamic State called the Muslim Brotherhood out for being apostates.

Why would the Islamic State, many of whose members are Muslim Brothers, do such a thing?

Remember, this is much more a counterintelligence and espionage war than it is merely “terrorism,” and our enemy is primarily engaging us in the information battlespace – propaganda and the like.

Deception is key to how they fight and how they win this war.  And they plan on winning.

When Islamic leaders and groups come against each other, it is over matters of sharia or power.

When the Islamic State calls out the Muslim Brotherhood as “apostates,” the antenna of savvy UTT followers should go up.

At the same time President Trump was moving to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), the Islamic State declares the MB “apostates.”  The MB then turns around and uses this to prove they are “moderate” to draw American politicians closer to them.

This “contrast” between the barbarity of the Islamic State and the suit-wearing jihadis of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Students Association (MSA), Muslim Advocates, and all the others, is exactly what the Islamic Movement is after.

Our enemies use this contrast to appear more “moderate” to give the impression we can work with them. The problem is, our leaders in government, law enforcement, intelligence, and religious communities are falling for it.

Never forget, they all want the same objective and – per Islamic Law (sharia) – are obliged to lie in pursuit of this objective.

Syed Soharwardy says Islamic Sharia law is the solution, Jizya is not discriminatory

April 24, 2017

Syed Soharwardy says Islamic Sharia law is the solution, Jizya is not discriminatory, CIJ News, Jonathan D. Halevi, April 24, 2017

(Please see also, Sharia-Advocate Sarsour to Give Graduation Address at CUNY. — DM)

Syed Soharwardy. Photo: screenshot YouTube CBC

Imam Syed Soharwardy of Calgary, the head of the Calgary-based Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and the founder of Muslims Against Terrorism, is often invited by CBC as a guest expert to discuss issues related to terrorism and radicalization. He is introduced as a moderate voice in the Muslim community who “has worked to prevent the radicalization of youth in Canada.”

In an article entitled “Islamic Shari’a – A Blessing OR a Burden” posted on the official site of the Islamic Supreme Council, Soharwardy says the following:

  • The purpose of Islam is to create a very strong ethical and spiritual society on earth.”
  • The current chaos in Muslim countries is… is because of the absence of Shari’a [Islamic Law].”
  • Under Islamic Sharia Law, poor thieves will be exempted from the punishment of cutting their hands off.
  • The rights of women and non-Muslim minorities are completely protected by the Islamic Shari’a [Law].”

The following are excerpts from Syed Soharwardy’s article:

Islam is not just a religion, it is a normal and natural way of lifeThe purpose of Islam is to

create a very strong ethical and spiritual society on earth. In order to create such a society, Islam provides a complete road map. This road map is called Shari’a.

From the early 7th century until the 18th century, the Islamic countries fully enforced the Islamic Shari’a… Currently, there is not a single Islamic state where Shari’a is enforced in its full and pure form, only bits and pieces of Shari’a have been enforced and this is what confuses many people…

Neither Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), nor the Islamic Shari’a should be blamed for the behaviour of any extremist that uses Islam for his/her own personal gains. The current chaos in Muslim countries is not because of Shari’a. It is because of the absence of Shari’a

Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) implemented Shari’a after he purified the hearts and minds of the society (inner side of a person). He implemented Shari’a after he made sure that no one sleeps hungry in the Islamic state. When he (Peace be upon him) asked women to dress modestly, he also asked men to dress modestly and lower their gaze. Sincerity, honesty, purity and economic independence is the pre-requisite of Shari’a. Before implementing Shari’a, the Muslim governments and jurists must make sure that every citizen of their country has food, shelter and dress. Shari’a can not be implemented on empty stomachs. A person who is going to die because of hunger can steal food and no one has the right to cut his hands. This is what Shari’a says. If a woman is raped by a man, the man should be punished not the woman. The so-called honour killings is a cruel custom of ignorant times and has no basis in Islamic Shari’a. The rights of women and non-Muslim minorities are completely protected by the Islamic Shari’a. There should be no doubt about it. Therefore, Islamic Shari’a is a blessing not a burden.

