by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
An organization by the name of “Muslim Advocates” is working diligently with high ranking executives from Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube and many other social media giants to silence any criticism of Islam. Hiding their true agenda behind a cloak of ‘..freedom and justice..’ they are pushing hard to have “all” Facebook pages, websites and videos with any negative connotation towards Islam removed immediately.
This organization which touts itself as a voice of reason and moderation is nothing more than a facilitator of silence through subjugation. They are the “IslamoNazi Gestapo” in disguise. Muslim Advocates initiated a campaign entitled: “Click Here to End Hate” which essentially is a ‘How to Guide’ to shut-down any speech that they disagree with.
Here is a screenshot from their website which clearly reveals their underlying motivations:
They actually give a couple “alleged” examples of ‘..hate speech..’ they found online. I would not be at all surprised if Muslims wrote these themselves under alias accounts:
And speaking of ‘..freedom of speech..’ they actually have the audacity to quote in their campaign program:
‘..Given today’s widespread use of the internet, all Americans should remain actively engaged and vigilant to prevent “our” freedom of speech from being abused..’
Here is a screenshot of that section:
This is their idea of ‘..freedom of speech..’ Robbing us of our freedoms, while defending their own. As if ‘freedom’ is a zero-sum commodity in which they must steal our’s in order to acquire their’s.
But we all know..it’s not about hate, because there is no hate on our end.
Islam possesses a monopoly on hate.
With us, it’s all about “truth.”
And they can’t handle the truth, so they seek to hide it.
‘..I possess but two weapons, in my right hand a pen and in my left, a sword.
If you ever take my pen away..you leave me with only one weapon to choose..’
- j. schuyler montague
If you would like to read their campaign program in it’s entirety, please link here:
Bill would sanction the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its affiliate organizations
by, Adam Kredo | The Washington Free Beacon
Congress is moving to officially designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and impose sanctions on any person who provides the group and its affiliates with “material support,” according to a copy of the legislation obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.
The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2014—sponsored by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.)—seeks to slap U.S. sanctions on the organization’s political center in Egypt as well as scores of affiliates operating across America and Europe, according to the bill.
The bill currently has seven cosponsors: Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), Trent Franks (R., Ariz.), Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.), Kevin Brady (R., Texas), Steve Southerland (R., Fla.), Louie Gohmert (R., Texas), and Doug LaMalfa (R., Calif.).
While the United States has designated individuals and certain affiliates of the Brotherhood in the past, this is the first time that Congress has moved to sanction the organization as a whole, including all of its member organizations.
The 19-page bill seeks to build a case against the group as one of the leading sponsors of terrorism and argues that the Brotherhood has long been a key player in orchestrating attacks across the globe via its proxies.
The legislation comes as Egyptian authorities continue to crack down on Muslim Brotherhood-backers that have wreaked havoc on Christians and other minorities since the downfall of former President Mohammed Morsi.
The bill would direct the U.S. government to level all “available sanctions” to any person in the United States “who knowingly provides material support or resources to the Muslim Brotherhood or its affiliates, associated groups, or agents.”
It also moves to block anyone affiliated with the Brotherhood from receiving a U.S. visa, which could complicate the White House’s diplomacy efforts on multiple fronts.
A senior member of the Brotherhood was hosted at the White House in February, and other representatives of the group have also gained entrance to the United States, though it remains unclear just how many due to limited documentation.
Additionally, the bill would force a complete shutdown of any Brotherhood affiliates located in the United States and permit the removal of “any alien who is a member or representative” of the group.
Much of the legislation focuses on building a case against the Brotherhood and detailing its many terrorist links.
While the organization remains headquartered in Egypt, where it has faced a violent crackdown from Egyptian authorities, the Brotherhood operates across the world.
“The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains to this day what it has been for decades: ‘’Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu-Akbar!’” the bill states, referring to primary documents from Brotherhood leaders.
Lawmakers argue that, at its core, Brotherhood continues to support and finance jihad and promote the spread of an extremist version of Islam across the globe.
Previous administrations have designated global elements of the Brotherhood as terrorists.
The terror group Hamas, for instance, which continues to fire rockets at Israeli civilians from its headquarters in the Gaza Strip, is a known wing of the Brotherhood and has operated with its support.
Former President George W. Bush designated in 2001 the Brotherhood Lajnat al-Daawa al-Islamiya (the Islamic Call Committee) in Kuwait as a terrorist organization.
The Brotherhood’s Lajnat al-Daawa al-Islamiya served as a financial conduit for terror mastermind Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It also has funded terror groups in Chechnya and Libya.
The U.S. government also has designated Muslim Brotherhood leaders from Yemen and other countries.
The Brotherhood’s financial networks have been implicated in the funding of Chechen rebels and there is evidence that the group has established some fundraising channels in the United States.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers in 2011 that classified intelligence indicates the Brotherhood has been operating in America.
‘‘I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism,” he said at the time.
Some have pointed to the case of the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim charity shut down by the federal government for funneling money to Hamas, as firm evidence of the Brotherhood’s efforts to raise money in the United States for terrorists
Experts note that while the Brotherhood supports an extremist ideology it would be very difficult for the government to designate the group and then determine who exactly is a member.
“American terrorist designations should be applied narrowly, or else they will lose their credibility. While the bill correctly highlights the Brotherhood’s deep hostility towards the United States and its violent ideological underpinnings, the evidence suggesting that it’s currently engaged in organized terrorism is flimsy,” said Eric Trager, an Egypt expert and fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).
“Moreover, given the significant blow that the Brotherhood has experienced in the past thirteen months since [former President] Morsi’s fall, the Brotherhood is no longer a strategic threat, and focusing on it will distract policymakers attention from the far more significant threats that have emerged in Syria and Iraq, where actual jihadis now control territory,” Trager explained.
- – -
Egypt, Russia and Saudi Arabia have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization long ago.
Why do “you” think the US has not?
by, Sharia Watch
The head of the Charity Commission recently made a startling admission. Islamic charities, he said, were the “most deadly” problem the Commission faces. William Shawcross said it was “ludicrous” that people with convictions for terrorism were perfectly free to set up charities, and were not automatically disqualified.
He is right of course, but there are other areas worth examining concerning Islamists running charities. For example – the Islamic Sharia Council.
The Islamic Sharia Council has been described elsewhere on this site. It is the home of the largest network of sharia councils in Britain, and runs a de factofamily law court system. It has been caught red handed dishing out false and dangerous information to women seeking advice on violent marriages.
Among its leading figures are known jihadis and Islamists. Suhaib Hasan, for example, praises stoning and has expressed his desire for “jihad against the non-Muslims”.
To receive charity status, an organisation must show itself to be acting for the public benefit. It must also fall within the descriptions of ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in the Charities Act, and it is here we encounter our problem. One of the ‘charitable purposes’ available to an organisation that wishes to gain charity status is “the advancement of religion”, and therefore the advancement of Islam.
As a result, the Islamic Sharia Council can argue that in applying sharia laws and norms upon families in Britain, it is indeed advancing religion and as such is free to do so.
Another body identified on this site, which also enjoys charity status by virtue of the fact that it advances religion, is Green Lane Mosque. You can read a description of our concerns regarding Green Lane Mosque here, but it is fair to say that many of the messages which have been broadcast in that mosque, are anything but charitable. Extremist preachers have been frequent; as has incitement to violence against women.
A further registered charity of concern to Sharia Watch is the East London Mosque. This is a mosque which also stands accused of hosting extremist orators and links to the Islamist Islamic Forum of Europe have been frequently shown.
