Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Immigration

The Mickey-Mockers of Mother Jones, and All That Islamophobia

leave a comment »

By Hugh Fitzgerald
Jihad Watch
March 23, 2017

Mother Jones is a left-wing publication that, while it seldom – and possibly never — has had a kind word for Christianity in its history, turns out to be a stout defender of Islam. How the Left fell so hard for Islam is a puzzlement, for a more retrograde faith — misogynistic, supremacist, homophobic, protective of slavery, one that severely restricts freedom of speech and thought, and even what kinds of artistic expression are allowed (for example, forbidding paintings and statues of people and animals because of what, according to various “reliable” Hadiths, Muhammad said about “pictures”) — can scarcely be imagined. Violent and aggressive, this is a faith whose adherents have a 1400-year history of conquering many different lands and subjugating many different peoples. None of this appears to have made an impression on the mickey-mockers at Mother Jones.

The magazine’s latest screed on Islam, by one Bryan Schatz, comes to the stout defense of that inexplicably maligned faith. According to Schatz, those who call Islam a “political ideology” rather than a “religion” must be wrong, not because he has himself made the attempt to see if it makes sense to define Islam, at least in part, as a “political ideology,” but only because the people who do so are President Trump’s loyal retinue, and therefore, in the logic of Mother Jones, whatever they say perforce must be false; there is no need for further discussion. If Lt. General Flynn (still a Trump adviser in spirit, if no longer in letter) says that “I don’t see Islam as a religion. I see it as a political ideology that…will mask itself as a religion globally….it can hide behind and protect itself by what we call freedom of religion,” that can’t possibly be true, because the right-wing General Flynn has said it. When Steve Bannon says that Islam “is a political ideology,” criticizes former President Bush for calling Islam “a religion of peace,” and suggests that there is an “existential war” between Islam and the West — statements that many thoughtful people who have studied Islam, or grown up in Islam only to reject it, agree with Bannon about – Schatz again dismisses this, because Bannon said it. And Bannon is part of some “right-wing,” “alt-right,” “hate- speechifying Islamophobic group” — we know this must be because it keeps being repeated — and therefore no argument needs to be offered against what he maintains. The Mother Jones writer describes Bannon’s as an “us-versus-them” argument; Schatz would have it that the war originates with “us,” Islamophobes, hostile to peaceful Muslims, and not as Bannon & Co. would have it, originating with “them,” the hatred of Muslims for Unbelievers mandated by the Qur’an and Hadith. No arguments, of course, are necessary. It’s all ad hominem; if Bannon said it, his reputation having been comprehensively and deliberately sullied by his political enemies, it must be false.

Nor is Samuel Huntington, the mild-mannered Harvard academic who died in 2008, spared for his views that the contemporary world could best be understood as now divided not among countries but according to eight “civilizations,” which he identified as: (i) Western, (ii) Latin American, (iii) Islamic, (iv) Sinic (Chinese), (v) Hindu, (vi) Orthodox, (vii) Japanese, and (viii) African. Huntington claimed that the most severe antagonism, the one that merited being described as a “clash of civilizations,” was that between Islam and the West. Schatz gives Huntington’s views complicated views only a one-sentence summary, and dismisses them for no other reason than that they have been echoed by “conservative evangelicals” and “the far-right fringe.” If Huntington’s views deserve criticism, it would surely be not that he was too hard on Islam, but too soft, that is he failed to see that Islamic civilization permanently “clashed” not only with the West, but with all seven of the other “civilizations” he identified.

Bryan Schatz goes after, too, those outside the government and universities, that is, the extremist, right-wing, Christian clergy, who spew their anti-Islamic rhetoric as such fanatical Christians always do (for Mother Jones, Muslims, funnily enough, are never fanatical), such people as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who called Muhammed a “demon-possessed pedophile.” Mother Jones carefully refrains from mentioning why Falwell might have described him thus – the fact of Muhammad’s consummation of his marriage to little Aisha when she was nine years old. Readers are thus left with the impression that Falwell pulls these preposterous charges out of thin air, without any conceivable basis in fact (but it’s a fact clearly spelled out in the most respected collection of Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, 34 and 36). Then there is Pat Robertson, another “right-wing” Christian, who claims that Islam is “not a religion…but a worldwide political movement bent on domination of the world.” Now where could Robertson have gotten that idea? Possibly from the Qur’an, with its more than one hundred “Jihad verses”? But Pat Robertson said it, and therefore it cannot possibly be true. And Schatz reminds us of Lt. General Jerry Boykin, who believes that Islam should not be given First Amendment protection, because “those following the dictates of the Quran are under an obligation to destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.” Is there any evidence that the Sharia and the American Constitution flatly contradict each other on such matters as freedom of speech and the establishment and free exercise clauses? Shouldn’t Schatz have looked into Boykin’s assertions to see if there might be something to them, rather than treat them as self-evidently absurd to all right-thinking readers of Mother Jones, and thus not worth discussing?

As for Robert Spencer, who doesn’t quite fit into any mold, and certainly not that of a Trump-camp-follower or of the “right-wing” Christian-clergy, although he has written 16 books and many thousands of postings at several online sites, always copiously quoting from the Qur’an and Hadith, he is identified only as “the director of the Islamophobic site Jihad Watch,” without Schatz adducing a single sentence of Spencer’s as evidence of that claimed “Islamophobia.”

What is wrong with declaring Islam to be a “political ideology” — that is, only that and nothing more — is that one opens oneself unnecessarily to criticism that can easily be avoided. Why not concede that Islam is both a religion and a political ideology? Concede, that is, that the Qur’an establishes rules for worship for Believers, the Five Pillars of Islam, describes the characteristics of Allah and his relation to Believers, and also provides rules for Jihad, for the war against the Unbelievers that cannot end until the complete submission of everyone to the rule of Islam is attained, so that Islam everywhere dominates and Muslims rule everywhere. Having conceded that Islam is partly a religion, as ordinarily understood, we are then in a stronger position to insist, more in sorrow, that “unfortunately, Islam is also a political ideology, an ideology of conquest, and we have a responsibility to recognize this, in order to better protect ourselves and our own civilization. And we must remember, too, that this conquest need not take place on a battlefield. There are many instruments of Jihad. Terrorism, propaganda, the money weapon, and now, the newest and most effective and least understood weapon to spread Islam, demographic conquest, which Muslims discuss quite openly, for they assume that Europe, having opened itself up to millions of Muslims (there are now more than 50 million Muslims in Europe), can do nothing, at this point, to halt or reverse that human tide. And this we cannot ignore.” The tone is different, one of reason but also justified anxiety, and the information conveyed important.

Mother Jones can keep on with its mindless campaign of loathing and ridicule for all those who are dismissed as “right-wing” extremists, crazed Christians, or people who, like Robert Spencer, are pigeonholed as members of a “cottage industry of Islamophobic misinformation.” But not once in this article (or in many others that the magazine has published on the same theme) is there any attempt to rebut what has been said about Islam. The complacent dismissal of those whom “no one” can possibly take seriously is wearing thin.