On Sunday, April 2, 2017, Soharwardy delivered a speech at Christ Church Scraborough Village in Toronto. The following is an excerpts from Soharwardy’s speech entitled “Interfaith Dialogue – Understanding Islam and Muslims”:

Jizya [poll-tax] is not a discrimination against non-Muslims… In Islam everybody pay taxes… Muslims pay taxes which is called Zakat and non-Muslims pay taxes which is called Jizya… This is not racism… non-Muslims should be used on non-Muslims to protect their lives… and to their security and safety.”

CIJnews obtained a copy of a book “The Quran” (Saheeh International) that is being distributed for free across Ontario by Islamic groups, mosques and the Islamic booths at Toronto’s Dundas Square and St. Lawrence Market.

The book explains the Islamic Law based on the Quran and Sunnah (narrations about Mohammad’s sayings and deeds) regarding the fighting (jihad) against disbelievers, enforcing of a poll-tax on Jews and Christians who live under the rule of the Islamic State, taking non-Muslims women as sex-slaves during war, wife beating under certain conditions, punishing those of wage war against Islam by execution, crucifixion and amputation, condemning sodomy as an “evil” act and executing married men and women who were convicted of fornication by stoning them to death.

The following are excerpts from the book that deals with rights of non-Muslims in the Islamic State (Quranic verse followed by a modern commentary):

Surah (chapter) Al Imra, verse 112: “They have been put under humiliation [by Allah] wherever they are overtaken, except for a rope [i.e., covenant] from Allah and a rope [i.e., treaty] from the people [i.e., the Muslims].144 And they have drawn upon themselves anger from Allah and have been put under destitution. That is because they disbelieved in [i.e., rejected] the verses of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That is because they disobeyed and [habitually] transgressed.”

Modern commentary, footnote 144: “Once they have surrendered, the People of the Scripture retain their rights and honor (in spite of their refusal of Islam) through payment of the jizyah tax in place of zakah and military service due from Muslims. They are then under the protection of the Islamic state.”

The book “Human Rights in Islam and Common Misconceptions” by Abdul-Rahman al-Sheha that was also handed out at the Islamic booth at Toronto’s Dundas Square states the following:

“The non-Muslim residents of an Islamic state are required to pay a minimal tax called ‘Jizyah’ which is specific type of head-tax collected from individuals who do not accept Islam and desire to keep their religion while living in an Islamic state and under Islamic rule…”

The book Minhaj Al-Muslim (A book of Creed, Manners, Character, Acts of Worship and other Deeds) by Abu Bakr Jabir Al-Jaza’iry, is being sold in Islamic bookstores across Canada and is deemed a reliable source on Islamic Sharia Law. The following is excerpts from Vol. 2 pp. 182-185 that deal with the rights and duties of non-Muslims in the Islamic State:

The Agreement of Protection given to the Non-Muslim subjects under the Islamic Government, and its Regulations.

1. The agreement of protection given to the non-Muslims subjects under the Islamic Government

The agreement of protection is an assurance to the disbelievers who respond to Muslims by paying the Jizyah tax. It is a pact in which they promise the Muslims to adhere to the laws of the Islamic Sharia related to the prescribed laws of punishment, such as for murder, stealing and breach of honor.

2. Who is responsible for the agreement of protection given to the non-Muslim subjects under the Islamic Government?

It is only the Imam or his deputy among thr military commanders who has the authority to give the agreement of protection to non-Muslims. As for others, they have no right to do that. As for giving personal protection and security, it is permissible for ant Muslim man and woman to do that…

3. Distinguishing between the Muslims and non-Muslims who live under the Islamic Government

It is obligatory for non-Muslims to distinguish themselves from Muslims in the matter of clothing and other things, so that they will be recognized (as non-Muslim). It is not permissible to bury them in the Muslims’ cemetery. Similarly, it is not permissible to stand for them, nor it is permissible to precede them with the greetings of peace. Also, they should not be given seats of honor at gatherings…

Things Forbidden to Non-Muslims living under the Islamic government

Certain things are forbidden to the non-Muslims living under the Islamic government, such as:

1) Constructing Churches or Synagogues, or renovating the demolished ones

2) Erecting the residence of non-Muslims above the homes of the Muslims

3) Publicly drinking intoxicants or eating swine (pork) in front of the Muslims, or eating and drinking during the daytime of Ramadhan. Rather, they must conceal whatever things are forbidden to Muslims, due to fear of them causing temptation (to do what is forbidden) for the Muslims.