The jihadism preached in British mosques and other institutions is not however what Mr Shawcross was referring to. His concerns centred around charities “sending cash to extremist groups in Syria” and no doubt elsewhere. Allegations of Islamic charities in Britain sending money to Hamas for example have been on-going for several years. Hamas, let us remind ourselves, believes in sharia law, the subjugation of women, and the killing of Jews. Indeed, just last week, it was revealed in the Spectator that a children’s show on Hamas TV had encouraged children to “kill all Jews”. Sending money to Hamas is therefore deeply problematic (for those who don’t believe in killing all Jews at least).
Back in 2006, a Panorama investigation alleged that Interpal, a charity dedicated to providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, was funding groups that endorsed terrorism in the Middle East. Although the Charity Commission reported at the time that it could not confirm that Interpal had issued funds to Hamas or other terrorist groups, it would not give the charity a “clean bill of health”.
In a recent article, Michael Curtis wrote:
Lloyds Bank’s attitude [regarding Interpal] was clear-cut. It decided in 2009 that it would not provide services for Interpal which had an account with the Islamic Bank of Britain.
The [Charity] Commission might have reached a similar conclusion if it had considered the activities of two individuals in Britain. Zaid Yemeni (Zaid Hassan), the representative of Interpal in Birmingham, who has met with a Hamas leader in Gaza who called on God to annihilate Jews and not leave any one of them alive.
Ibrahm Dar (Abu Hana), the Bradford representative of Interpal, is an open admirer of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a major al-Qaeda leader whose main ambition is blow up U.S. planes.
William Shawcross has said that the law needs to change and yes, that would be welcome. Maybe that change needs to be that every group which holds religion as its banner is not automatically deemed to be doing good; it is time to look instead at the individuals involved, and exactly what ideas and causes they are trying to advance.
by, Deborah Weiss | Frontpage Magazine
Amidst a barrage of controversy and criticism, the 9/11 museum officials stand firm in their decision to air a documentary on Al-Qaeda without censorship of Islam-related language.
The 911 Museum will open to the public on May 21, 2014, with a preview period for 9/11 families and survivors from May 15, 2014 to May 20, 2014.
Included is a 7-minute documentary titled, “[T]he Rise of Al-Qaeda.” It shows footage of Al-Qaeda’s journey over the prior several years on the way to 9/11, from its training camps to a series of terrorist attacks. The film will be adjacent to a room displaying photos of the 9/11 hijackers.
The film portrays the 9/11 hijackers as “Islamists” who viewed their mission as a “deadly jihad.” After all, in the words of the hijackers: “[M]any thanks to Allah for his kind gesture and choosing us to perform the act of jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.” So, it was the hijackers themselves that believed they were on a jihadi mission for the cause of Islam.
The film has been thoroughly vetted and its accuracy is not in dispute. But an advisory panel of interfaith clergy who previewed the film is complaining about the use of the words “Islamist” and “jihad,” insisting that the jihadists should be shown in a greater “context” that portrays most Muslims as peaceful.
Reverend Chloe Breyer (Justice Breyer’s daughter), who preaches at Saint Philips Church in Harlem, wants the video to show Islam as a peace-loving religion where only a few outliers like the 9/11 hijackers are violent. She believes that the word “jihad” is an Islamic struggle to do good and that the film in its current form may justify bigotry or violence unless accompanied by a disclaimer.
Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the only Imam on the advisory panel, made a splash when he quit the panel in response to the film, stating that “unsophisticated visitors who don’t understand the difference between Al-Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading toward antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.” He went on to say that “the screening of the film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum.”
Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, protested that most museum visitors will assume that the language refers to all Muslims. He argues that one shouldn’t associate the terrorists with their religion because doing so implicates 1.5 billion Muslims by association.
John Esposito, an apologist for Islam at the Saudi-funded Prince Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, generally prefers the phrase “Muslim terrorism” to “Islamic terrorism” in order to dissociate the motivating ideology from the terrorist behavior, and instead give the impression that the terrorist conduct is just coincidently committed by Muslims.
Others want the museum to go out of its way to show Muslims mourning over the 9/11 attacks to “balance out” images of Islam. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for CAIR, a group which holds itself out as a Muslim civil rights organization but which in reality has many terrorist ties of its own, insisted that the film will reinforce “stereotypes” of Muslims as terrorists. He emphasized: “it’s very important how Islam is portrayed.”
But the film is not about Islam. The purpose of the museum is to educate the public on the events of 9/11, including who committed it and what their motivation was. The focus should be on the atrocity that murdered almost 3000 people in cold blood, not a PC version of feel-good Islam.
Joseph Daniels, the museum’s Executive Director, said that museum officials “stand by the scholarship that underlies the creation of this video.” NBC News Anchor, Brian Williams, who narrates the film explained, “[w]e have a heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective.” He asserted that the film in no way smears a whole religion, but instead talks about Al-Qaeda, a terrorist group. And, the film clearly acknowledges that Muslims were among the 9/11 victims, mourners, and recovery workers.
So the issue is how the terrorists are characterized and whether the public can discern the difference between Al-Qaeda and those who identify themselves as Muslim but are peaceful and law-abiding.
First, it is a fact that Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam motivated the 9/11 attacks. To say that acknowledging Al-Qaeda’s motivational ideology indicts 1.5 billion Muslims is to say that all 1.5 billion Muslims agree with Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam. If they do, they should be indicted. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be offended because the statements don’t apply to them.
Second, it’s unlikely that the Imam on the advisory panel speaks for all local and foreign Muslims, whom he claims to know will all be offended. If all Muslims should be painted with this broad brush, then the offense is deserved. If they are not a monolith, they shouldn’t be offended. On the contrary, they should be insulted that some unknown Imam thinks they can’t handle the truth.
Third, to claim that 9/11 or any other Islamic terrorist attack was just terrorism that incidentally was committed by Muslims is just a lie. It is the terrorists, not the reporters, who assert that they are motivated by their faith. Those who disagree with the terrorists’ interpretation of their faith should take it up with the terrorists, not those observing and reporting the facts. The same goes for terrorists who are members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and others.
Fourth, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in the history of the United States and has many terrorism ties. It is on a mission to stamp out all criticism of anything Islam-related, even if it’s true. Indeed, there’s nary a terrorist that CAIR doesn’t defend. Asserting that the 9/11 hijackers were Islamic terrorists is factual reporting, not “stereotyping.” But CAIR wants the public to believe that anybody except for Muslims can be terrorists. Besides, CAIR has no credibility and should not be given legitimacy by accommodating its gripes.
Fifth, the film is not a theological documentary about Islam; it’s about the events of 9/11. The documentary needn’t endorse or oppose Islam, nor evaluate the theological accuracy of the hijackers’ beliefs. It merely reports what their beliefs were; how the hijackers viewed themselves.
Sixth, it is not the museum’s job to soothe the feelings of hypersensitive Muslims. The museum should not go out of its way to portray a disproportionate number of Muslim mourners or recovery workers to “balance” things out.
Seventh, it’s ludicrous to believe that the general public is so stupid that it can’t distinguish between Al-Qaeda members and law-abiding Muslims. There is no reason to believe that learning about Al-Qaeda will lead the general citizenry to become bigots.
But even if it did, it is a falsity to claim that this bigotry would necessarily lead to actual violence. There is no evidence whatsoever that so-called anti-Islam sentiment leads to violence. This argument is disingenuously used to stifle criticism of Islam and shut down the debate. On the contrary, it is primarily in the Muslim world where offense leads to violence. It is “blasphemy” or insults to Islam that Muslims use to justify their violence, blaming the victims and evading personal responsibility. But in the West, one can have an emotion, even hatred, without acting on it. When someone does act violently, it’s illegal. So, there is no basis to conclude that Islam-hating infidels will assault and batter Muslims at the 9/11 memorial site, which will also be heavily policed.