Could any fair-minded person, having read and studied the Qur’an , fail to see how much of it is devoted to warfare against the Unbelievers? How could such a person not notice that Jihad is the supreme duty of Muslims, and that once conquered by them, Unbelievers are left with only three choices: to be converted, or killed, or required to pay the onerous Jizyah? Isn’t the uncompromising division of the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb a political matter? Isn’t the duty of Jihad against the Unbelievers part of a “political ideology”? Aren’t the rules of warfare, set down in the Qur’an and the Hadith, including even how the spoils of war are to be divided among the victorious Muslims (with Muhammad taking 20%) more properly described as being part of a “political ideology” and not part of what we think of as a religion? Doesn’t commanding Muslims to avoid taking Christians and Jews as friends, “for they are friends only with each other,” belong to a “worldwide political movement, bent on domination of the world,” as Pat Robertson said? Doesn’t Islam set out rules for the conquest of Unbelievers, describe what varied methods can be used to conquer them, and focus on Jihad through armed conflict, including acts which “strike terror” in the hearts of the Unbelievers? Isn’t it true that of the 200 times the word “Jihad” appears in the Sahih Bukhari (the preeminent Hadith collection), 98% of them refer to “Jihad” in the sense of armed conflict? Does that seem to you to be part of a “religion” or is it, rather, part of a blueprint for world conquest?

Finally, how long can Mother Jones get away with the transparent strategy of listing the names of those it vilifies as being “right-wing” or “Islamophobic” in order to spare itself the bother of coming to grips with the assertion that Islam is indeed, for the most part, a “political ideology”? What happens when the reality of Muslim behavior around the world leads more Unbelievers, by slow degrees, to see the wisdom of those who, based on their knowledge both of Islamic texts and 1400 years of Islamic history call Islam a “political ideology”? And they will do so because, as any Believer (and Unbeliever too) can understand, Islam sets out a plan for conquest and rule over Infidels everywhere, describes the ideal of the Islamic state, governed according to the Sharia, and details how this is all to be achieved.

Particularly of note is how writers in Mother Jones appear to believe that opposition to Islam is a new thing, the result of a whipped-up hysteria from these dangerous people now in the corridors of power who have been allowed to promote what Mother Jones calls “a crazy idea that went from the fringe to the White House.” Actually, ever since the 7th century, the real “crazy idea” in the West was that Islam is only a “religion,” that it is “peaceful,” and that it is absurd to be alarmed over its territorial conquests and increase in both numbers and power. We have, after all, 1400 years of history to examine, and in the long history of Islam’s encounter with the West, the “crazy idea” that Islam’s adherents were hellbent on conquest was shared by almost every thoughtful person. Statesmen, writers, philosophers, theologians, scholars of Islam — none of them to be dismissed as “right wing”– understood Islam in a no-nonsense, and therefore highly critical fashion. Many of their statements have been repeatedly posted on the web, but none of them make it to the pages of Mother Jones, for they eloquently undermine that magazine’s narrative.

There was Winston Churchill, who drew his conclusions from observing Muslims in the Sudan in 1898-99, when he was a war correspondent with the 21st Lancers as they fought the Mahdists:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

For the kind of people who write for, and read, Mother Jones, no doubt Churchill can be dismissed — too “right-wing,” too much of a “colonialist” to be taken to heart. After all, didn’t Obama remove Churchill’s bust from his office? Doesn’t that mean Churchill need not be heeded? But can they deny that “Mohammedanism” was and is now a “militant and proselytizing faith”? Or that in Islam women are in all respects inferior to men, if not always, pace Churchill, their “absolute property”? Slavery is part of Islam, as Churchill wrote truly, for slavery remains permanently sanctioned by Islam and by the practice of Muhammad, who owned and traded in slaves. Slavery was outlawed in Muslim countries very late, and only under Western pressure. There was no Muslim William Wilberforce. There are still Muslim clerics today, as well as members of the Islamic State, who maintain that slavery is part of Islam, and who are especially pleased to make sex slaves of the Yazidi and Christian girls (in Syria, in Iraq, in Nigeria) they captured.

But let’s leave Churchill’s vivid impressions of the “Mohammedans” aside, and turn to our most scholarly president, John Quincy Adams, and his 70-page study of Islam. Adams was an early opponent of slavery, who famously argued on behalf of rebel slaves before the Supreme Court in the Amistad case. John Quincy Adams studied Islam at length, and his conclusion, long before Bannon and Flynn and Pat Robertson, was eloquent, severe, and grim:

he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adam’s capital letters]….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.

As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.

That was John Quincy Adams, more severe on Islam than any of those accused by Mother Jones of “Islamophobia.” Has Mother Jones ever alluded to what that great liberal, and hero of the Amistad case, thought of Islam? Shouldn’t a decent respect for the opinions of mankind include the opinions of those who lived in the intelligent past? Were the texts and teachings of Islam in 1830 any different from its texts and teachings today?

Then there is Jefferson, who had dealings with those envoys of North African Muslims known to us as the Barbary Pirates, recording the words of Tripoli’s envoy to London:

In reference to the Islamic slave trade of Americans and Europeans by the Barbary states, Jefferson asked Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. He answered:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

And while Mother Jones seems to believe that it is fanatical Christians who are the most anti-Islam, it is that famous skeptic and freethinker, David Hume, an enemy to all organized religion, regarded by most of his contemporaries as an atheist and anti-Christian, who even harsher in his verdict on Islam than any falwell or robertson. To wit:

The admirers and followers of the Alcoran insist on the excellent moral precepts interspersed through that wild and absurd performance. But it is to be supposed, that the Arabic words, which correspond to the English, equity, justice, temperance, meekness, charity were such as, from the constant use of that tongue, must always be taken in a good sense; and it would have argued the greatest ignorance, not of morals, but of language, to have mentioned them with any epithets, besides those of applause and approbation. But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals? Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.

Another famous scoffer at Christianity, Mark Twain, thought even less of Islam:

When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters.

George Bernard Shaw, who took whacks at both Islam and Christianity, clearly found Islam the more disturbing of the two:

Islam is very different [from Christianity], being ferociously intolerant. What I may call Manifold Monotheism becomes in the minds of very simple folk an absurdly polytheistic idolatry, just as European peasants not only worship Saints and the Virgin as Gods, but will fight fanatically for their faith in the ugly little black doll who is the Virgin of their own Church against the black doll of the next village. When the Arabs had run this sort of idolatry to such extremes [that] they did this without black dolls and worshipped any stone that looked funny, Mahomet rose up at the risk of his life and insulted the stones shockingly, declaring that there is only one God, Allah, the glorious, the great… And there was to be no nonsense about toleration.

And then there is Bertrand Russell, whom one would have thought Mother Jones would approve of, for writing Why I Am Not A Christian and for setting up a War Crimes Tribunal, with America intended to be in the dock for the war in Vietnam, and for his general latter-day left-wing take on the world. But they don’t care, or dare, to quote Russell on Islam:

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.

Immediately after his [Muhammed’s] death the conquests began, and they proceeded with rapidity… Westward expansion (except in Sicily and Southern Italy) was brought to a standstill by the defeat of the Mohammedans at the battle of Tours in 732, just one hundred years after the death of the Prophet… It was the duty of the faithful to conquer as much of the world as possible for Islam… The first conquests of the Arabs began as mere raids for plunder, and only turned into permanent occupation after experience has shown the weakness of the enemy… The Arabs, although they conquered a great part of the world in the name of a new religion were not a very religious race; the motive of their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion.

Does this differ in any essential way from what Bannon or Flynn or Robertson or Falwell say today?