Things that invalidate the Agreement of Protection given to Non-Muslims living under the Islamic Government.

There are certain things that invalidate the agreement of protection given to the non-Muslims living under the Islamic Government such as:

1) refusing to pay the Jizyah tax.

2) Lack of adherence to the Islamic laws, which was a condition in the contract.

3) Aggression against Muslims by killing, robbery, spying or giving asylum to such a spy for the enemy, or committing fornication or idolatry with Muslim women.

4) Mentioning Allah, His Messenger or His Book in a blasphemous way.

Rights of Non-Muslims living under the Islamic Government.

It is the duty of Muslims to protect the lives, property and honor of non-Muslims living under the Islamic Government. The Muslims should avoid causing them any harm as long as they comply with the agreement and do not breach it…

If they breach the agreement and break in some way, their blood and properties become lawful (i.e. no longer sacredly protected). However, their women and children would remain safe, as no one is to be punished for the sin of another.

See also:

  • Syed Soharwardy: “Muslims themselves damaged Islam more than enemies of Islam” – click HERE
  • Syed Soharwardy warns of ISIS recruitment and radicalization in mosques, universities – click HERE
  • Syed Soharwardy says global terrorism “is supported by European and American governments” – click HERE
  • Syed Soharwardy: ISIS is funded and supported by the US and the West – click HERE
  • Syed Soharwardy claims that Muslims falsely blamed for Salafi (Muslim) attacks on Muslims – click HERE
  • Syed Soharwardy: “Islam is the most feminist religion” – click HERE
  • Syed Soharwardy: homosexuality is a “major sin” and “an abnormal behavior” that “must be cured” – click HERE

Muslim Leaders Sign Letter Against ISIS, But Endorse Sharia

October 1, 2014

Muslim Leaders Sign Letter Against ISIS, But Endorse Sharia, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, October 1, 2014

(Abdullah Bin Bayyah is among the “moderate” Islamists signing the letter. He was noted favorably in Obama’s September 24, 2014 address to the UN General Assembly. — DM)

Islamic-State-Stoning-From-Dabiq-Magazine-IP_0A picture of a the sharia punishment of stoning from the Islamic State’s Dabiq magazine (Issue #2)

A published letter to the Islamic State (ISIS)  signed by 126 international Muslim leaders and scholars, including top American leaders, is getting major press for rebutting the theological arguments behind the actions of Islamic State. Unfortunately, the same letter endorsed the goal of the Islamic State of rebuilding the caliphate and sharia governance, including its brutal hudud punishments.

Point 16 of the letter states, “Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qu’ran and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law.” The criticism of the Islamic State by the scholars is that the terrorist group is not “following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.”

The Muslim “moderates” who signed the letter not only endorsed the combination of mosque and state; they endorsed the most brutal features of sharia governance as seen in Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

An example of a hudud punishment is the death penalty for apostates (Muslims who leave Islam). The letter does not dispute or oppose that. It says that labeling Muslims as apostates is only permissible when an individual “openly declares disbelief.”

The signatories are not condemning the execution of apostates, only how the Islamic State is deciding who qualifies as an apostate.

Point 7 states that Islam forbids the killing of diplomats, journalists and aid workers, but it comes with a very important exception.

“Journalists—if they are honest and of course are not spies—are emissaries of truth, because their job is to expose the truth to people in general,” it reads.

This is actually an endorsement of targeting journalists that Muslims feel are unfair. Islamists, including Islamic State supporters, often claim that the journalists they kill are propagandists and/or spies, meeting the letter’s standards.

Point 22 of the letter states, “There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. TheUmmah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE. However, a new caliphate requires consensus from Muslims and not just from those in a small corner of the world.”

A caliphate is a pan-Islamic government based on sharia; virtually all Islamic scholars agree that this objective requires the elimination of Israel. It is also fundamentally (and by definition) expansionist.