Most importantly, it’s critical that the motivation of the hijackers be accurately conveyed. Their ideology must not be whitewashed, for fear of deleting history altogether, depriving future generations of an education regarding the largest terrorist attack on US soil, and increasing the likelihood that history will repeat itself.
Some 9/11 families and survivors believe that the truth should take priority over “sensitivity.” The museum officials should be saluted for standing firm under a storm of criticism and for holding to the facts.
After all, only the truth shall set us free.
by, Valentina Colombo | The Gatestone Institute
“[T]he organization of the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, and anyone who asks either to reconcile with them, to join them or to ally with them is himself a terrorist.” — Refaat Saïd, leader of Egypt’s Socialist party, al-Tagammu’, and previously close friend of former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, Mahdi Akef.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the motto of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is also the verse singled out by Hassan al Banna: “Fight them until there is no fitnah [discord], and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” [Qur'an, Sura VIII, verse 39]
The link between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is clear, and confirmed by Article 2 of the Charter of Hamas, which reads: “The Islamic Resistance movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine”.
A new terror group, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis [ABM], just officially entered the scene. Both the U.S. State Department and the British government included it, at the beginning of April, in their list of proscribed terrorist organizations.
The United Kingdom justified its decision as follows: “ABM is an Al Qa’ida inspired militant Islamist group based in the northern Sinai region of Egypt. The group is said to recruit within Egypt and abroad and aims to create an Egyptian state ruled by Sharia law. ABM is assessed to be responsible for a number of attacks on security forces in Egypt since 2011. The attacks appear to have increased since the overthrow of the Morsi government in July 2013. The group’s reach goes beyond the Sinai, with the group claiming responsibility for a number of attacks in Cairo and cross-border attacks against Israel. ABM has undertaken attacks using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and surface-to-air missiles. Examples of attacks for which the group has claimed responsibility include: an attack on the Egyptian Interior Minister in which a UK national was seriously injured (September, 2013); an attack on a police compound in Mansoura, killing at least 16 people, including 14 police officers (December 24, 2013), and an attack on a tourist bus in which three South Koreans and their Egyptian driver died (January 16, 2014).”
The decision taken by the British government against Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis came almost at the same time as the decision to start investigations on the activities of Muslim Brotherhood [MB] and its possible links with terrorism.
There is however a link between ABM and the Muslim Brotherhood: the justification of jihad, based on the Koranic text.
Although in January 2014, after the December 24 attack — linked by the British government statement to ABM — the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood issued a declaration in which it denied any connection with ABM, Refaat Saïd, the leader of the Socialist Party, Tagammu’, said otherwise.
Saïd pointed out, during the visit of Catherine Ashton to Egypt on the eve of its presidential elections, that Ashton “wants to open channels for a reconciliation with the Muslim Brotherhood despite knowing perfectly well that Dr. Mohammed Morsi himself imported the organization of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis and placed it in the Sinai. Morsi released many of its members from prison so they could carry out terror attacks in the Sinai region to take him back to power.”
Saïd bluntly added that “the organization of the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, and anyone who asks either to reconcile with them, to join them or to ally with them is himself a terrorist.”
Saïd, previously a close friend of Mahdi Akef, the former MB Supreme Guide, knows the Brotherhood closely.
In September 2013, after an attack on the Egyptian Minister of the Interior, Major General Ahmad ‘Abd al-Halim explained that “Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is an organization including 15 organizations acting and working in Gaza and belonging to the sphere of al-Qaeda and Hamas.”
Colonel Farouq Hamdan — an aide to former Egyptian Interior Minister — also commented that “the attack was carried out with the blessing of, and consultation between the organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which was funded by the Brotherhood.”
The connection between Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, al-Qaeda and Hamas — already on the official lists of proscribed terrorist organizations in the West — and the Muslim Brotherhood — which is already presently on the proscribed terror organizations of Russia (February 2003), Syria (21 October 2013), Egypt (25 December 2013), Saudi Arabia (7 March 2013) and the United Arab Emirates (9 March 2014) — is sometimes a direct one, and sometimes an ideological link.
The link between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is clear and straight, and confirmed by Article 2 of the Charter of Hamas, which reads: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life.”
It would appear rather more difficult to demonstrate the link between the Muslim Brotherhood and some markedly jihadist movements such as Al Qaeda, Gamaat al-Islamiyya — also internationally recognized as a terrorist organization — and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis.
In 2005, Sylvain Besson published, for the first time in a Western language, a document in his book, The Conquest of the West: The Secret Project of Islamists, often referred to as “The Secret Project.”
The document, “Towards a global strategy of Islamic politics (starting points, elements, essential conditions and missions),” was found in 2001 by Swiss authorities in the house of Youssef Nada, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West
A similar version of the “Secret Project” was also aired in 2012 in a documentary film about the MB in the West by American journalist Glenn Beck. What is strange is that no one has given due importance to the contents of both documents.
“The Secret Project” explains the twelve starting points of the strategy of the Brotherhood in the West. For example:
“Step 5: Work to establish the Islamic state, in parallel make progressive efforts aiming at controlling the local centres of power through institutional work.
“Step 6: Work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in various fields by agreeing on a common ground in order to cooperate on points of convergence while putting aside the points of divergence.
“Step 7: Accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements [...]“
In Step 9, jihad is finally mentioned: “Build a permanent force of the Islamic preaching and support movements engaged in jihad in the Islamic world, in different ways and within the limits of the possible….Get in touch with any new movement engaged in jihad wherever in the planet, with Islamic minorities, and create walkways, according to requirements, to support and establish a partnership. Keep the jihad on alert in the umma [Muslim community] […].”
“The Secret Project” calls for a bond, a better collaboration with jihadi movements and it would seem that strategically, leaders and members of the MB consider both jihad and jihadi movements fundamental to achieve their goals.
Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1936, issued a call to “kings and princes, members of legal organizations and Islamic societies, to those who own judgment and sense of honour in the Muslim world,” to the so-called “Fifty requests” to return to a true Islamic society.
The third request reads: “Reinforce the army, multiply sections of young people and inflame them on the grounds of Islamic jihad.”
Jihad appears always to have been part of MB ideology. Sayyid Qutb, possibly the most important MB ideologue, in his commentary of Koran, In the Shade of Qur’an, defines jihad: “Islam gives the name jihad to such cumulative efforts. This includes efforts to change people through verbal advocacy. It also includes the possible armed struggle to end an oppressive system and establish justice. [...] among the radical concepts of the revolutionary party named “Muslim” the most foundational is to engage every rebellious force that comes in Islam’s way: fight them, muster everything possible to replace them.”
Sayyid Qutb’s books and his theory of jihad have been fundamental in building the foundation of Al-Qaeda ideology as Ayman al-Zawahiri clearly states in his book Knights under the Prophet’s Banner.
In 1978, a Sudanese reformist and political leader, Mahmud Muhammad Taha, who was sentenced to death for apostasy in 1985, wrote, in the first part of his reflection, These are the Muslim Brothers: “In this age when humanity was predisposed to spread Islam at the scientific level based on persuasion, on reconciliation and peace, when the world opinion was inclined to renounce violence and not to resort to war to solve problems, here came the organization of the Muslim Brotherhood calling Muslims to jihad! Here is the shaykh Hasan al- Banna, the founder of their preaching, consecrating a letter of his to jihad, ‘The Letter of jihad.’ He quotes many Koranic verses calling for jihad [...] He concludes the document with the following invitation: ‘Brothers, the umma is a factory of death [...] and Allah reserved you the precious life on earth and eternal bliss in the afterlife, what a fragility leads us to love this life and hate death, be ready for an important action and long for death since it will give you life.'”