Then there is Oriana Fallaci. Even Mother Jones doesn’t dare to call her “right-wing.” She was for forty years the most famous left-wing journalist in Italy. As a teenager, she was in the anti-fascist resistance, which at the time also meant risking her life trying to prevent the Nazis from blowing up historic sites in Florence (they blew up all the bridges over the Arno – the Ponte Vecchio alone was spared). At seventeen she became a journalist. She spent time with the Viet Cong, and denounced the American war in Vietnam. She had a long-term lover, Alexandros Panagoulis, who was a one-man resistance movement against the Greek dictator, Colonel Papadopoulos. He died – was likely murdered — in a “road accident.” Fallaci wrote a book about Panagoulis, Un Uomo. She spent a lot of time reporting on Muslims in the Middle East, writing a book on women in Islam, The Useless Sex. She spent time with a PLO squad, coming under Israeli fire, and interviewed Arafat, Khomeini, and Qaddafi, among others. She came to detest, through living among and observing Muslims, the ideology of Islam and those who took it to heart. She was particularly disturbed as she saw Muslims entering and settling in Italy and especially in her beloved Tuscany, and busily building mosques, even in Colle Val d’Elsa, that most Tuscan of little hill towns between Florence and Siena.

She vividly describes how Muslim migrants would urinate and defecate on artistic treasures in Florence, including the celebrated bronze doors at the Baptistery – the “Gates of Heaven” by Lorenzo Ghiberti. Right after 9/11, Fallaci wrote a furious article about the behavior of Muslims in the West; it took up four full pages in the Corriere della Sera; she then turned it into a book, The Rage and the Pride, a full-bore attack on Islam and Muslims that does not mince words, and that has sold millions of copies. This biographical note is meant to show that it is perfectly possible to be politically on the left all of one’s life and also be furiously anti-Islam, a possibility which the writers for Mother Jones seem incapable of grasping. Perhaps if they read Oriana Fallaci, and saw how she out-bannons Bannon, or studied John Quincy Adams, who out-falwells Falwell, they might be persuaded to themselves read the Qur’an and Hadith with attention, to learn something of the history of Islamic conquest, and to treat with respect the views of so many of those in the intelligent past, such as Hume and Russell, Churchill and Shaw, Pascal and Twain, Montesquieu and Schopenhauer, who had nothing good to say about Islam. And one might ask the Mother Jones writers to take a look at the studied verdict on Islam of so many other distinguished students of Islam from the past. They might start here.

It would be interesting to see if the Mother Jones writers can come up with list of notable non-Muslims who were favorably impressed with Islam. How long and impressive would such a list be? Of course we all know one person who was deeply impressed by Islam. But I’m not sure Adolf Hitler ought to be used as a reference. And what did those who admired aspects Islam find to admire beyond the fanatical faith of the Believers that made them so willing to die? Try yourself to find anyone who praises Islam for something else.

And ask yourself, too, in the world today, which regime is now the most ferociously anti-Islam of all? It turns out to be Communist China, where worry over the Muslims in Xinjiang has led the Communist authorities in Beijing to impose a series of anti-Muslim measures much stronger than anything that has been done in the West. The Communist Chinese require that all restaurants remain open during Ramadan, and that fasting during Ramadan be banned. The same government requires that women be banned from wearing the burqa in public, and men with long beards prohibited from riding buses, the stated reason being that explosives and other weapons could be concealed behind burqas or beards. Muslim websites are unceremoniously removed from the Internet by the Chinese authorities. The Chinese leaders have denounced the Dalai Lama because he called for entering into a dialogue with the Islamic State. The Communist Chinese do not treat the Dalai Lama, whose remarks on Islam have become increasingly bizarre, with the automatic respect he gets, but no longer deserves, in the West. And in the last three months of 2016, the Chinese government demolished 5000 mosques, or 70% of those originally standing in Xinjiang. The stated reason was that of “public safety,” that is, the mosques were supposedly so dilapidated that they might collapse. No one in Xinjiang was fooled.

So what does Mother Jones think of the Chinese Communist view of Islam? Are the boys in Beijing just too “right-wing” and “alt-right” for the magazine’s taste? Is that what explains why the Chinese now prevent Ramadan from being celebrated, or why they recently demolished 5000 mosques in Xinjiang? Is it possible the Chinese know something about Islam, and the menace its adherents presents to Unbelievers everywhere, that doesn’t quite fit the world view of the mickey-mockers at Mother Jones?

 

 

Plaintiff behind Trump immigration ban suit runs Muslim Brotherhood mosque

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Wacth
March 17, 2017

The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to “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.” That’s from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.

“Plaintiff behind Trump travel ban runs Muslim Brotherhood mosque,” by Leo Hohmann, WND, March 17, 2017:

Imam Ismail Elshikh, a native of Egypt, leads a Muslim Brotherhood-tied mosque in Honolulu, Hawaii, and claims he is suffering ‘irreparable harm’ by President Trump’s temporary travel ban.

The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The irony is hard to miss: Trump has talked about declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and now it is a Brotherhood-backed imam who is playing a key role in blocking his executive order on immigration.

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.

One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.

Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.

According to the lawsuit:

“Plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order subjects portions of the State’s population, including Dr. Elshikh and his family, to discrimination in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right, among other things, to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin. The State purports that the Executive Order has injured its institutions, economy, and sovereign interest in maintaining the separation between church and state.”

The vast majority of Hawaii’s roughly 5,000 Muslims attend Elshikh’s mosque, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, which is located in a residential area of Manoa, Honolulu. The mosque, despite its ties to what many believe is an extremist and subversive organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, may now hold the key to whether the Trump travel ban passes muster in the federal court system.

Elshikh was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah law throughout the world.

Elshikh is living in the U.S. on a green card, which gives him permanent legal status.

The proof that his mosque is affiliated with the Brotherhood is found in the court records for Honolulu County, which lists the deed holder as the North American Islamic Trust.

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist and now private consultant to law enforcement at Understanding the Threat, said all mosques under the “Muslim Association of” moniker are typically affiliated with the Brotherhood.

But the clincher in this case is that the mosque property is traced to NAIT, “confirming it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo told WND in an email….

10 Points You Won’t Hear About Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions

with one comment

By Ryan Mauro
The Clarion Project
March 7, 2017

President Trump has issued an executive order modifying his controversial travel restrictions which have been incorrectly derided as a “Muslim ban.”

Of course, despite major changes, groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are still calling it a “Muslim ban” and are committed to retaining the issue’s divisiveness so they can endlessly bash Trump as a bigot and raise their own profile in the process.

“This executive order, like the last order, is at its core a Muslim ban, which is discriminatory and unconstitutional,” said the executive-director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, who nonetheless touted the revisions as a “partial victory.”