Again, the “moderate” signatories endorse the principles of the Islamic State and other jihadists but criticize their implementation.

Point 5 states, “What is meant by ‘practical jurisprudence’ is the process of applying Shari’ah rulings and dealing with them according to the realities and circumstances that people are living under.”

It continues, “Practical jurisprudence [fiqh al-waq’i] considers the texts that are applicable to peoples realities at a particular time, and the obligations that can be postponed until they are able to be met or delayed based on their capabilities.”

This is an endorsement of the Islamist doctrine of “gradualism.” This is an incremental strategy for establishing sharia governance, supporting jihad and advancing the Islamist cause.

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), whose leader is a signatory of the letter, preaches this concept in its own publications. An ICNA teaching guide published by the Clarion Project preaches gradualism as its strategy for implementing sharia governance and resurrecting the caliphate.

ICNA’s manual directs Muslims to use deception and infiltrate the government. The gradualist strategy is part of a jihad that includes war with the ultimate goal of conquering the world.

A weakness in the letter is the vague terminology that gives room for terrorist groups like Hamas to justify their violence.

For example, point 8 states that “Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.”

The letter goes into detail about these qualifications in order to condemn the tactics of the Islamic State, but the terms of a “defensive war” are not spelled out. All Islamist terrorists consider their attacks “defensive.”

Muslim-American activist Michael Ghouse pointed out the need for clarification in a conversation with me about the letter. He said:

“Define the right cause. Is fighting against India in Kashmir a jihad? Was the war between Iraq and Iran two decades ago a jihad? This group needs to continue to update these situations to let the common Muslim know what is right and what is wrong, lest he commits himself to the jihad.

Islamists regularly redefine words like “clear disbelief,” “democracy,” “justice,” “peace” and “terrorism” on their own terms. The use of subjective language like “innocents,” “mistreat,” “defensive” and “rights” leave much room for interpretation.

This is what enabled a terrorism-supporting cleric named Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah to sign the letter. He is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, has called for attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, supports Hamas and seeks the destruction of Israel.

The Islamist leaders behind the anti-Islamic State letter are still endorsing Islamic sharia law, which is oppressive and incompatible with Western values. The implementation of sharia is what drives all Islamic extremism.

The letter also utilizes Islamist thinkers that formed the intellectual foundation for today’s extremism. For example, it cites Ibn Taymiyyah. Terrorism expert Atto Barkindo writes, “Some scholars suggest there is probably no other Islamic theologian, medieval or otherwise, who has had as much influence on radical political ideology of Islam as Ibn Taymiyya.” This includes the leaders of Al Qaeda.

Ghouse told the Clarion Project that sharia as encoded by such scholars, needs revising. “Classical texts that are referred to in the list are part of the problems,” Ghouse said. “We need to make a commitment to question and revise the exegeses of the Ulemas [scholars] like Ibn-Kathir, Ibn Taymiyyah, Maududi, Hassna al-Banna and others. We cannot equate them to Quran and Hadith.”

The letter does make a much-needed rebuttal to the murdering of diplomats, noncombatants, labeling of Yazidis as apostates, attacks on Christians, forced conversions and torture. It states that Arab Christians are exceptions to the “rulings of jihad” because of “ancient agreements that are around 1400 years old.”

The letter also does tries to persuade Muslims to reject the Islamic State because of its tactics and procedures; however, it reinforces the Islamist basis of those actions.

Far from proving that the Muslim-American signatories are “moderate,” the letter actually exposes them as Islamist extremists because of their endorsements of sharia governance, its brutal hudud punishments and the resurrection of the caliphate.

These 18 leaders include:

In Search of the ‘Moderate Islamists’

September 18, 2014

In Search of the ‘Moderate Islamists,’ Accuracy in Media, Andrew McCarthy, September 18, 2014


It is not out of ignorance that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are denying the Islamic roots of the Islamic State jihadists. As I argued in a column here last week, we should stop scoffing as if this were a blunder and understand the destructive strategy behind it. The Obama administration is quite intentionally promoting the progressive illusion that “moderate Islamists” are the solution to the woes of the Middle East, and thus that working cooperatively with “moderate Islamists” is the solution to America’s security challenges.