In a letter about “teachings” (Risalat al-ta’alim), in “Point 7,” the paragraph dedicated to action, Hasan al- Bannawrote: “We must be the masters in spreading the Islamic preaching in every place, ‘And fight them until there is nofitnah [upheaval] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah’ (Surat al-Anfal, VIII:39) [...] and I want jihad as an obligation of the past that will continues until the Day of Judgment and that has as its main purpose the hadith of the Messenger of Allah — upon him the greetings and blessing of Allah: whoever dies without having fought and without having any intention of fighting is as if he had died in the era of ignorance.'”
The importance of jihad in the history of MB is further underlined by the title of an essay that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of its main theologians: “The Muslim Brotherhood. Seventy years of preaching, education and jihad” (Beirut 2001).
Al-Qaradawi states that, “the movement engaged in real jihadi battles against the Zionists in Palestine and the British in Egypt and the movement sent the best of its sons to sacrifice.” (page 235)
It should come as no surprise, then, that the motto of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is also the verse singled out by Hassan al Banna: “Fight them until there is no fitnah [discord], and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” [Qur'an, Sura VIII, verse 39].
As stated in “The Secret Project” of the Muslim Brotherhood, the MB and Islamist movements are merely different but complementary ways to implement the goals of jihad.
Whereas the Muslim Brotherhood preaches jihad with pragmatism and “moderation,” the ABM, Hamas and al-Qaeda preach and practice it bluntly and with no delay. But whenever the Brotherhood enters what could be perceived as resistance, then open violence becomes permissible, as now in Egypt.
Recent statements to the Sunday Times by Ibrahim al-Mounir, whom many regard as the leader of the Brotherhood in Europe, sound as if they are a veiled threat: “If this [ban] happened, this would make a lot of people in Muslim communities think that [peaceful] Muslim Brotherhood values … didn’t work and now they are designated a terrorist group, which would make the doors open for all options.” When asked if he meant that the group was open to violence, he replied: “Any possibility.”
There can be no doubt about the ideological link between ABM and MB: both believe in jihad, in the conquest of power by Islam. The most important thing the West has to understand is the blunt pragmatism of MB, that is what Mohammed Charfi, former Tunisian minister of education, wrote in his essay, Islam et liberté: “Today the observers call a “moderate” Islamist the person who, with Westerners, uses reasonable language and who does not choose an openly violent action. However even though his style is calm and the rejection of violence seems sincere, since the movement is always linked to sharia and the sacralisation of history, his moderation remains provisional and indicates a strategy of waiting, because the ingredients of radicalization have not disappeared.”
U N I T E D W E S T A N D W I T H A Y A A N
by, Reuters | The Canberra Times
Boston, Massachusetts: A private university outside Boston has decided not to award an honorary degree to a Somali-born women’s rights activist who has branded Islam violent and “a nihilistic cult of death.”
Brandeis University said it had decided not to award an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch parliamentarian who has been a prominent critic of the treatment of women in Islamic society.
Ms Hirsi Ali in a 2003 interview with a Dutch newspaper said that by modern standards, the prophet Mohammed could be considered a paedophile, and in a 2007 interview with the London Evening Standard called Islam “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.”
“We cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values,” the university said in a statement late on Tuesday. “We regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier.”
The move followed an open letter from the Council on American-Islamic Relations to the university’s president, Frederick Lawrence, saying that to do so was “unworthy of the American tradition of civil liberty and religious freedom.”
Nihad Awad, the group’s national executive director, said, “offering such an award to a promoter of religious prejudice such as Ali is equivalent to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites.”
Ms Hirsi Ali could not be reached for immediate comment.
Ms Hirsi Ali, a supporter of atheism, has been a prominent critic of the practice of female genital mutilation, the partial or total removal of external female genitalia. The practice, which causes health problems, is for cultural and religious reasons and is prevalent in 28 African nations, as well as parts of the Middle East and Asia.
Located in the Waltham suburb of Boston, Brandeis was founded in 1948 with a Jewish tradition and has about 3600 undergraduate students, according to its web site.
The school came under fire in 2009, when the school’s then-president proposed selling the $US350 million art collection at its Rose Art Museum to raise money in the midst of declining enrolment during the global financial crisis. In the face of criticism from alumni and donors who had provided much of the art, the university backtracked in 2011 opened a renovated facility to show of its collection.
- – – – – – – – – – -
Editorial Footnote: Ibrahim Hooper from the CAIR Terrorist Organization of America is a racist, Islamic supremacist and a genderphobe. He has absolutely ZERO respect for women. Watch the video above and see how he continuously disrespects Megan Kelly by interupting her and talking over her. He is simply a typical Muslim male. No respect for women at all. Simply put, he is a disrespectful piece of sh*t. Women that work for CAIR are “token” women. They are placed in low positions of power, authority and decision making, for purposes of appearance and political correctness. But they do not fool us. We see everyday what Muslim men really think of women. We see it in their actions, not their empty words.
by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
The CAIR terrorist organization in America is fighting to halt the showing of the new documentary entitled ‘Honor Diaries.’ This film takes an inside look at the violence that Muslim girls and women experience within the Islamic “religion.” The documentary features several female Muslim human rights activists from around the world, that are working together to combat honor killing, female genital mutilation (fgm), forced marriage, violence against women and so much more..
CAIR is attempting to hide these realities by silencing the voices of these women, through a campaign of terror and intimidation.
One of three gunshots discovered in a Mississippi mosque. Photo courtesy of: CAIR
A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on state and federal law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for a shooting incident targeting a Mississippi mosque.
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said police are investigating a Tuesday incident in which several shots were fired into doors, windows and walls of the Islamic Center of Hattiesburg. Police are currently looking into the incident as an act of “malicious mischief,” but CAIR is urging a probe of a possible hate motive.
“We have seen too many attacks on mosques nationwide to ignore the possibility of a bias motive for this shooting incident,” said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper.
Hooper noted that CAIR’s Washington state chapter recently held a news conference to ask the FBI to investigate apparently bias-motivated incidents targeting a mosque in that state.
Just yesterday, a man threatened staff at CAIR’s Columbus, Ohio, office.
Also recently, CAIR’s Sacramento Valley chapter called on state and federal law enforcement authorities to investigate vandalism of a California mosque as a possible hate crime.
In December, CAIR urged a hate crime probe of graffiti sprayed on the Islamic Society of Appalachian Region near Princeton, W.Va. The graffiti spray-painted on the mosque and its sign made obscene references to “Allah,” the Arabic word for God. Mosque members say the house of worship was similarly targeted following the 9/11 terror attacks.
CAIR recently welcomed an arrest in the case of a Joplin, Mo., mosque targeted by arson in 2012.
In response to previous attacks on American mosques, CAIR published a booklet called “Best Practices for Mosque and Community Safety” designed to be used by mosque officials, Muslim school administrators and other community leaders and activists who seek to identify and eliminate vulnerabilities to bias-motivated attacks.
To request a free e-copy of CAIR’s “Best Practices for Mosque and Community Safety,” go to:http://www.cair.com/mosque-safety-guide.html
CAIR recently published a major report, “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States,” which identifies 37 organizations dedicated to promoting the type of anti-Islam prejudice that can lead to bias-motivated incidents targeting American Muslims.
CAIR is America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
by, Pipeline News
Last week a new Muslim coalition debuted, calling itself the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations.
While most media types ignored the story, at least one knowledgeable commentator, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – a devout secular Muslim – got it spot on:
“…The USCMO “should be looked at as a circling of the wagons of the inner core of American Islamist organizations…If they were going to start an American Islamist political party those would be the founders. Instead they deceive Americans as an innocent ‘Muslim coalition…'”
USCMO is led by Oussama Jammal and is comprised of a rogue’s list of bad actors including the Council on American Islamic Relations, [CAIR] linked in Federal Court documents to HAMAS and the equally troubling Muslim American Society [MAS].