Below are 10 points about the revised executive order that you’re unlikely to hear from media outlets and politically-driven organizations who have are dependent upon continued controversy:

  1.  As previously, it is not a “Muslim ban.”
    As explained by Clarion Project advisory board member and leader of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow in this video (see below), the restrictions are based on an intersection of geography and security risks. They are limited to 6 of 50 Muslim-majority countries and impact non-Muslims as well. And, just as before, the restrictions are a pause rather than a ban.The order is for between 90 to 120 days, depending on whether the person is a visitor or a refugee. As we’ll discuss, the exceptions are so wide that even describing this order as a “pause” is a bit of an overstatement.
  2. Iraq is removed from the list, bringing the list of impacted countries down to 6.
    Including Iraq (and especially the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan) was a mistake from the beginning. That is now fixed. The executive order implies that this change is due to the fact that the Iraqi government agreed to improved intelligence-gathering and security measures.Those conversations with the Iraqis obviously took place after the initial executive order, which shows the Trump Administration can be influenced by constructive criticism.
  3. The executive order justifies the inclusion of the other six countries.
    The order explains why the president chose these six countries, which is a scaling back of Trump’s campaign pledge to ban immigration from all terror-prone countries (which in itself is a scaling back of his initial pledge to ban all Muslim immigration).Iran, Syria and Sudan are designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism and  the former two are explicit enemies of the U.S. Libya and Yemen are failed states with inadequate counter-terrorism abilities and so much chaos that the U.S. doesn’t even have operating embassies in these locations. Somalia is similarly unstable and contains a major al-Qaeda foothold. In addition, the Somali community in the U.S. is known for its high rate of radicalism.
  4. The six countries were chosen based on the Obama Administration’s determination.
    The executive order explains that these six countries were selected based on the Obama Administration considering them to be “countries of particular concern” that could not participate in the visa waiver program.It was the Obama Administration that stated that persons coming to the U.S. from these countries pose a greater security risk than those from other countries. Everyone who argues that there’s no reason to treat these countries as unique risks is arguing with Trump and Obama. Where were the condemnations of President Obama’s “Islamophobia” for identifying these Muslim-majority countries as posing a special danger?
  5. Three hundred refugees are currently under FBI investigation.
    It is true that refugees undergo a lengthy screening process, unlike typical visa applicants. Opponents of the travel restrictions point to how only a small percentage of refugees have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses. The Senate Judiciary Committee said only about 40 had been convicted, representing about 7 percent of the total of 580 since the 9/11 attacks.The executive order points out that 300 people who were admitted into the U.S. as refugees are now under FBI counter-terrorism investigations; a much higher number than the previous figures used for gauging the risk.However, in fairness, a Department of Homeland Security report says most refugees who become terrorists are radicalized years after arriving in the U.S., so we don’t know if this figure necessarily proves there’s a major gap in the refugee vetting process. We also don’t know how many of the 300 refugees are from the six affected countries.
  6. There is a 10-day advance notice.
    The previous executive order went into effect immediately, catching airlines and governments off-guard. This one goes into effect in 10 days, giving time for preparation.
  7. The new executive order explicitly does not apply to current visa and green card holders.
    Permanent residents and current visa-holders are not affected this time. The original executive order’s unclear language has been fixed.
  8. Syrian refugees are no longer singled out.
    The original executive order suspended refugee admission for 120 days but singled out Syrian refugees for indefinite exclusion “until such time” that the government determines that they can be safely admitted. The singling out was unnecessary, as that’s the same standard for allowing refugees from other places, but the original language emphasized that Trump was delivering on a campaign promise to reject Syrian refugees.That language is no longer. A refugee of Syrian nationality is not viewed as inherently more objectionable than a refugee of another nationality.
  9. There are very wide exceptions.
    This executive order uses clearer language to allow for major exceptions even within the 120-day refugee pause and the 90-day pause on visitors from the six countries.Far from a wholesale treatment, it emphasizes that each applicant will be handled on a “case-by-case basis” in case they qualify for a waiver. There are waivers for when the applicant’s entry into the U.S. is in our “national interest” or rejection of the person would cause them “undue hardship.”The order gives various examples of what qualifies as “undue hardship,” for example people who have worked in the U.S. and are seeking re-entry; those coming to reside with a family member; those with a significant network of contacts in the U.S.; those with business or professional obligations here; children; those in need of medical attention; those previously or currently employed by the U.S. government, and other situations where rejection would cause an “undue hardship.”These are the reasons most people from these countries are coming to the U.S. How many other situations are left where a waiver isn’t suitable?Of course, some biased critics aren’t paying attention to these very important facts. Right after the executive order was released, Grace Meng of Human Rights Watch was uncritically quoted in an article on Politico as saying that the new executive order is “going to harm people fleeing gender-based violence” like women trying to escape rapists.Actually, such women would obviously qualify for the “undue hardship” exception. But readers of that article wouldn’t know that because Politico unquestionably posted her quote.
  10. The type of vetting that is being proposed is in alignment with the Founding Fathers’ opinions on immigration.
    Joshua Charles, an expert on the Founding Fathers, collected some of the founders’ most insightful quotes on immigration in an article he wrote in January. They explained the U.S. is more than a piece of land with opportunities for wealth. Rather, it is a country held together by foundational beliefs that are unique and not inherently understood and embraced by all persons upon birth.The executive orders emphasize improving the overall vetting process to screen for hostile ideologies. It’s not just about discovering covert terrorists and criminals; it’s about separating those who support the U.S.’ secular-democratic values from those views are incompatible with that, such as (but not limited to) Islamist extremists.Opponents of Trump and this policy have a choice to make: They can emphasize (or lie about) the parts they continue to disagree with, elongating a cycle of divisiveness, or they pair their criticism with positive reinforcement that acknowledges the improvements that have been made.Decreasing the sound of the alarm is not in the best interest of hyper-partisan commentators or Islamist activists like CAIR who are enjoying the limelight and seeking increased donations, but it is in the best interest of the country.


Ryan Mauro is
ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

CNN cuts feed on guest after he cites jihad terror cases involving “refugees”

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 7, 2017

The establishment propaganda media is desperate, and doing all it can to prevent people from knowing the truth about the national security aspects of the “refugee” issue.

“CNN cuts feed right after guest cites refugee crime stats,” by Kyle Olson, American Mirror, March 6, 2017:

There CNN goes again.

During a segment on Donald Trump’s travel ban from terror-prone countries, the news network mysteriously lost its guest as he made a point about refugees.

During an interview with Dana Bash, Congressman Scott Taylor cited a sobering statistic about refugees — and seconds later, his feed from Miami disappeared.

“Just today, the FBI comes out and says 30% — 30% — of their domestic terrorism cases that they’re investigating are folks who are refugees,” Taylor said.

“It’s important not to label all refugees bad people — that’s not why I’m here, but…”

Just as he uttered those words, he wasn’t there.

Multi-colored test bars were in his place.

Bash blamed the “TV gremlins” for the incident.

It wasn’t the first time CNN mysteriously lost its feed as someone was running counter to the network’s editorial narrative.

After playing a clip of the president in February saying he was unaware of discussions his National Security Advisor reportedly had with the adversary, Sanders was asked if it was a problem and he said, “Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was watching CNN fake news. What do you think?” he said with the smirk, apparently attempting to crack a joke.

After an awkward silence, and Burnett smiling and saying, “You don’t buy it…” Sanders replied, “That was a joke.”

But the mystery gremlins apparently didn’t find it funny.

Instantaneously, Sanders earpiece stopped working.

“You don’t buy what he said, obviously,” Burnett continued.

Sanders sat staring, mouth agape.

“Erin?” he said.

“Yes,” she responded. “I’m sorry, senator, you obviously don’t buy what he said.”

“Are we on?” Sanders said, looking off camera.

“Looks like we lost connection with Sen. Sanders so let’s try to get that back up,” Burnett concluded before going to a commercial break.

Two days later, President Trump weighed in on the strange occurrence.

“While on FAKE NEWS CNN, Bernie Sanders was cut off for using the term fake news to describe the network. They said technical difficulties!” Trump tweeted….

