by, Bob Price | Breitbart Texas | h/t Brandon Watkins III
GARLAND, Texas – The protest over the Honor the Prophet conference nearly turned violent as the two sides clashed over an incident in the parking lot. The confrontation occurred as a Muslim driver was laying on his car horn as he attempted to leave the parking lot and a protester placed a sign with an image of Muhammad under the front tire of the Muslim’s vehicle.
The incident occurred shortly after another heated verbal altercation occurred in the parking lot driveway that served as a demilitarized zone of sorts. The crowds from both sides had filled the driveway and the Muslim driver was attempting to exit the parking lot. He was blaring his horn in an inflammatory manner. One of the protesters placed a sign with the image of Muhammad under the front right tire of the vehicle and the driver stopped before running over the image.
The vehicle was quickly surrounded by people from both groups and heated words were exchanged. One of the Muslim-side protesters wearing a La Raza brown beret a Che Guevara shirt attempted to remove the sign from in front of the vehicle and a scuffle ensued. Calm leadership on both sides de-escalated the confrontation before it got out of hand.
Garland police moved in quickly and moved both groups back to their side of the driveway and peace was restored.
Other verbal confrontations occurred throughout the event. No physical confrontations occurred and the protest remained peaceful. No arrests are believed to have been made by police who were present in large numbers.
by, Sharona Schwartz | The Blaze
The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society are each registering their outrage over reportedly being designated terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates.
The two American groups were listed alongside the Islamic State group, Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood branches, as well as European Muslim groups in Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Finland, Britain’s Cordoba Foundation and the Muslim Association of Britain. The full list, numbering 83 groups, was approved by the UAE cabinet Saturday and was posted by the official news agency WAM.
CAIR described its inclusion on the terrorism list as “shocking and bizarre” and called on the UAE government to remove them.
“There is absolutely no factual basis for the inclusion [of] CAIR and other American and European civil rights and advocacy groups on this list,” CAIR said in a statement Sunday.
“Like the rest of the mainstream institutions representing the American Muslim community, CAIR’s advocacy model is the antithesis of the narrative of violent extremists,” the group said. “We call on the United Arab Emirates cabinet to review this list and remove organizations such as CAIR, the Muslim American Society and other civil society organizations that peacefully promote civil and democratic rights and that oppose terrorism whenever it occurs, wherever it occurs and whoever carries it out.”
CAIR said it recently joined other Muslim-American leaders to release an open letter in Arabic “refuting the ideology of the terrorist group ISIS and urging its supporters to repent and ‘return to the religion of mercy.’”
The Muslim American Society said in its own statement that it was “shocked” to learn of its inclusion.
“The Muslim American Society is a religious community service organization that serves people in the United States. We have no dealings with the United Arab Emirates, and hence are perplexed by this news,” the group said. “Before proceeding any further, we would first like to verify the accuracy of the news reports and receive an official response from the United Arab Emirates regarding the reports. We would also like to seek the help of our government to address this issue.”
CAIR was named by federal prosecutors in 2007 along with about 300 others as an“unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas funding case connected with the Holy Land Foundation trial. Hamas has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 2007. BuzzFeed noted that a federal judge later ruled that the government should not have included CAIR as a co-conspirator list, and CAIR was never charged with any crime.
CAIR, an Islamic advocacy group, was one of the organizations that sponsored the first Muslim prayer service held at the Washington National Cathedral on Friday.
The Associated Press noted that the UAE’s decision to include the Muslim Brotherhood on its terrorist group list followed similar terrorism designations for the Muslim Brotherhood by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
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.