I wrote a book a few years ago called The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America that addressed this partnership between Islamists and progressives. The terms “grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted from an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that lays bare the Brotherhood’s overarching plan to destroy the West from within by having their component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and opinion elites.

The plan is going well.

As long as the news media and even conservative commentators continue to let them get away with it, the term “moderate Islamist” will remain useful to transnational progressives. It enables them to avoid admitting that the Muslim Brotherhood is what they have in mind.

As my recent column explained, the term “moderate Islamist” is an oxymoron. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive sharia imposed. There is nothing moderate about sharia even if the Muslim in question does not advocate imposing it by violence.

Most people do not know what the term “Islamist” means, so the contradiction is not apparent to them. If they think about it at all, they figure “moderate Islamist” must be just another way of saying “moderate Muslim,” and since everyone acknowledges that there are millions of moderate Muslims, it seems logical enough. Yet, all Muslims are not Islamists. In particular, all Muslims who support the Western principles of liberty and reason are not Islamists.

If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate. There is, moreover, less to their nonviolence than meets the eye. Many Islamists who do not personally participate in jihadist aggression support violent jihadists financially and morally – often while feigning objection to their methods or playing semantic games (e.g., “I opposeterrorism but I support resistance,” or “I oppose the killing of innocent people . . . but don’t press me on who is an innocent“).

Understandably, the public is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people the government describes as “moderates” and portrays as our “allies.” If transnational progressives were grilled on these vaporous terms, though, and forced to concede, say, that the Muslim Brotherhood was the purportedly “moderate opposition” our government wants to support in Syria, the public would object. While not expert in the subject, many Americans are generally aware that the Brotherhood supports terrorism, that its ideology leads young Muslims to graduate to notorious terrorist organizations, and that it endorses oppressive Islamic law while opposing the West. Better for progressives to avoid all that by one of their dizzying, internally nonsensical word games – hence, “moderate Islamist.”

I rehearse all that because last week, right on cue, representatives of Brotherhood-tied Islamist organizations appeared with Obama-administration officials and other apologists for Islamic supremacism to ostentatiously “condemn” the Islamic State as “not Islamic.”

As I recount with numerous examples in The Grand Jihad, this is the manipulative double game the Brotherhood has mastered in the West, aided and abetted by progressives of both parties. While speaking to credulous Western audiences desperate to believe Islam is innately moderate, the Brothers pretend to abhor terrorism, claim that terrorism is actually “anti-Islamic,” and threaten to brand you as an “Islamophobe” racist – to demagogue you in the media, ban you from the campus, and bankrupt you in court – if you dare to notice the nexus between Islamic doctrine and systematic terrorism committed by Muslims. Then, on their Arabic sites and in the privacy of their mosques and community centers, they go back to preaching jihad, championing Hamas, calling for Israel’s destruction, damning America, inveighing against Muslim assimilation in the West, and calling for society’s acceptance of sharia mores.

The Investigative Project’s John Rossomando reports on last Wednesday’s shenanigans at the National Press Club. The Islamist leaders who “urged the public to ignore [the Islamic State’s] theological motivations,” included “former Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) Tampa director Ahmed Bedier, [who] later wrote on Twitter that IS [the Islamic State] ‘is not a product of Islam,’ and blamed the United States for its emergence.”

Also on hand were moderate moderator Haris Tarin, Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Johari Abdul-Malik, an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va. All of these Islamists are consultants to the Obama administration on policy matters; Magid is actually a member Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Where to begin? CAIR, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, is a Muslim Brotherhood creation conceived to be a Western-media-savvy shill for Islamic supremacism in general, and Hamas in particular. At the 2007-08 terrorism-financing prosecution of Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case – involving a Brotherhood conspiracy that funneled millions of dollars to Palestinian jihadists – CAIR was proven to be a co-conspirator, albeit unindicted. Mr. Bedier, who is profiled by the Investigative Project here, is a notorious apologist for Hamas – the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, which is formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law. He also vigorously championed such terrorists as Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Sami al-Arian (who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide material support to terrorism).

I’ve profiled MPAC here. It was founded by disciples of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and champions of both Hezbollah and the Sudanese Islamists who gave safe-haven to al-Qaeda during the mid Nineties. After the atrocities of September 11, 2001, MPAC’s executive director, Salam al-Marayati, immediately urged that “we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list.” Without a hint of irony, MPAC’s main business is condemning irrational suspicion . . . the “Islamophobia” it claims Muslims are systematically subjected to. Like many CAIR operatives and other purveyors of victim politics, MPAC officials tend to double as Democratic-party activists.

Magid’s organization, ISNA, is the most important Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States. I have profiled it in these pages a number of times. As detailed in The Grand Jihad, it is the Islamist umbrella organization that traces its origins to the Muslim Students Association, the foundation of the Brotherhood’s American infrastructure.

The MSA, which indoctrinates students in the jihadist-lauding works of Banna and Sayid Qutb, has not surprisingly been the launch point for several prominent terrorists – Patrick Poole provides the scorecard here, which includes al-Qaeda founder Wael Julaidan; al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlakial Qaeda financier and Hamas/Hezbollah champion Abdurrahman Alamoudi; and Aafia Siddiqui, the notorious “Lady al-Qaeda” who was captured apparently plotting a terror rampage targeting New York City, who attempted to murder as U.S. Army captain while in custody, and whose release the Islamic State has been demanding. (Other MSA alumni include ousted Egyptian president and Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, and top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.)

I profiled the Dar al-Hijrah mosque and Johari Abdul-Malik, one of its very interesting imams, in both The Grand Jihad and a 2010 column. At a 2001 conference hosted by the Islamic Association of Palestine – an organization the Muslim Brotherhood established to promote Hamas in the United States – Abdul Malik advised that Muslims could “blow up bridges” and “do all forms of sabotage” as long as they avoided “kill[ing] people who are innocent on their way to work.” As he works to make Islam “the dominant way of life” in America (as he put it in a Friday “sermon” in 2004), he shrugs off the mosque’s history of praising violent jihad, comparing jihadist “martyrs” to the United States Marines.

One of the founders of Dar al-Hijrah was Ismail Elbarasse, a Muslim Brotherhood operative who was a friend and business partner of Mousa abu Marzook – a high Hamas official who, before being deported, actually ran that terrorist organization from his Virginia home. It was from Elbarasse’s home that the FBI seized the 1991 Brotherhood memo from which I derived the title of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America – a document in which the Brotherhood described its “work in America” as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Dar al-Hijrah’s imams and board members have included a who’s who of the jihad:

  • Anwar al-Awlaki, the aforementioned al-Qaeda operative;
  • Mohammed al-Hanooti, a former Islamic Association of Palestine leader and major Hamas fundraiser;
  • Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh, a founder of the Muslim American Society (the Brotherhood’s quasi-official presence in the U.S.) who ran the Baltimore office of the Islamic American Relief Agency until that charity was shut down by the Treasury Department for supporting al-Qaeda;
  • Abdelhaleem Asquar, serving a federal prison sentence for obstructing an investigation of Hamas’s American support network;
  • Samir Salah, who helped Osama bin Laden’s nephew set up another charity (Taiba International Aid Association) that was shut down for bankrolling terrorism;
  • Esam Omeish, a Democrat who was forced to resign from a state-government immigration panel after the emergence of videos showing his praise for “the jihad way” against Israel.

With such a cast of characters, the mosque has predictably attracted some notorious attendees, including the aforementioned terrorists Marzook and Alamoudi; Nidal Hasan, the jihadist who murdered 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood; Omar Abu Ali, the one-time valedictorian at Virginia’s Islamic Saudi Academy who is now serving a life sentence after joining al-Qaeda and conspiring to murder President George W. Bush; and 9/11 suicide hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour – Awlaki’s ofttimes companions whose presence cannot be all that surprising since an al-Hijrah Islamic Center phone number was found in the Hamburg apartment shared by 9/11 ringleaders Mohammed Atta and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

By appearing with leaders of Dar al-Hijrah, ISNA, MPAC, and CAIR, the Obama administration and its allies are telling us that these purportedly “moderate Islamists” are the allies America needs to defeat the Islamic State.