The leader of the SPLC is aware the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Hamas organization

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 5, 2017

This news story is something so rare that I can’t think of even a single other example of it: mainstream media space given to a figure vilified by the Leftist establishment, to rebut that establishment’s charges. Usually the media presents the defamation of the hard-Left Southern Poverty Law Center and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations as if it were objective, unimpeachable fact. Ordinarily, no mainstream media reporter ever asks why the word of such organizations should be taken as gospel, and no dissenting voices challenging those organizations ever appear. But in this NOLA.com/Times Picayune piece, JR Ball allows former FBI agent John Guandolo space to rebut the SPLC/CAIR charges, and to explain what these organizations are really all about. If the establishment media did this regularly, the influence of both of these unsavory and dishonest groups would vanish in a matter of weeks.

“Louisiana anti-jihad seminar leader fires back at critics, takes aim at Southern Poverty Law Center,” by JR Ball, NOLA.com, March 4, 2017:

Declaring that the Southern Poverty Law Center is giving aid to a terrorist organization, John Guandolo, a former FBI agent and founder of a consulting group focused on the jihadi movement, strongly took issue with those raising concerns about an upcoming law enforcement seminar that his Understand the Threat organization will host in Alexandria. Billed as “understanding and investigating the jihad movement,” the three-day program, scheduled March 7-9 at the Bentley Hotel, is sponsored by the Rapides Parish district attorney’s office.

The event received little public attention until Wednesday (March 1) when the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., took to social media to protest the seminar and Guandolo, a former counter-terrorism specialist who resigned from the FBI in 2008. Among other stains on his record: While working on the federal investigation of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, Guandolo was having an affair with a key witness against the congressman.

The posts, asserting that Guandolo “often” targets and vilifies mainstream Muslim leaders in his presentations, were quickly — and widely — shared and debated. Heidi Beirich, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project director, said Guandolo “is a known Islamophobe, and his misinformation adds fuel to the hateful environment targeting Muslim community members.”

Guandolo, who did not respond to an earlier interview request, sent a statement to The Times-Picayune following the publication of an earlier story.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center is giving direct aid and comfort to Hamas which is a terrorist organization,” Guandolo, founder of Understanding the Threat, wrote in his emailed response. “The leader of the SPLC is aware the Council on American Islamic relations [sic] (CAIR) is a Hamas organization because he sat next to (Understanding the Truth Vice President) Chris Gaubatz at a Senate hearing where (he) spoke about it.”(Gaubatz) spent six months undercover (at CAIR) where he retrieved over 12,000 documents indicating (CAIR) is directly involved in fraud, sedition and terrorism. So we can only assume SPLC is intentionally supporting a terrorist organization in violation of U.S. law.”…

. . . . . . .EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this story called Understanding the Threat anti-Islamic; that is an allegation made by the Southern Poverty Law Center against Guandolo….

Trump administration and Congress seek to slash UN funding in wake of new anti-Israel action

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 3, 2017

“Classifying the IDF, one of the most professional and responsible military forces in the world, alongside terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram is an absurdity.”

And more than an absurdity: it’s a monstrous injustice, and it clearly demonstrates the perfidy of the United Nations, which at this point is little more than a tool of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The U.S. shouldn’t just slash funding to it, but defund it altogether, withdraw from it, and expel it from New York.

“Trump Admin, Congress Seek to Slash U.N. Funding in Wake of New Anti-Israel Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 2, 2017:

The White House and Congress are considering slashing U.S. funding to the United Nations in light of its most recent effort to declare the Jewish state’s fighting forces a chief violator of children’s rights, according to multiple conversations with U.S. officials.

The U.N. is working to add the Israeli Defense Forces, or IDF, to a list of entities such as terror groups that are responsible for inhumane acts against children.

The move would be just the latest anti-Israel salvo by the U.N., which caused controversy late last year when, with the backing of the Obama administration, it moved to condemn Israel for building homes for Jewish people in Jerusalem.

The latest action against Israel would add the IDF to the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflicts, which would designate the Jewish state’s fighting forces as one of the worst offenders of children’s human rights in the world. Other groups and entities on the list include terrorist entities and forces that kill children en masse.

The move has prompted outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, where multiple U.S. officials told the Washington Free Beacon that they will no longer stand by as the U.N. singles out Israel for criticism. The effort to counter what they described as the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias is likely to include cutting a large portion of U.S. funding to the organization.

One senior White House official familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking on the matter told the Free Beacon that the president and his senior-most advisers are sick of seeing Israel treated as a pariah by the U.N.

“The Israeli Defense Forces are among the most humane, professional armed forces on the planet,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak on record. “Israel has been aggressively refining its protocols to minimize civilian casualties—so much so that after the 2014 conflict in Gaza the United States sent a delegation to study their best practices.”

The White House official signaled that the Trump administration would pursue a vastly different approach to the U.N. than its predecessor.

The Obama administration came under criticism from the pro-Israel community on numerous occasions for failing to defend Israel adequately in the face of international criticism. This culminated in a flurry of anger late last year when the Obama administration, in one of its final official acts, permitted the U.N. to officially chastise Israel in a break with decades of U.S. policy.

“In a region where the use of civilians, including children, as human shields is routine, singling out Israel for condemnation is, in a word, ridiculous,” the White House official said. “If the United Nations’ Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict has nothing better to do with the United States taxpayer dollars that fund it than engage in a vendetta against our ally Israel, perhaps we should rethink that support.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a vocal defender of Israel, expressed disappointment in the U.N.’s latest action. He told the Free Beacon that Congress is prepared to reduce U.S. financial support for the U.N., which comprises a significant share of the organization’s operational budget.

“The United States Congress is already taking a serious look at United Nations funding levels in light of a number of recent actions unfairly targeting Israel,” Roskam said. “Classifying the IDF, one of the most professional and responsible military forces in the world, alongside terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram is an absurdity.”

“If the U.N. goes through with this,” Roskam said, “the calls for reduced funding will grow even louder.”…

Muslim who claimed visa denied by Trump ban, who Schumer got into US, arrested for sexual assault of 12-year-old girl

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 3, 2017

India was not among the seven countries named in Trump’s immigration ban, so Tanveer Hussain is lying to begin with. In any case, his arrest demonstrates the risks involved in the Democrats Let-Them-All-In-and-Anyone-Who-Demurs-Is-A-Racist-Islamophobe approach.

The Qur’an teaches that Infidel women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified.

“Indian athlete who got high-level help for U.S. visa now accused of sexual assault,” by Annie Gowen, Washington Post, March 3, 2017:

CHANDIGARH, India — It was a long journey for Indian snowshoe champion Tanveer Hussain and his team manager to the World Snowshoe Championships in Saranac Lake, N.Y., last weekend.

The two men were initially denied visas to travel to the United States in the chaotic days following the Trump administration’s travel ban. The reasons for the rejections remain unclear — India is not among the seven countries named in Trump’s executive order — but after the intervention of Saranac Lake’s mayor and the office of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi reversed its decision.

Hussain and team manager Abid Khan arrived Feb. 23 in the bucolic Adirondacks town, which had been following their visa ordeal and extended them a hero’s welcome. Locals offered congratulations and free lodgings at an inn that in the snow looked like a “fairy tale scene from a movie,” Khan said in a Facebook post.

The “fairy tale” was shattered Wednesday, when Hussain, 24, was arrested and charged with felony sexual abuse and child welfare endangerment, police said.

The parents of the 12-year-old girl allegedly involved said the incident happened Monday, after the end of the three-day snowshoe competition, and reported it to local authorities.

Chief Charles A. Potthast Jr. of the Saranac Lake Village police force said the girl was playing pool Monday afternoon with other young people at the inn where Hussain was staying.