About MAS, the Investigative Project of Terrorism states, “MAS was founded as the United States Chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood…”
It’s really not necessary to parse the other members of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations since partnering with the likes of CAIR, MAS and Jammal paints the new group with a brush of a decidedly jihadist hue.
Introductory remarks at the PR event which launched USCMO by Jammal indicated that indeed the overarching goal of the group is political, intended to “…build Muslim citizenship rights [and a] database used to enhance political participation in upcoming elections…”
In service of this charter, USCMO intends to conduct a “census” of the American Muslim community obviously with the intention of dumping the information so gathered into this new activist database.
Jammal has a controversial past which we believe is germane in evaluating USCMO’s mission. He had previously been the President of the terror tied Bridgeview Mosque [the Mosque Foundation of Bridgeview], located on the outskirts of Chicago.
Bridgeview is one of many American mosques which have been literally hijacked by radical Muslims, replacing more moderate prayer leaders with extremists, often from outside of the United States and obtaining funding from similarly dubious external sources including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. [for further information we refer our reader to the excellent feature story published by the Chicago Tribune in 2004, Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Kim Barker, Laurie Cohen, Stephen Franklin and Sam Roe, Hardliners Won Battle For Bridgeview Mosque]
Before terror recruitment and financing went underground as a result of 9/11, at one point in its history the anteroom walls of the Bridgeview mosque were covered with HAMAS recruiting posters.
“…Later, he took Khalid and me to the Bridgeview Mosque, where Jamal Said was the imam. I could tell immediately that we were deep in the heart of Hamas territory. The walls of the vestibule were covered with Hamas posters and recruiting literature showing masked gunmen brandishing automatic weapons. It was all in Arabic, but you could see daggers plunged into Jewish hearts wrapped up in American flags. They even had a library filled with militant terrorist videos and books.[excerpted from Steven Emerson’s seminal study, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, and cross-posted by World Net Daily]
Under the guidance of Jammal and with member organizations such as CAIR, USCMO is unabashedly vying for a politically powerful leadership role in extending the Islamic stealth jihad here in the U.S., one that bears close monitoring.
Osama Abu Irshaid of American Muslims for Palestine speaks during the launch of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations in Washington on Wednesday, March 12, 2014. Behind and to his right is Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad. Photo courtesy of: CNS News
by, Patrick Goodenough | CNS News | Family Security Matters
Ten U.S. Islamic organizations have come together to form a new umbrella group to serve as a “representative voice” for American Muslims, and one of their first tasks will be to carry out a census of the community.
Other focus areas for the new U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), according to speakers at the body’s launch in Washington on Wednesday, include enhancing Muslim political engagement and participation in forthcoming elections, civil rights issues, combating “Islamophobia” and having an impact on U.S. foreign and domestic policy.
Participating organizations include high-profile groups that have been dogged by controversy, such as the Muslim American Society (MAS), founded by Muslim Brotherhood members, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named by the Justice Department in 2007 as “unindicted co-conspirators” in its case against the Holy Land Foundation in Texas, subsequently found guilty of raising money for Hamas.
“The new national council’s first priority will be to build on Muslim citizenship rights by conducting a census of American Muslims to create a database that will be used to enhance civic and political participation in upcoming elections,” USCMO said in a statement.
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, a participant at the launch, said that Muslim organizations in 2011 had come up with a “guesstimate” of seven to eight million Muslims in the United States.
“Opponents of the Muslim community shot down the number for political reasons, to two-and-a-half, two million, and sometimes people even said half a million,” he said.
The aim of the census project would be to determine a clear idea of the number and distribution of American Muslims, by 2016.
“Muslim voters can be swing voters in key elections, especially in 2016, and we are aiming at that election to bring a more visible participation from the Muslim community,” Awad said.
Video courtesy of: CAIRtv
Another participant, Osama Abu Irshaid of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), said Muslims “are a growing demographic, numbering in the millions, and it is time to organize ourselves so that we can fully participate productively and efficiently in the political process.”
Abu Irshaid said American Muslims’ purchasing power exceeds $170 billion, “but we want to be more than consumers in this country.”
“We want to fully participate and engage in the civic process. We also want to ward off the evils of bigotry and Islamophobia and begin to define ourselves instead of allowing others – who don’t understand us, who fear us and even hate us – tell us how we should live and worship in this country.”
Abu Irshaid said bringing American Muslims into the political process “can only enrich American foreign policy and enrich our domestic policy as well.”
One prominent anti-Islamist Muslim described the move as “a circling of the wagons” by the nation’s top Islamist organizations.
“If they were going to start an American Islamist political party those would be the founders,” the president of the non-profit American Islamic Forum for Democracy, M. Zuhdi Jasser, said early Thursday.
The USCMO launch was a sign that Islamists were “feeling the heat,” Jasser said.
“America is both getting tuned in to their anti-American agenda as well as also realizing that far more diverse anti-Islamist American Muslim groups – like our American Islamic Leadership Coalition – can provide alternative and authentic Muslim voices beyond the Islamists.”
Although a woman emceed the event, no women were visible among the leaders of the organizations at the launch. USCMO Secretary-General Oussama Jammal said the new body’s stated priorities include “empowering women by developing and supporting their leadership skills, seeking appointment of Muslim women to leadership positions, and also involving women at all levels of our community organizations and expressions.”
The founding members of the new umbrella group are The Mosque Cares, Muslim American Society, American Muslims for Palestine, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim Legal Fund of America, Muslim Alliance in North America, Muslim Ummah of North America, American Muslim Alliance and the Mosque Foundation of Chicago.
How many Muslims?
The size of the Muslim American community has been a point of contention. The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect religious data, but the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by scholars at Trinity College, found the number of American adults self-identifying as Muslims to be 1.35 million, up from 1.1 million in 2001.
In 2010, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life put the number of Muslims in the U.S. at 2.77 million.
In his “address to the Muslim world” in Cairo the previous year, however, President Obama made reference to “nearly seven million American Muslims in our country” – drawing applause for doing so from an American Muslim leader at the time.
The seven million figure has been attributed to a CAIR-sponsored 2001 survey of leaders from a representative sample of mosques, which concluded that two million Muslims were associated with a mosque (with “association” defined as at least attending Eid, the major Islamic holiday at the end of Ramadan).
Based on that number, the survey authors concluded that “estimates of a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America seem reasonable.”
The Islamic Society of North America states that there are “close to seven million Muslims” in the U.S.
CAIR Director Nihad Awad on Capitol Hill:
Video courtesy of: CAIRtv
The “Boys Only” Club. The directors of CAIR, MAS and ICNA. Photo courtesy of: CAIR
Introduction by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
CAIR is a male-dominated Islamic organization that has recently targeted a women’s group by the name of the National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW). This is just the most recent case in “CAIR’s War on Women” and a pattern of Genderphobia seems to be developing. In recent history CAIR has singled-out prominent women such as Michele Bachmann, Pamela Geller, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish and many others.
A petition was recently submitted requesting that an independent exploratory committee convene and initiate an investigation into CAIR’s targeting and harassment of women. It is possible that the legal burden could be met to substantiate “just cause” for gender bias and gender discrimination violations, as well as a violation of the Federal “Hate Crime” statute for targeting a protected status.
The following is an “Action Alert” on CAIR’s website:
The Arizona Chapter of the National Federation of Republican Women.
by, CAIR | h/t Halal Pork Shop
Call on GOP Women’s Group to Stop Promoting Anti-Islam Speakers
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on American Muslims and all those concerned about the proliferation of Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry in our society to contact the NFRW to ask the group to end its support of anti-Islam organizations and speakers. [NFRW claims to be "one of the largest and most influential women's political organizations in the country."]
CAIR’s call to action comes in the wake of a letter it sent to NFRW leaders asking them to institute internal reforms to end the promotion of bigotry and following an announcement that the Lake Federated Republican Women’s Club in Leesburg, Fla. — an NFRW affiliate — will host Islamophobe Jonathan Matusitz at an event on March 12.
NFRW clubs have a record of hosting speakers associated with anti-Muslim bias. The below events, all from 2013, are offered as an illustration:
New York’s Nassau County Federation for Republican Women invited key U.S. Islamophobe Pamela Geller to give a presentation.
Iowa’s Magic Valley Republican Women hosted an event alleging ‘financial jihad’ and a ‘Sharia Effect through Wall Street Banking.’
California’s Orange County Federation of Republican Women hosted Steve Martel of ACT! For America to lecture on the ‘the true history, doctrines and goals of Sharia-compliant Islamists.’
When Harmeet Dhillon, a Sikh, ran for the position of vice chair of the California state Republican Party Vera Eyzendooren, president of the San Bernardino County Federation of Republican Women wrote, ‘I was told by one of Harmeet’s friends that because of her religion, her loyalty is to the Muslim religion. ‘So she will defend a Muslim beheading two men without any hesitation … she is not Republican.’ In a welcome move, the California Federation of Republican Women opposed Eyzendooren’s comments.”
The Bainbridge Island Republican Women in Washington state — another NFRW affiliate – also hosted an anti-Muslim speaker on February 12.
CAIR has provided a “click and send” letter for concerned community members to contact the National Federation of Republican Women and urge the organization to end its promotion of anti-Islam speakers and its alliance with hate groups like ACT! for America.
by, WND | h/t Creeping Sharia
The Justice Department has enough incriminating evidence to file terrorism charges against the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its founders but has chosen not to indict the Washington-based group and its leaders at this time, a veteran FBI agent reveals in a shocking new book.
“There is enough evidence to indict CAIR, but the government chose not to do so at this time,” said former FBI official John Guandolo, author of “Raising a Jihadi Generation: Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in America.”
He suggests the government balked at throwing the book at CAIR for political reasons.
CAIR has cultivated a number of political supporters, mainly among leading Democrats in Washington – including senior White House officials. Secret Service entry logs show CAIR officials have visited the White House several times during the Obama administration.
Despite its designation as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator in 2007, the Muslim pressure group in recent years has successfully lobbied for changes in federal policies dealing with the war on terror. For example, CAIR took credit for helping persuade Attorney General Eric Holder to prohibit religious profiling in terror cases, a decision his department is expected to announce formally soon. It also played a key role in the Pentagon’s recent decision to change long-standing uniform rules to allow military personnel to wear Islamic beards and head coverings.
Moreover, a controversial new rule issued earlier this month by the departments of State and Homeland Security to relax U.S. immigration for Palestinian and other foreign “refugees” who have provided “limited” material support to terrorists also dovetails with CAIR lobbying.
Under the Bush administration, the Justice Department implicated CAIR in a criminal conspiracy to raise money for Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.
CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad, aka Omar Yehya, was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation case. He and CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad remain under FBI investigation, senior FBI officials have confirmed in letters to Congress. Until their ties to Hamas are resolved, the FBI says it will not formally recognize CAIR as a Muslim outreach partner or meet with CAIR officials. The FBI has effectively banned CAIR pending the outcome of the probe.
Starting in the fall of 2008, Guandolo said, “the FBI cut off all ties with CAIR because of their ties to Hamas.”
He explains that CAIR was created in 1994 by the U.S. branch of Hamas, known as the “Palestine Committee,” to function as the “political arm” of the Palestinian terrorist group. A year before founding the front group, Ahmad and Awad had attended a secret meeting with “senior leaders of Hamas” at a Philadelphia hotel that was bugged by the FBI. An internal FBI memo written by the former head of the FBI’s counterterrorism division describes “all attendees” of the meeting – including Ahmad and Awad – as “Hamas members,” Guandolo points out.
“CAIR was the fourth organization created by Hamas to recruit jihadis, raise money and gain media favor for Hamas in America,” Guandolo said, adding that phone books, organizational charts, secret manifestos written in Arabic and other documents the FBI has seized indicate Awad and Ahmad were in leadership positions in the U.S. Palestine Committee prior to the creation of CAIR.
“CAIR is Hamas,” Guandolo flatly states.
Since 9/11, several CAIR officials – including senior officials working in the group’s national office located within blocks of the U.S. Capitol – have been convicted or deported on terrorism-related charges.
CAIR denies any ties to terrorism and slams Guandolo as an “Islamophobe” who seeks to deny constitutional rights for Muslim-Americans.
In a headline posted on the home page of its website, CAIR maintains that Guandolo once said “mosques have no right to exist,” but that claim disappears when visitors click on the headline and go to the full statement. CAIR never sources or supports the claim.
Guandolo says it’s a typical “smear tactic” of CAIR.
A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy as well as the U.S. Army Ranger School, Guandolo joined the FBI in 1996 after resigning his commission in the Marine Corps, where he served as a commander in Iraq and Bosnia.
After the 9/11 attacks, Guandolo was assigned to the counter-terrorism division of the FBI’s Washington field office where he investigated U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, Hamas. In 2006, Guandolo developed the FBI’s first counter-terrorism training program focusing on the global Islamic jihad movement. He was designated a “subject matter expert” by FBI headquarters.
In 2007, Guandolo was presented the “Defender of the Homeland” award by U.S. Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John Kyl. Before resigning from the FBI in December 2008, Guandolo twice received the United States Attorneys Award for Investigative Excellence. He served on the bureau’s SWAT team as well as its surveillance unit.
He now works as a counter-terrorism and security consultant for law enforcement, the intelligence community and the military. He also teaches at the Joint Forces Staff College and the U.S. Army War College.
In 2011, Guandolo delivered a three-day seminar on counter-terrorism to members of the FBI’s National Joint Terrorism Task Force and several other federal agencies at Marine headquarters in Virginia.
Former FBI agent John Guandolo’s counterterrorism seminar is taking fire from a Muslim group. Photo courtesy of: Watchdog.org
by, Kenric Ward | Watchdog.org
CULPEPER, Va. – The Culpeper County Sheriff’s Office is hosting a counterterrorism program conducted by a controversial formerFBI agent – and catching flak for it.
John Guandolo, the presenter, was branded a ”notorious anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist” by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
CAIR urged Culpeper Sheriff Scott Jenkins to disinvite Guandolo and distance his department from the “Jihadi Networks in America”program, which is billed as “Advanced Counterterrorism Training.”
Sheriff Jenkins told Watchdog.org that 20 staffers from his office will attend the seminar Feb. 25-27 at the Culpeper campus of Germanna Community College.
Tickets are $225 per person. Because his department is hosting the event, Jenkins said staffers would “receive a discounted rate.” He did not specify the savings.
As for Guandolo, Jenkins said “his expenses are his responsibility.”
Sheriff Scott Jenkins says Sheriff’s Office staffers will attend the counterterrorism seminar at a discounted rate.Photo courtesy of: Watchdog.org
Gearing his Culpeper program to “law enforcement, U.S. military and national security pros,” Guandolo told Watchdog that the conference is closed to the media and general public. He said he will conduct a public program in Fairfax in March.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal activist organization that monitors so-called “hate groups,” has its sights on Guandolo.
“It’s hard to believe that the Culpeper County Sheriff’s Office would knowingly associate itself with such a disreputable character,” said the SPLC’s Josh Glasstetter.
Guandolo, who authored the book, “Raising a Jihadi Generation,” describes himself as a “counterterrorism expert.”
But Corey Saylor, director of Washington, D.C.-based CAIR’s Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia, counters:
“Mr. Guandolo has a lengthy record of anti-Muslim extremism and unprofessional behavior. His views on Islam are the equivalent of historical anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic falsehoods. Guandolo offers only his own prejudiced and inaccurate conspiratorial views, not solid counterterrorism training.”
Glasstetter alleged that Guandolo “regularly attacks the U.S. government, claims that the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is a secret Muslim agent for the Saudi government and says that American Muslims ‘do not have a First Amendment right to do anything.’”
Former FBI Agent: US Infiltrated at Highest Levels
Islamic Center of Manteca, California
by, News Fix Now
MANTECA, CA – Two eggs, some hash browns and a side of bacon spells one word — DELICIOUS! But one breakfast item is spelling hate for a California mosque.
Dr. Mohammad Elfarra says it all started after he came out of a daily prayer service and saw the front sign and parking lot had been spray painted with the words ‘F-word Islam.’ The vandals also left strips of bacon.
“Bacon, lard or anything from the pig is prohibited by the Bible and Koran,” said Elfarra.
This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Last year, vandals spray painted another hateful message on the sign. But members of the mosque say they’re not concerned about catching and punishing the vandals. They’re more worried that the hateful messages could turn into something far more dangerous.
The council on American-Islamic relations is asking the FBI to investigate.
Video Courtesy of: The CAIR/HAMAS Terrorist Organization
by, Paul Austin Murphy | American Thinker | h/t Blazing CatFur
Although this piece deals only with cases and laws in the UK, it will no doubt have almost exact parallels in the United States. The names of the laws will of course be different and not entirely identical in content.
Nonetheless, the political and legal ramifications will be much the same on both sides of The Pond.
Introduction: Discrimination Against Muslims?
It’s crystal clear that Muslims — or at least their leaders, lawyers and activists — believed that the Race Relations Act of 1976 (now replaced by the Equality Act 2010) was clearly not enough for them. As the Muslim lawyer and writer (for The Islamic Foundation) Nadeem Malik puts it (in the book British Muslims Between Assimilation and Segregation):
“In discrimination terms, the only tangible avenue available to Muslims historically has been to pursue an action under the Race Relations Act 1976.”
Similarly, Muslims had problems with the Public Order Act of 1986 and the Crimes and Disorder Act of 1998.
Nadeem Malik also argues that English law “could have extended the Public Order Act 1986 to include an offence of incitement to religious hatred.” In addition, the Crimes and Disorder Act 1998 should have included “religiously aggravated offences.”
Malik is not even happy with what he refers to as “discourses on ‘equality.'” More specifically, they are not “religion [Islam] friendly.” Or, in other words, the Commission for Racial Equality does not “provide assistance to those suffering from discrimination on religious grounds.”
So Muslims feel discriminated against not only by those omnipresent ‘Islamophobes'; but also by the law itself.
You’ll find Muslims generally aren’t talking about discrimination in any obvious or real senses: such as when a employer refuses to employ a person simply because he’s a Muslim; or when an employer makes Muslims sit in a different part of the communal dining room. Why do I think that? Because laws already exist to deal with such acts of discrimination. That is, if an employer sacked someone simply for being a Muslim (or if he was shown to be refusing work to Muslims), he would be prosecuted or fined within a blink of an eye.
In actual fact, what we are talking about here is Muslims demanding that they be allowed to work according to the dictates of sharia law (i.e., at their places of employment). In terms of actual example, we are talking about:
i) The “discrimination” that is not allowing Muslim schoolteachers the “right” to take every Friday afternoon off in order to pray.
ii) Muslim nurses — or even surgeons — being allowed to wear the hijab and even the niqab in the surgery.
iii) The right of Muslims working on the tills of supermarkets to refuse to serve customers who are buying alcohol, pork products and Bible-related goods.
iv) The right of Muslims to have prayer-rooms installed in all workplaces.
v) And Premier League footballers refusing to wear the logos of companies which aren’t sharia-friendly/’compliant.’
In other words, none of this has anything at all to do with either racism in the workplace or people being sacked simply because they are Muslims. This is about the ostensible discrimination that is not allowing sharia law to be upheld within the workplace. It is, therefore, effectively about the supposed right of Muslims to Islamize the working environment.
That prime contention is the fact that Sikhs and Jews, legally speaking, are deemed to constitute racial groups, whereas Muslims aren’t.
The Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (set up in 1997) saw the “anomaly” this way:
“It has been established through case law that members of two world faiths, Judaism and Sikhism, are fully protected under the Race Relations Act 1976, since they are considered to belong to distinct ethnic groups.”
This is clearly problematic for Muslims. Thus the Commission immediately went on to say that that it “is a serious anomaly that no such protection exists for members of other faiths.” Despite that, this is the conundrum that Muslims find themselves in: on the one hand Muslims continuously stress the “universal nature of Islam” and the fact that “Muslims come from all races.” (Or, as that Commission put it, “Muslims (as also Christians) would emphatically not wish to be seen as belonging to a single ethnic group.”) But on the other hand, being seen as a single race will most certainly confer upon Muslims legal — and therefore social and political — advantages.
Some of these anomalies are precisely that — anomalies. For example, one tribunal, according to Malik, claimed that:
“Sikhs are geographically defined by originating from a particular place in India and that they are bound by their culture as well as their religion.”
So if that’s true about Sikhs, then, according to Malik, it’s also true about Mirpuris from Kashmir. That is, the Mirpuris “have a particular language, geographic heritage, ancestral links, common culture and religious values.” It’s also true “with regard to Pushtuns [Pashtuns?] from Pakistan.” Yet, unlike Sikhs, “it has been found that Mirpuris from Kashmir are not a racial group.”
The illogicality of the argument here — especially from a lawyer — is blatant. Only a tiny a minority of Muslims come from Kashmir or the Pashtun-inhabited regions of Pakistan. Sikhs, on the whole, can trace their heritage to specific parts of India. There will of course be a tiny number of Sikhs who won’t be able to do so. Nonetheless, compared to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t come from Kashmir or the Pashtun-inhabited regions of Pakistan, the comparison completely breaks down — and Nadeem Malik must know that. The only argument Malik can uphold is that Mirpuris and Pashtuns constitute racial/ethnic groups and that they also happen to be Muslims. What has that to do with the legal status of Muslims (as Muslims) in the UK?
The obvious answer to all this is to fully separate racial/ethnic groups from religious groups. Nonetheless, it seems that many Muslims — including Malik himself — aren’t happy with that conclusion. Why? Because, as I said, Muslims would benefit enormously from being seen as a single racial group.
Of course this racialization of Muslims is clearly ridiculous. Muslims themselves – when coming at this issue from the perspective of “Islamic universalism” — agree. Indeed the ridiculous nature of this racialization of Muslims is noted by Malik himself — if only indirectly. He cites a finding of the House of Lords, which:
“stated that a person could fall into a particular racial group by birth or by adopting and following the customs of the group.”
Yes; you read that correctly! If a white person were to become a Sikh, he would be deemed — by the Lords and the law generally — to have suddenly fallen under another racial group. And it seems that Muslims also want this to apply to white — or yellow — Muslims.
A Case Study
Malik cites various concrete legal cases which demonstrate this attempt to racialize Muslims and even Islam itself. For example, he cites the case of J H Walker v. Hussain and others in which seventeen Muslim workers were dismissed for attending what Malik calls “Eid Prayers.” Malik doesn’t give many details other than to tell us the racial origin of the sacked workers. He also tells us that they were sacked “on religious grounds.” However, because spending your time praying to Allah (when you should have been working) will not sound too dandy to either employers or to non-Muslims, this mass sacking was given a racial — or indeed racist — veneer. That is, the Tribunal:
“considered that the effect would be to discriminate against most people from the Indian sub-continent and, therefore, would constitute indirect discrimination on racial grounds.”
In other words, these Muslims weren’t sacked because of their skin color or their genetic makeup. They were sacked because they were praying during working hours.
Malik himself sees the problem of racialising this particular case. For example, “if the seventeen Muslims had been white Muslims they would have had no remedy.” Too right! Hence the required racialization of Muslims and therefore the localization of an otherwise supposedly “universal religion.” That is, in order to be given the privilege of praying during working hours (or, in other cases, of having halal produce, Muslim prayer areas, the separation of the sexes, a non-alcohol environment, etc.), these Muslims had to be viewed in strictly racial terms — as a single ethnic group from the “Indian sub-continent.” And that is precisely why they won the case.
Despite that reasonable conclusion, Malik wasn’t happy with such a verdict. Quite clearly to most Muslims, every demand from fellow Muslims (as Muslims) should be met; whether by schools, factories, McDonald’s, universities, Premier League football teams and indeed by every workplace in which Muslims work.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the OIC Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)
by, Soeren Kern | The Gatestone Institute – International Policy Council | h/t Blazing CatFur
The common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of speech.
“The Istanbul Process started with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton…. We need to build on it.” — OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Isanoglu
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual “Islamophobia” report.
But the primary objective of the OIC—headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews—has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”
In this context, the OIC’s annual Islamophobia report—an integral part of a sustained effort to prove the existence of a “culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims” in the West—is in essence a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of “Islamophobia,” a nebulous concept invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s.
Islamophobia: A Threat to Worldwide Free-Speech
The OIC report comprises five main chapters and several annexes aimed at documenting “incidents of slandering and demeaning Muslims and their sacred symbols including attacks on mosques, verbal abuses and physical attacks against adherents of Islam, mainly due to their cultural traits.”
But the common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of speech, which the OIC claims has “contributed enormously to snowball Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a ‘phobia’ of Islam and Muslims.”
According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding “the perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension, suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims.”
Chapter 1 of the report deals with “Islamophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims,” and purports to reveal the “unabated rise of Islamophobia in Western countries, thereby exacerbating tensions at all levels and constituting additional obstacles to the diversity and multicultural fabrics of the societies.”
According to the OIC, freedom of speech is to blame for the “perpetuation of Islamophobia,” which:
“…has become increasingly widespread, which, in turn, has caused an increase in the actual number of hate crimes committed against Muslims. These crimes range from the usual verbal abuse and discrimination, particularly in the fields of education and employment, to other acts of violence and vandalism, including physical assaults, attacks on Islamic centers and the desecration of mosques and cemeteries.”
“In this context, acceptance of various forms of intolerance, including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes against Islam and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards proliferation of intolerant societies. This process is further supported by… the exploitation of freedom of expression and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an inescapable conflict of civilizations.”
Another factor favoring “the climate of intolerance” is:
“…the negative role played by major media outlets who not only propagate stereotypes and misperceptions about Islam, but also undermine and usually keep shadowed any meaningful instance of individuals or groups speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred and violence. This biased approach of the media has helped drawing an emphatically demonized, sometimes dehumanized, image of Muslims in the minds of a certain class of people which is predisposed to xenophobic feelings due to the increasingly dire economic situation, or the simply to the irrational fear of the other.”
Chapter 2 of the report deals with “Manifestations of Islamophobia in the West.” According to the OIC:
“The number of Islamophobic incidents continues to rise in the US, as a result of anti-Muslim propaganda. It is particularly alarming that anti-Muslim sentiments are taking deeper roots infiltrating further in the educational system. Notable among several other worrying trends/cases are: the initiatives taken by a leading and powerful US legislator [US Representative Peter King] to convene special Congressional Hearings on Radicalization of Islam in the US… In the same vein, the Republican Party in the recent 2013 [sic] US Presidential elections also used the anti-Islam card as a strategy.”
“With regard to Islamophobic trends in Europe, various reports and polls have revealed growing misperception vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims. Among the most common and recurring… are the ideas that Muslims are inclined to violence including revenge and retaliation; that Islam is an inherently expansionist religion, which strives for political influence, and whose followers are obsessed with proselytizing others, and more generally that Islam deprives women of their rights and encourages religious fanaticism and radicalism. According to the same polls, only a minor portion of the public tends to see Islam in a more positive light, as being a religion of peace that preaches love for neighbors, charity, openness and tolerance… Muslims who live in xenophobic environments are more exposed to daily stress and other forms of moral prejudice.”
The OIC concludes that “journalists and media organizations have a responsibility to avoid promoting rhetoric of hate by acting as a platform for its widespread dissemination.”
Chapter 3 of the OIC report highlights “Some Positive Developments” in terms of initiatives and other steps and positions taken to combat Islamophobia, including:
“…the condemnation of anti-Muslim hate speech by various quarters, including non-Muslim religious leaders; the barring from entry of certain Islamophobes to a number of countries where they intended to take part in anti-Muslim rallies or deliver inflammatory lectures; the recognition of Muslim holidays and other strict sanctions taken against acts of manifest religious intolerance. It was noted with satisfaction that a number of international organizations, including UNSECO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, have recognized the danger posed by Islamophobia and have taken concrete steps to combat it, notably by laying down Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims.”
Chapter 4 of the report, “OIC Initiatives and Activities to Counter Islamophobia,” focused on the OIC’s ongoing efforts to promote the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam. The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.
In recent years, the OIC has been engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of… religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011 (with the support of the Obama Administration)—together with the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011—is widely viewed as marking a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
According to the OIC report:
“In November 2012, a special ministerial barnstorming session was convened on the sidelines of the 39th session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers, which aimed at devising an OIC Approach for Combating Discrimination and Intolerance against Muslims…The session… called for constituting a panel of eminent persons including renowned legal experts and human rights practitioners to offer its expert view on the issue of religious intolerance and incitement to hatred to the 12th Islamic Summit. The panel, which was held in Istanbul, in January 2013, expressed support for the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, on combating intolerance, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence on the basis of religion or belief.”
“The OIC also hosted the 3rd Meeting of International Experts on the Implementation of UNHRC Resolution 16/18, under the framework of the Istanbul Process… The meeting… attended by delegations from over sixty countries… reaffirmed the international community’s commitment to Resolution 16/18 and the need to focus on its implementation.”
Chapter 5 of the OIC report provides a set of conclusions and recommendations, which call on Western governments, international organizations and non-state actors to:
“Take all necessary measures within their power and legal/jurisdictional systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment… by strictly enforcing applicable hate crime and discrimination laws;
“Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia… based on internationally recognized human rights principles and standards;
“Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;
“Take all necessary measures to ensure that the media refrains from serving as a platform for the dissemination of hate speech… by associating extremism and terrorism to Islam and Muslims… and presents the true positive nature of Islam.
“Implement provisions of UNHRC Resolution 16/18 through the Istanbul Process mechanism as it offers a positive platform for debate, exchange of best practices and maintaining of a common and unified stance.”
The report states that “the OIC and the Member States should not be complacent in underscoring the fact that our present day world is gradually being driven towards the dangerous precipices of growing intolerance of religious and cultural diversity. This is the clear and present danger that the OIC has been consistent in warning the international community against. The sooner the phenomenon of Islamophobia is addressed, the better it is for ensuring peaceful coexistence of the present as well for the future generations to come.”
The report concludes with the transcript of a speech by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in which he thanks American and European political leaders for their help (here and here) in advancing his efforts to restrict free speech in the West.
“The Istanbul Process initiated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton to build further on the consensus building that went into Resolution 16/18 must be carried forward. While the resolution forms a triumph of multilateralism, Istanbul Process must also be seen as a poster child of OIC-US-EU cooperation… I appreciate that this Process has come to be recognized as the way forward by all stakeholders… We need to build on it,” Ihsanoglu said.
T H E I S T A N B U L P R O C E S S i s T Y R A N N Y