“There was a moment when the two were alone, and that’s when the incident occurred,” Potthast said. The girl told police there was a “passionate kiss” and that Hussain touched her in an intimate area on top of her clothing.

Hussain remains jailed on $10,000 bond. Khan said the athlete told him he had done nothing wrong.

Muddasir Mir, the president of the SnowShoe Federation of India, said the next court hearing is set for Monday.

“It’s an unfortunate situation, both for the community there in the U.S. who supported us and the federation,” Mir said. “We have full faith in the American law and as there is a court proceeding going on, that is going to be my only comment.”

Hussain hails from the Indian side of the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir, which is predominantly Muslim. He placed in the top 50 at the World Snowshoe Championships last year in Italy, Mir said, though he failed to place in the top 100 this year.

Hussain’s brother, Yunus Ali, said the family has not been able to speak to Hussain since his arrest.

“In Kashmir, we have a tradition of showing love to children. We hug and kiss a child here, and our society doesn’t see it as a crime,” he said.

Hussain and Khan claimed they were indirect victims of the U.S. travel ban when their first attempt to procure visas was turned down in late January, the first business day after Trump’s travel ban was put in place. Khan told the BBC that an employee at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi told them they were being rejected because of “ current policy.”…

Establishment media ignores key facts in trying to discredit Muslim Brotherhood document vowing to destroy US from within

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 1, 2017

A few weeks ago hard-Left “journalist” Zack Beauchamp published a long, windy piece in Vox bemoaning the influence of counter-jihadists upon President Trump. (Be afraid, Zack. Be very afraid.) The centerpiece of his argument is that the captured internal document of the Muslim Brotherhood laying out its strategy in the U.S., and its goal of “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house,” is just one man’s fantasy, and has never been the actual program of the Brotherhood itself. Here is the salient portion of his article, which was accompanied by this wonderful illustration of Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney and me looming menacingly over President Trump and his team:

“Trump’s counter-jihad: How the anti-Muslim fringe conquered the White House,” by Zack Beauchamp, Vox, February 13, 2017:

…The foremost theorist of civilization jihad is a writer named Robert Spencer. “He’s author of so many books, and one of the top two or three experts in the world on this great war we’re fighting against fundamental Islam,” Bannon said, when hosting Spencer on Breitbart Daily News on August 9, 2016. “Trump is listening to people like you,” he told Spencer later in the interview.

Spencer, like Gabriel and Gaffney, has no formal training in Quranic scholarship. He received an MA in 1986 in religious studies from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and wrote his master’s thesis on Catholic history.

In reality, I took courses on Islam while in that master’s program, but have never made any secret of the fact that I studied it mostly on my own. Leftists only dismiss the possibility of this when it interferes with their narrative; Karen Armstrong, for example, has no “formal training in Quranic scholarship,” but an establishment “reporter” like Beauchamp would hail her as an expert because her fanciful statements about Islam fit his preconceptions.

He’s run the blog Jihad Watch, a near-obsessive tracker of Islamist activity, since 2003. He is also the author of 16 books, with titles like The Complete Infidels’ Guide to the Koran. Many of his books have been published by Regnery, the conservative publishing giant that also put out both Trump’s and Mitt Romney’s most recent books. Two of Spencer’s tomes made the New York Times best-seller list; there’s a decent chance you’ve seen him on Fox News in the wake of a terrorist attack.

In person, Spencer is short and portly, with a neatly trimmed black beard. He’s exceptionally confrontational, constantly trumpeting his willingness to debate all comers on Twitter and on Jihad Watch.

Yes, one can get that way when one has the facts on one’s side and yet are routinely dismissed as ignorant.

When I contacted him for this story, his reply attacked the media — like most counter-jihadists, he sees journalists as some of jihad’s most powerful enablers.

“There you go again, Zack,” he wrote in response to one of my questions. “I know you’re a reporter, and a reporter for Vox, so I know where you stand.”

Here is the full exchange, so you can see how dishonest Leftist reporters like Beauchamp operate. He gave me a question that assumed that I, not the U.S. government, had labeled Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim groups as Muslim Brotherhood fronts:

5) Even if we end Muslim immigration, groups you label MB fronts — like CAIR, ISNA, and the various MSAs — are still operative in the United States. What’s the solution to that?

There you go again, Zack. I know you’re a reporter, and a reporter for Vox, so I know where you stand, but even you should grant that it was not I, but the United States Justice Department, that established CAIR, ISNA, and the MSA as MB fronts. Skeptical? See these, and follow the internal links:

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1854/doj-cairs-unindicted-co-conspirator-status-legit. http://www.investigativeproject.org/732/isna-admits-hamas-ties https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/31.pdf  

You probably disdain the Investigative Project, but I would like to see you refute the evidence at those links establishing all three organizations as closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In any case, the solution is this: enforce existing laws regarding sedition and subversion. And these organizations and others should be called upon to back up their pro-forma condemnations of al-Qaeda and ISIS with transparent, inspectable, honest programs teaching young Muslims why they should reject the understanding of Islam offered by jihad terror groups. No such programs exist today. Why not?

Beauchamp actually characterized this later in his article in this way: “These ideas, ideas which when taken to their logical conclusion end in a mass campaign of persecution targeting Muslim Americans.” Yes, that’s right: it doesn’t matter what you say, he sees what he wants to see.

Spencer’s 2008 book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs, developed one of the most important ideas of the counter-jihad. Its arguments were cited repeatedly and amplified in the Team B II report and also appear, in a simplified form, in speeches delivered by people like Gabriel in towns around the country. Spencer also regularly gives “counterterrorism” seminars based on these arguments to law enforcement agencies.

The central idea is that terrorists aren’t America’s real Muslim problem.

“Distracted by foreign wars and the prospect of domestic terror attacks, Americans pay little heed to the true agents of intolerance in their midst,” Spencer writes. “The stealth jihad advances largely unopposed because it is largely unrecognized.”

The “agents of intolerance” at the heart of this stealth jihad, Spencer explains, are the Muslim Brotherhood.

It’s a group you’re probably at least passingly familiar with. Founded in Egypt in 1928, the Brotherhood is one of the oldest and most influential Islamist groups in history. The group’s goal has long been the toppling of the Egyptian government and its replacement with a Sunni theocracy.

Its tactics have varied over time, from promoting grassroots social change to fielding candidates for parliament, and some individuals and groups associated with the Brotherhood in the past have advocated violent revolution. The Brotherhood even managed to gain control over the Egyptian government briefly, when Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi won in the country’s first democratic election following the Arab Spring uprising in 2011.

Today, the group’s influence is relatively limited — Egypt’s military dictator, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, overthrew Morsi in 2013 and since then has viciously suppressed Brotherhood activity. According to Human Rights Watch, he has killed more than 1,000 individuals linked to the Brotherhood and arrested many, many more.

In Spencer’s telling, though, the Brotherhood is not defined by its founding chapter in Egypt, or even its various open branches and offshoots (like the Palestinian militant group Hamas or the moderate Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia). The hidden history of the 20th century, according to Spencer, is a history of the Brotherhood’s stealth penetration of the West.

“Of course the MB still has the resources to act in the US and Europe,” Spencer tells me. “Its organizations here were well-established and handsomely funded before Sisi came along.”

In Stealth Jihad, Spencer rests this claim on a 1991 memo, written by a Muslim Brother named Mohamed Akram. The memo outlines a plan to establish a “global Islamic state,” starting in the United States. This begins, according to Akram, through a “shift from the collision mentality to the absorption mentality” — to move away from open conflict with Western authorities to suborning them from within.

This might seem like a pathetically impossible task, given the minuscule number of Muslim Brothers in the US. But — and this is the absolutely critical part — Akram thinks the Brotherhood has powerful allies who might successfully and quietly mainstream its radical agenda. In the memo, he writes out “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

It reads like a who’s who of Muslim civic organizations in the United States, including the Islamic Society of North America (the continent’s largest Muslim civic group) and the Muslim Students’ Association (the organization that represents Muslim students on virtually every college campus in the United States). This one memo, for Spencer and Gaffney, is solid proof that these organizations are Brotherhood fronts.

“The Brotherhood, and its present-day allies and friends, [are] really working to forward the ‘grand jihad,’” Spencer writes. “When we scratch the ‘moderate’ surface of groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), we find links to terrorist organizations and exhortations to Islamic supremacism.”

The Team B II report, two years later, put the point even more clearly.

“The majority of Islamic organizations in America are affiliates of or associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in some way,” its authors explain. “Any organization that does not embrace sharia and the MB line has not been able to gain broad recognition as a Muslim-American force.”

The evidentiary basis for this claim is extremely thin. For one thing, scholars of the Brotherhood have found no evidence that Akram’s memo was an accurate representation of the Brotherhood’s reach.

“Nobody has ever produced any evidence that the document was more than something produced by the daydream of one enthusiast,” Nathan Brown, a George Washington University professor who studies the Brotherhood, told Religion Dispatches’ Sarah Posner in 2011. “Nothing in anything that I have heard has ever struck me as similar in tone or content to the ‘master plan.’”

Beyond that, the organizations themselves flatly deny being agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course, as Spencer and his ilk would say, this could just be taqiyya. Except that the groups don’t just deny these affiliations — they openly advocate policies and interpretations of Islam that directly contradict this supposed grand Muslim Brotherhood plot against American values.

That does not stop Spencer, Team B II, and the rest of the counter-jihadists from citing Akram’s memo as gospel. Gaffney still tells audiences to download it (it’s available for free on CSP’s site)….

There is just one problem with Beauchamp’s dismissal of the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum: Beauchamp is ignoring key salient facts that establish the authenticity and importance of the Memorandum. And he is not alone: the establishment propaganda media is currently engaged in a full-court press designed to head off the Trump administration designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization, and to do so, establishment “journalists” like Beauchamp are doing everything they can to discredit the Memorandum. John Rossomando of the Investigative Project takes them down here:

“‘Explanatory Memorandum’ Detractors Ignore Evidence About MB in America,” by John Rossomando, IPT News, March 1, 2017:

Some supposedly very smart, well-informed people are making ignorant and misleading claims in the debate over designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

The Trump administration is considering designating the nearly 90-year-old Brotherhood, which seeks a global Islamic state governed by religious law known as shariah.

Reasonable people can debate the merits. But a recent Washington Post column by Arjun Singh Sethi, an adjunct Georgetown University law professor, illustrates the way false information is being pushed by some opponents.

Designation would be “exploited and manipulated for political gain” and used to target otherwise innocent Muslim American groups, Sethi argues. It would be all the more outrageous because, “The Brotherhood doesn’t have a known presence in the U.S., most Muslim Americans know very little about it and no organization active in the U.S. has been shown to have any connection to it.”

This is entirely wrong, and there are Muslim Brotherhood documents in the public domain to prove it.

Sethi takes aim at one of those documents, a 1991 “Explanatory Memorandum” which calls for a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” whereby Brotherhood members in America work toward “destroying the Western civilization from within.” The memorandum also suggests that Islam represents a “civilization alternative.”

“This memorandum, of which there is only one known copy, has been widely discredited and called a fantasy,” Sethi writes.

That one copy, however, was seized by FBI agents from the home of Ismail Elbarasse, whom prosecutors describe as the “archivist” for the Muslim Brotherhood in America. If it was a fantasy, it was deemed sufficiently exciting to preserve. In addition, its author played a prominent role in the Brotherhood’s U.S. network.

Sethi mentions none of these facts. Neither do the Southern Poverty Law Center or the left-leaning commentary website Alternet, which cited Sethi’s column to dismiss those who point to Muslim Brotherhood fronts in the United States as “conspiracy theorists.”

Sethi further claims there is no evidence to show that “three of the largest Muslim organizations in the country — the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA], the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] and the North American Islamic Trust [NAIT] — are affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood” except for the explanatory memo.

This statement also is objectively, demonstrably false.

The explanatory memo, like most of the information known about a Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States, became public during the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) Hamas-financing trials held in Dallas. FBI agents seized a trove of internal documents – meeting minutes, reports and proposals – written by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. In addition, electronic surveillance picked up hundreds of conversations among Brotherhood conspirators.

Their task at the time was to run a series of political groups with the aim of benefiting Hamas – the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch – politically and financially. They united under the umbrella of the “Palestine Committee.”

In court papers, federal prosecutors noted that the Holy Land trial included “numerous exhibits … establishing both ISNA’s and NAIT’s intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, and the defendants in this case.”

NAIT, a subsidiary of ISNA, served as a banking outlet for HLF’s fundraising.

“HLF raised money and supported HAMAS through a bank account it held with ISNA at NAIT…,” prosecutors wrote in 2008, citing financial records admitted into evidence. “ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/NAIT account for the HLF were often made payable to ‘the Palestinian Mujahadeen,’ the original name for the HAMAS military wing.”

CAIR, meanwhile, is listed among the Palestine Committee’s own entities. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is included on a committee roster and participated in at least one significant Palestine Committee meeting.

Other groups attracted law enforcement scrutiny due to their Muslim Brotherhood ties. The International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), for example, emerged from a 1977 meeting of Muslim Brotherhood luminaries from the U.S., Europe and the Middle East, according to Growth of Islamic Thought in North America: Focus on Ism’ail Raji al Faruqi, written by IIIT chair of Interfaith Studies at Nazareth College in Rochester, New York, Muhammad Shafiq.

A 1988 FBI report, obtained by the Investigative Project through a Freedom of Information Act request, identifies ISNA, NAIT and IIIT officials as “members and leaders of the Ikhwan [Brotherhood].”

The FBI document summarizes an interview with an unnamed source who notes that “all Muslim organizations founded under the direction of the IIIT leadership have been organized … in ‘the Ikhwan model,’” with the aim of recruiting support for an Islamic revolution in the U.S.

“… [H]istoricaIIy members of the MSA and subsequently NAIT, ISNA and the IIIT have been IKHWAN members,” the FBI document says.

In sum, FBI investigations and internal Muslim Brotherhood documents establish that, despite Sethi’s assertion to the contrary, there is ample evidence linking ISNA, NAIT and CAIR to the Muslim Brotherhood.

His dismissal of the explanatory memo is similarly misguided.

Its author, Mohamed Akram, played a prominent role on the Palestine Committee, identified in an internal 1991 document as the Central Committee secretary. He sat on the group’s “Central Committee” with Hamas political leader Mousa abu Marzook.

Akram’s name also appears immediately following Marzook’s name on the Palestine Committee’s internal telephone. In 1990, Akram reported on projects for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s board of directors known as the Majlis al-Shura. The Shura councils in various countries all “report directly to the IMB [international Muslim Brotherhood]’s leadership,” a 2010 Department of Justice affidavit filed in a deportation case said.

Meanwhile, the Brotherhood maintains supporters in the United States. The IPT documented the connections between old Palestine Committee entities and the anti-Israel group American Muslims for Palestine.

And members of Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice (EAFJ) and Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights (EADHR) openly display their Brotherhood loyalties on Facebook. EAFJ founding board member Hani Elkadi posted a cartoon of a man holding a sign with the Brotherhood logo and the words which translate to, “I am [Muslim] Brotherhood and I’m not threatened.”

Memo’s Ambitions Weren’t New

Sethi is not the first to try to discredit the explanatory memo., The Bridge Initiative, an arm of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, argued a year ago that the document was merely “one man’s utopian vision.”

“If it occupied a central place in a Muslim movement to take over America, one would think his supporters would have taken up his idea and spread it in popular and academic circles. But that’s not so,” the Bridge Initiative Team wrote.

It’s a sweeping assertion. And it’s not true. The Brotherhood has a multi-generational plan for establishing a global Islamic state. Its U.S.-based followers have repeatedly detailed their ideas for making it so.

The 1988 FBI FOIA document describes a “six phase … plan to institute Islamic Revolution in the United States” to be executed in part by the IIIT.

The scheme was rooted in a 1983 book called “The Muslim Brotherhood.” Like the “Explanatory Memorandum,” the book emphasizes institution building and Muslim evangelization (dawah) as a prelude for jihad.

“We want to make the whole world bow before the word of Allah, author Saeed Hawwa wrote. “The command of Allah is: ‘And fight with them till no mischief remains, and the religion is all for Allah.’”

Coincidentally, Akram mentions “six elements” of a general strategic plan adopted by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura council in 1987 in the “Explanatory Memorandum.” The memorandum likewise aimed to unify and direct Muslim efforts to present Islam as a “civilization alternative.”

IIIT publications still denigrate Western civilization in the name of Islam.

The “problems and challenges faced by Western civilization in the contemporary era no longer find solutions on the social and economic levels of Western civilization,” Adel Husein wrote in a 2013 IIIT paper. He suggests that Islam offers the solution: “Great revolutions are usually fueled by a solid doctrine, and Islam, in particular, embodies such a doctrine.”

Officials with other American Islamist groups advocate ideas similar to Akram’s.

Shamim Siddiqi, a past dawah director for the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) similarly offered Islam as the solution. (Siddiqi remains recommended reading for ICNA members.)

In his 1989 book, The Methodology of Dawah, Siddiqi argues that Islam should be made “dominant in the USA” through the work of Muslim organizations. Muslims should help Americans view Islam as “an alternate way of life” for the problems of the day, Siddiqi wrote in his 1996 book, The Revival. Evangelizing the American intelligentsia will result in a “demand for an Islamic society and state,” he wrote….

Saudi police pack two transgender Pakistanis into a sack and beat them to death with sticks

with one comment

By Christine Williams
Jihad Watch
March 2, 2017

The lie that the Islamic State implements a vile aberration of Islam is common, yet the worst human rights abuses continue to be committed in the name of Islam elsewhere. The barbarous religious police in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia forced two transgender women into a sack and beat them to death with sticks. Transgender rights activist Qamar Naseem states: “Torturing humans after throwing them into bags and beating them with sticks is inhumane.”

Back in November a transgender Muslim woman was hacked to death beyond recognition in Russia, days after her father stated: “Let him be killed, I don’t want to see him. Bring him here and kill him in front of my eyes.”

The victim was from Dagestan, a Muslim region in the Russian Trans-Caucasus. A Dagestan mufti declared: “Changing sex is totally forbidden, because it means that a man will be a woman.” Disapproving of this is one thing, but killing those who engage in it is quite another.

“Two transgender Pakistanis ‘are packed into sacks and thrashed to death with STICKS’ by police in Saudi Arabia “, by Gareth Davies, UK Daily Mail, March 1, 2017:

Two transgender Pakistanis were reportedly packed into sacks and thrashed to death with sticks by police in Saudi Arabia.

The pair from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan, were arrested in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for cross-dressing in public.

It is a punishable offence in the kingdom for a man to imitate a woman and officers arrested 35 people in a raid on a guest house.

Police recovered women’s clothing and jewellery and took those arrested into custody.

It was here that Amna, 35, and Meeno, 26, are said to have been beaten to death while under police surveillance in prison.

Colonel Fawaz bin Jameel al-Maiman, the police’s media spokesperson in Riyadh, told The Tribune: ‘The majority of the arrested are from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the others from other cities of Pakistan.’

A transgender rights activist said only 11 of the 35 had been released after paying a fine of 150,000 riyals, meaning 22 are still in custody.

Qamar Naseem said: ‘Torturing humans after throwing them into bags and beating them with sticks is inhumane.’

While 11 were released later after paying a fine of 150,000 riyals (£32,000), 22 are still in police custody, Naseem added.

‘The suffering ended for these two after being physically tortured, however, the rest are still languishing in Saudi jails….

McMaster tells NSC staff that label “radical Islamic terrorism” not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic”

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
February 25, 2017

There is going to have to be clarification of this from the Trump administration. Is it going to continue the denial and willful ignorance of the Bush and Obama administrations, which under Obama in particular hamstrung the ability of intelligence and law enforcement officials to deal adequately with the jihad threat, as it was wrong diagnosed, and the wrong prescriptions were applied. Speaking about “radical Islamic terrorism,” or more precisely, “Islamic jihad,” doesn’t stigmatize all Muslims, as the Left and Islamic supremacists insist; it merely allows us to study and understand the motivating ideology of the jihadis, and thereby counter them effectively.

H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam,” by Mark Landler and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, February 24, 2017:

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.

The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.

That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat.

It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Mr. Flynn, who was also a three-star Army general before retiring.

Wearing his Army uniform, General McMaster spoke to a group that has been rattled and deeply demoralized after weeks of upheaval, following a haphazard transition from the Obama administration and amid the questions about links to Russia, which swiftly engulfed Mr. Flynn.

General McMaster, several officials said, has been vocal about his views on dealing with Islamic militancy, including with Mr. Trump, who on Monday described him as “a man of tremendous talent, tremendous experience.” General McMaster got the job after Mr. Trump’s first choice, Robert S. Harward, a retired Navy vice admiral, turned it down.

Within a day of his appointment on Monday, General McMaster was popping into offices to introduce himself to the council’s professional staff members. The staff members, many of them holdovers from the Obama administration, felt viewed with suspicion by Mr. Trump’s team and shut out of the policy-making process, according to current and former officials.

In his language, General McMaster is closer to the positions of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both took pains to separate acts of terrorism from Islamic teaching, in part because they argued that the United States needed the help of Muslim allies to hunt down terrorists.

“This is very much a repudiation of his new boss’s lexicon and worldview,” said William McCants, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “The ISIS Apocalypse.”

“McMaster, like Obama, is someone who was in positions of leadership and thought the United States should not play into the jihadist propaganda that this is a religious war,” Mr. McCants said.

“There is a deep hunger for McMaster’s view in the interagency,” he added, referring to the process by which the State Department, Pentagon and other agencies funnel recommendations through the National Security Council. “The fact that he has made himself the champion of this view makes people realize they have an advocate to express dissenting opinions.”

But Mr. McCants and others cautioned that General McMaster’s views would not necessarily be the final word in a White House where Mr. Trump and several of his top advisers view Islam in deeply xenophobic terms. Some aides, including the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, have warned of a looming existential clash between Islam and the Judeo-Christian world….

%d bloggers like this: