Surprising New Allies for Asia Bibi?


Asia Bibi spent about nine years on a Pakistani prison death row convicted under Islamic Supremacist Blasphemy laws. Only because some Muslim accusers couldn’t get their story straight, the Pakistan Supreme Court set aside her conviction. Her accused crime: Refreshing her thirst at a Muslim well (which irritated Muslims anyway) in which an argument with Muslim co-workers over who was better person – Jesus or Muhammad (Undoubtedly giving the Islamic Supremacists the excuse to cause harm to the Christian Asia Bibi – aka Aasiya Noreen).

 

Asia Bibi is out of prison yet STILL stashed away by the Pakistan government hoping a nation will step up against Islamic Supremacism and grant her and her family asylum. A CFI article has a story that some prestigious Pakistan Muslim scholars are condemning the violence aimed at Asia Bibi. I’m still not reading an asylum promise.

 

JRH 1/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

********************

Surprising New Allies for Asia Bibi?

 

January 11, 2019

Christian Freedom International

 

Photo from AsiaNews.it

 

Pakistan Muslim Clerics Denounce Violence

 

Over 500 Muslim scholars gathered in Pakistan to condemn terrorism and extremism. They signed a declaration rejecting violence and murder committed “under the pretext of religious belief” and criticized the use of fatwas (edicts) by radical clerics.

 

They also called Asia Bibi’s case an absolute “priority”. The Christian mother was acquitted of blasphemy after 9 years in jail but lives in hiding from violent mobs organized by extremist Islamist leaders. Pakistan’s Supreme Court called the case a “feast of falsehoods” and her accusers were guilty of insulting her Christian beliefs.

 

Christians in Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries live in constant fear of rising radicalism. “Refugees tell us that the spread of Islamist ideology turns life-long neighbors into terrorists,” said Wendy Wright with Christian Freedom International.

 

The Pakistan Ulema Council signed the declaration in Islamabad on January 6, 2018. Muslim scholars formed the group to be a voice for peace, stability and religious harmony in the county. They declared 2019 a “Year to annihilate terrorism, extremism and sectarian violence from Pakistan” and stated, “non-Muslim citizens must enjoy the same rights as everyone else.”

 

“We tried to issue a similar declaration in 2002,” the chairman of Pakistan Ulema Council told ucanews.com, “but the government ignored such efforts. People were afraid to speak about harmony between sects and other faiths.”

 

The declaration states all citizens, regardless of religion “have the constitutional right to live in the country following their cultural and religious principles”. The government must “ensure the protection of the life and property of non-Muslims living in Pakistan.”  Murder in the name of religion “is contrary to the teachings of Islam”.

 

The clerics affirmed the right for religious groups to meet and organize and asks authorities to ban “any material (books, pamphlets, audio) that incites religious hatred” and to punish anyone that threatens “the sacred places of non-Muslims”.

 

The resolution also criticizes fatwas against public servants.

 

The Pakistan Ulema Council plans to keep a check on non-Islamic decrees beginning in late March. Over 5,000 religious scholars and clerics will meet in Islamabad in March for “The 4th International Message of Islam Conference”.

 

Radical Islamists killed two government officials who defended Asia Bibi, and threatened to murder Pakistan justices who acquitted Asia Bibi.

 

“Too many leaders – religious and government – fear criticizing radical Islamists. This declaration is a step toward countering Islamists’ murderous hatred and promoting respect and rights for Christians,” said Wendy Wright.

 

This article was compiled from reports from Asia News, Zenit and UCANews

___________________

© 2018 Christian Freedom International. All Rights Reserved.

To God be the Glory

 

About CFI

 

Our Mission

 

The mission of Christian Freedom International is to help Christians who are persecuted and suffering for their faith in Jesus Christ. We are a non-denominational human rights organization providing real solutions to conditions of oppression and misery caused by religious persecution. We reach the part of the persecuted Church that is the most repressed, most at risk, and most isolated. In areas of disaster, we provide immediate relief to Christians, and their communities, who are ignored by conventional aid organizations.

 

It is our privilege to minister to the Persecuted through Bible distribution, medical aid, resettlement assistance, advocacy, asylum case-work, and aid to the disabled; to sponsor schools, vocational training, and self-help initiatives; to provide these services at no charge by CFI staff and volunteers. It is our goal to work together with Christians at home to ease the burdens of our struggling brethren around the world.

 

Our History

 

Since 1998, Christian Freedom International has been on the forefront in the battle for the rights of persecuted Christians around the world. CFI has come to the aid of thousands of suffering men, women, and children through the distribution of food, water, medicine, clothing, Bibles, and other basic supplies in countries where persecution is most intense. CFI has built field hospitals, schools in refugee camps, Bible Schools, and Centers to aid disabled Christians. But CFI’s work is not limited to the distribution of relief aid. Over the years, CFI has consistently remained active as a “voice for the voiceless” in Washington, DC, providing political advocacy and practical grassroots action on behalf of the millions of Christians who routinely suffer for their faith.

 

CFI Logo

 

The CFI logo is of a lone CFI Backpack medic delivering aid to Christians in the war-zones of Burma. In 1998, CFI pioneered the backpack medic program and the lifesaving work has continued ever since.

 

READ THE REST

 

Violence Continues as Pakistani Islamists Protest Christian Woman’s “Blasphemy” Acquittal


I am not surprised that Pakistan Muslims are so supremacist that they have reacted with such viciousness toward Asia Bibi due to the Pakistan Court overturning her conviction and I also expect Mullah egged-on violence against Pakistani Christians to follow (if indeed it may have already occurred and not yet reported by Western media).

 

If anyone has an update on Asia Bibi, such as a prison release date, health report, asylum in a nation outside of Pakistan, etc.; please email me at john.houk@gmail.com or those of you who know my private email – you can data there.

 

Below is an IPT report I found on the Asia Bibi situation.

 

JRH 11/2/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Violence Continues as Pakistani Islamists Protest Christian Woman’s “Blasphemy” Acquittal

 

By IPT News

Nov 2, 2018 at 9:15 am

Investigative Project on Terrorism

 

Thousands of Islamist demonstrators in Pakistan continue to violently protest the acquittal of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who was falsely accused of blasphemy and spent the last eight years on death row.

 

Protesters clashed with police, burned cars and disrupted traffic, blocking ambulances. Schools across Pakistan have been closed and a major zone in Islamabad is sealed off.

 

Asia Bibi was charged in 2009 with insulting Islam’s prophet Muhammad after drinking from a cup of water before allowing fellow Muslim farm laborers drink first. After being beaten in her home, Bibi’s accusers say that she confessed to blasphemy. She was sentenced to death in 2010.

 

On Wednesday, Pakistan’s Supreme Court overturned her sentence. For that, the Supreme Court judges “deserve to be killed,” said Muhammad Afzal Qadri, leader of the extremist Islamist Tehreek-i-Labaik party. But Bibi has not been released from prison, as negotiations for her safety broke down between the government and Islamists.

 

“Which government can function like this, blackmailed by protests?” asked Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan, accusing the Islamists for “inciting [people] for their own political gain.”

 

Radical religious groups, including a charity founded by UN-designated terrorist Hafiz Saeed, vowed to join the protests today.

 

Public support for blasphemy laws in Pakistan remains high, driving a wedge between the ruling party and extreme Islamists stoking protests. And that sentiment is not limited to South Asia.

 

A Maryland mosque last year praised the terrorist who killed a former Pakistani governor critical of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Salman Taseer was targeted by radical Islamists after he defended Bibi. In 2011, his bodyguard Mumtaz Qadri shot and killed him.

 

American Islamist groups said nothing about Taseer’s killing.

 

After Qadri was executed for the killing in 2016, the Gulzar E Madina mosque hosted a celebration in his memory, “attended by dozens of people including young children and teenagers.”

 

Radical Islamists in Pakistan, whether organized terrorist groups or mobs of people, often take matters into their hands.

 

In April 2017, a violent mob beat to death a university student who faced a blasphemy accusation that investigators later deemed false.

 

Sunni terrorist groups connected to extremist Pakistani organizations last year targeted minorities in several deadly attacks including Ahmadi Muslims, the Shi’a Hazara community, and Christians.

 

In December, for example, Islamic State terrorists killed nine civilians in a targeted attack involving a suicide bomber against a Methodist church in Quetta.

 

Pakistan has charged about 1,000 people with blasphemy since 1987, and convictions can carry the death penalty. These laws especially target members of Pakistan’s minority communities. But the law can be also applied to anyone that is seen as a threat to the government.

 

According to the US State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report for 2017, civil society organizations “reported lower courts often failed to adhere to basic evidentiary standards in blasphemy cases.”

 

Asia Bibi’s acquittal highlights the plight of all religious minorities in Pakistan and the destructive power of radical Islamists across the country.

__________________

Support IPT in their efforts in spite of Multiculturalist attempts to block Conservative/Counterjihad info websites.

 

About The Investigative Project on Terrorism

 

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) is a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995. It is recognized as the world’s most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups. For more than two decades, the IPT has investigated the operations, funding, activities and front groups of Islamic terrorist and extremist groups in the United States and around the world. It has become a principal source of critical evidence to a wide variety of government offices and law enforcement agencies, as well as the U.S. Congress and numerous public policy forums. Research carried out by the IPT team has formed the basis for thousands of articles and television specials on the subject of radical Islamic involvement in terrorism, and has even led to successful government action against terrorists and financiers based in the United States.

 

The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Tax deductible contributions should be made to its fund-raising arm, the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.

 

Founder and executive director Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and author. Consulted by the White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies, Mr. Emerson is in great demand as one of the most astute, insightful and knowledgeable experts in the world today on the threat and prospects of militant Islamic terrorism. He has been quoted in more than 500 news articles and has appeared frequently on network television. His 2002 best-selling book, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, provides the first context and understanding for how one of the most notorious terrorist groups in the world could have plotted the worst terrorist attack on American soil without detection or scrutiny by American authorities.

 

What others say about Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism: READ THE REST

 

Dr. Shaw Promotes Valuable D.C. Counterjihad Conference


Dr. Leslie Shaw, PhD

 

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2018

 

I received an unsolicited email from a Dr. Leslie Shaw, an Associate Professor teaching at the Paris campus of ESCP Europe (acronym for: École supérieure de commerce de Paris). This Is a business college located at various metropolitan cities across Europe.

 

I’m not sure how Dr. Shaw discovered me, but I’d like to believe it was one of the three blogs I post at. The nature of the email was to inform the date of a Counterjihad Conference to be held at Washington DC. The Conference stand is “to break the taboo and tackle head-on the campaign being waged by political Islam to make Western business Sharia-compliant.” The Conference is sponsored by the Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management (FIRM).

Dr. Shaw’s email is actually a forward from him to FIRM Europe (and probably other recipients not listed) on 3/28/18. Here is the forwarded portion of the email sent to me by Dr. Shaw:

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

On Thursday 26 April 2018 Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management is hosting a conference at the US Capitol to break the taboo and tackle head-on the campaign being waged by political Islam to make Western business Sharia-compliant.

 

In France corporates are gradually overcoming a reluctance to discuss this issue out of fear of accusations of Islamophobia but in the USA the core value of religious freedom is being used by Islamists as an instrument to stifle debate.

 

The conference will include speakers from France, the UK, Belgium, Hungary and Israel as well as from the USA.

 

Admission is free. Participants may make a donation towards the cost of organizing this event, the goals of which are to raise awareness of and explore ways to combat the encroachment of political Islam in the corporate sector.

 

Details in the attachments and links:

 

https://firmeurope.com/events

 

https://firm.eventsmart.com/events/islamic-radicalism-workplace-2/

 

This event is the second in a biannual series that will alternate between Paris and Washington. The next conference will be held at the National Assembly, Paris on 15 November 2018.

 

Best regards,

Leslie Shaw
Associate Professor
—————–
Paris Campus/République

79 avenue de la République – 75543 Paris Cedex 11 – France

 

Dr. Shaw sent two PDF promo attachments with the email. Thanks to the magic of conversion software, below is the text of those PDFs. After the two PDFs, I’m cross posting a Clarion Project interview with Dr. Shaw the FIRM sponsored conference, Political Islam in the Workplace. 

 

JRH 4/12/18

Please Support NCCR

***********************

FIRM

London Center for Policy Research

American Center for Democracy

 

PRESENTING A GROUNDBREAKING CONFERENCE

 

Political Islam in the Workplace

Thursday 26th April 2018

 

On Thursday 26 April 2018 at the United States Capitol, Washington DC from 3pm to 9pm FIRM, London Center for Policy Research and American Center for Democracy are hosting the world’s most informed experts on Islamic radicalism and executives from flagship corporates.

 

They’ll be coming together in one room for America’s first Political Islam in the Workplace conference.

 

A wide range of topics will be covered;

 

  • from religious accommodation to detection of radicalization

 

  • from lethal attacks on soft targets to lawfare against employers

 

  • from micro-financing of jihad to security and protection of employees and customers and everything in between!

 

We’re curating an incredible group of people who are working tirelessly to find solutions to the global scourge of Islamic radicalism. Admission to hear them speak and ask them questions is by registration and we’re vetting every prospective attendee to make sure we have the right people in the room.

 

This event is a unique opportunity for lawmakers and professionals from the public and private sectors to learn from leading experts on this crucial topic, share experiences, exchange best practises and better equip themselves to deal with the security, legal and HR challenges posed by the growing threat of Islamic radicalism to free enterprise and democracy.

 

To apply

 

  1. Go to our website – https://firmeurope.com/

 

  1. Submit your email

 

  1. Click registration link on Events page

 

All conference attendees will receive a copy of our report.

 

++++++++++++++++++

London Center for Policy Research

FIRM

American Center for Democracy

 

Political Islam in the Workplace

 

03:00 – 03:30 | Registration

 

03.30 – 04.00 | Welcome and opening address

 

  • Eli Gold

 

  • Leslie Shaw – Islamic Radicalism in the Workplace Survey Results

 

04.00 – 05 :30 | Panel 1 – Political Islam and the Workplace

 

  1. Rachel Ehrenfeld – The Islamist Economic Warfare against the West

 

  1. Pierre Spain – Islamist Infiltration of Labor Unions at Paris CDG Airport

 

  1. Herbert London – Political Correctness and An Inability to Recognize the Threat

 

  1. Philippe Chansay-Wilmotte – Freeing Business from the Shackles of Political Islam

 

 

05:30 – 06:30 | Dinner and networking break

 

06:30 – 08:00 | Panel 2 – Managing the Threat

 

  1. Zoltán Ladányi – A Blueprint for Regulating Religion in the Workplace

 

  1. Joseph Trindal – Addressing Radicalization as another Insider Threat in Sensitive Job Categories

 

  1. Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin – The Workplace Jihadi’s Inside-Out World

 

  1. Frank Figliuzzi – Lessons Learned: Case Studies from the Corporate World

 

 

08:00 – 08:15 | Keynote

 

  • To be announced

 

08:15 – 08:30 | Closing remarks

 

  • Eli Gold

 

  • Leslie Shaw

 

Speakers

 

  • Philippe Chansay-Wilmotte – Lawyer at Brussels Bar with extensive experience working for governments, including Islamic governments.

 

  • Rachel Ehrenfeld – Director of American Center for Democracy and Economic Warfare Institute.

 

  • Frank Figliuzzi – Chief Operating Officer, ETS Global Risk Management, Inc; NBC News National Security Analyst; Former Director, Corporate Investigations and Assistant Chief Security Officer, the General Electric Company; Former FBI Assistant Director of Counterintelligence.

 

  • Eli Gold – Senior Vice President, London Center for Policy Research; Senior Fellow, Soran University; Former President and Chairman, The Harbour League.

 

  • Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin – External Expert, Universidad de Granada; Psychoanalyst, Arabist, Counter-Terrorism Expert.

 

  • Zoltan Ladanyi – LPN Global Security Solutions.

 

  • Herbert London – President, London Center for Policy Research; Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Former President, Hudson Institute; Professor Emeritus and former John M. Olin Professor of Humanities, New York University.

 

  • Leslie Shaw – Associate Professor, ESCP Europe Business School.

 

  • Pierre Spain – Corporate Director, Delta Air Lines (rtd).

 

  • Joseph Trindal – Director of Programs, Engility Corporation; Leading Department of Justice ICITAP and OPDAT programs; Former President, InfraGard National Capital Region; Former President and Chief Operating Officer, Akal Security.

 

+++++++++++++++++++

Is Islamism a Problem in America’s Workplaces?

 

By CLARION PROJECT 

March 29, 2018

Clarion Project

DAGENHAM, ENGLAND – JANUARY 13: An employee works on an engine production line at a Ford factory on January 13, 2015 in Dagenham, England. Originally opened in 1931, the Ford factory has unveiled a state of the art GBP475 million production line that will start manufacturing the new low-emission, Ford diesel engines from this November this will generate more than 300 new jobs, Ford currently employs around 3000 at the plant in Dagenham. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Workers at a Ford factory in the UK (Illustrative photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)

 

The first conference in the U.S. on the subject of Political Islam in the Workplace will take place in Washington, D.C. on April 26, 2018  The event is co-sponsored by Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management (FIRM), London Center for Policy Research and American Foundation for Democracy. Clarion Project spoke to event co-ordinator Dr. Leslie Shaw of FIRM:

 

Clarion: Back in 2016, CAIR described this planned conference as Islamophobic. Can you comment on that?

 

Leslie Shaw: CAIR’s opinion is driven by sectarian self-interest and promotion of a socio-political agenda.

 

Clarion: But the conference focuses only on Islamic and not other forms of radicalism.

 

Shaw: We are looking at one segment of a wide phenomenon. Other forms of radicalism exist — Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, left-wing, right-wing, animal rights activists, anti-globalists, eco-warriors, neo-luddites — but Islamic radicalism poses a greater threat than all of the others put together.

 

Clarion: Why political Islam in the workplace specifically?

 

Shaw: There is a plethora of conferences on the subject of radicalism in general and Islamic radicalism in particular, but they are usually restricted to specialists in certain areas. I attended a conference in Brussels on April 22 on the challenge of jihadist radicalization in Europe. There were over 250 people there and over 20 speakers but not one person from the business world. We want to open the subject up to corporations, because they are in the front line.

 

Clarion: Can you explain how?

 

Shaw: Corporations are soft targets for terrorist attacks, but aside from the threat of violence, they are also easy prey for Islamists deploying nonviolent tactics in pursuit of their goals.

 

Islamist employees may not end up committing acts of terrorism, but their behavior is certain to generate significant workplace conflict that undermines productivity and workforce cohesion. A recent survey of over 1,000 French managers revealed that 65% had to handle faith-based problems on an occasional or regular basis, ranging from absenteeism through collective praying to refusal to work with a female colleague.

 

So, in addition, to the security dimension, it is also an issue for human resources. In France, for example, Islamic radicalism is a growing phenomenon among employees in the City of Paris, the Paris Airport Authority, the Paris Transit Authority and the public education sector. It is also a problem in private firms. The French government is currently seeking to partner with the private sector to deal with the threat.

 

You are getting the same thing in the USA with the explosion in lawsuits filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against employers. These are more often than not instigated by CAIR.

 

Clarion: Isn’t that a legitimate Civil Rights Act Title VII issue?

 

Shaw: I think the spirit of Title VII has been perverted to further a political and ideological agenda. When an employer hires a worker, he is buying that person’s time. In a manufacturing plant operating with a lean production schedule, you can’t have a worker walking off the assembly line at times determined by a third party. When you take a job, you follow the employer’s rules.

 

Clarion: But not all demands for religious accommodation are radical.

 

Shaw: Our working definition of a radical is somebody whose determination to adhere to his principles or religion causes disruption in the workplace. A vegetarian should not apply for a job in a slaughterhouse and then file a Title VII complaint because it conflicts with his moral principles. A Muslim should not take a job in a brewery if it conflicts with his religion.

 

Clarion: Aren’t you concerned that such views could be branded as Islamophobic?

 

Shaw: The purpose of the conference is to debate these issues in an open forum. Any point of view can be countered by a rebuttal.

 

Clarion: You held a similar conference in Paris in November 2017. What was the response?

 

Shaw: Extremely positive. It was attended by senior executives from flagship European and U.S. corporations as well as delegates from the gendarmerie, national Police, military, intelligence, counter-terrorism and corporate security. People appreciated the fact that we tackled the subject in a direct manner.

 

Clarion: What differences do you see in the U.S. and European approach to the problem?

 

Shaw: In Europe, corporatations are gradually overcoming a reluctance to discuss these issues out of fear of accusations of Islamophobia, but in the USA the core value of religious freedom is being used by Islamists as an instrument to stifle debate.

 

Clarion: How can people access the survey you are conducting?

 

Shaw: The survey is not accessible to the public. It’s not an opinion poll. We are sending it directly to executives in various companies and sectors. If anybody wants to complete it, they can contact us at firm.europe@gmail.com. We vet them before sending the link to make sure they are bona fide corporate officers.

 

Clarion: How does one register for the conference?

 

Shaw: People can apply to attend by clicking here (our website https://firmeurope.com) All applicants will be vetted and we will send them instructions on how to register. The list of participants will be classified.

 

Clarion: What have you discovered while organizing this conference?

 

Shaw: Apart from analysts and the security community, people are scared of Islamic radicalism.  The academic and media establishment won’t touch it because of political correctness. Corporations are seeking help to mitigate the threat but behind closed doors. They won’t come out and discuss the issues in public. It is an Orwellian fear that plays into the hands of the global Muslim Brotherhood and its satellite organizations.

 

Clarion: Are you planning more conferences?

 

Shaw: Yes. The next one is on November 15, 2018 at the National Assembly, the French parliament. The conference will be a biannual event alternating between Paris and Washington.

 

Clarion: How will corporate attendees benefit from the conference?

 

Shaw: First, they will have the reassurance that they are not alone in facing the threat. Second, the conference will demonstrate that corporations can acquire tools to assess the risks, mitigate the threat, minimize the economic costs, vet personnel and potential hires, and shield themselves from litigation.

 

The business community has a right to openly, fearlessly and objectively discuss the real challenges posed by Islamic radicalism in the workplace and share their best practices and experience in dealing with it.

 

There is a lot of hysteria surrounding the subject of Islam, on both sides. We need to cast a real eye on what is going on and take steps to ensure that our socio-economic model and values remain intact.

 

Lawmakers have a key role to play in this process so that businesses are not at the mercy of religious pressure groups eager to hijack our freedoms for their own ends.

_____________________

Dr. Shaw Promotes Valuable D.C. Counterjihad Conference

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2018

_____________________

Is Islamism a Problem in America’s Workplaces?

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

More About Clarion Project on About Page

 

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List


Unsurprisingly, the Middle East Forum (MEF) has been the recipient of Fake News lies all based on the Multiculturalist accusation of Islamophobia. Evidently the lies have become so huge that the MEF has decided to answer those lies with a Top Ten List.

 

Below is an email alert introduction to that Top Ten List which I will follow with cross post of that list.

 

JRH 8/11/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List

 

By Greg Roman

Sent 8/9/2017 3:22 PM

Sent by Middle East Forum

 

Dear Reader:

As the Middle East Forum’s reach and influence expands, so too does the flurry of ad hominem, distorted, and plainly false attacks on the organization, mostly from Islamists and the far Left.

Institutions leading this assault include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, and most recently the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has a special place in our hearts for funding anti-MEF research.

Our opponents attack us for different reasons. Islamist activists loathe our national security views, advancement of women’s rights, and efforts to protect freedoms of moderate Muslim authors, activists, and publishers. Israel-haters oppose our efforts to puncture Palestinian illusions. Academics want to discredit our efforts to improve Middle East studies in North America. America-haters can pretty much take their pick of reasons.

Regardless of their motives, they all draw on the same tired canards that we so often refuted on an ad hoc basis. To save the curious some legwork, we are publishing a list of the top ten falsehoods, refuting them all at once, and maybe once and for all. Please take a look.

Regards,

Gregg Roman
Director Middle East Forum

 

+++

Falsehoods and Facts about the Middle East Forum: A Top Ten List

 

August 9, 2017

Middle East Forum

 

The Middle East Forum (MEF) is the object of repeated falsehoods. To clear the record, here follows the top ten and our corrections.

 

Falsehood 1: The Middle East Forum is anti-Muslim, or “Islamophobic.”

 

False Statements

 

Center for American Progress: “The Middle East Forum is at the center of the Islamophobia network.”

 

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Daniel Pipes is “considered by many Muslims to be America’s leading Islamophobe.”

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center: Daniel Pipes is “at the center of what is a large and evolving network of Islam-bashing activists.”

 

Fact 1: Far from being biased against Muslims, MEF challenges a radical ideology responsible for unfathomable Muslim suffering, and one which most Muslims reject. Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes has been emphasizing the distinction between Islamism and the Islamic religion – and between the “completely justified fear of Islamists and unjustified fear of all Muslims” – for decades.

 

The only people who maintain there is little or no distinction between detesting Islamism and detesting Muslims are Islamists themselves and fellow travelers of the sort quoted above. The “Islamophobia” accusations they level at MEF and others are designed to conflate Islamism and Islam, claiming an attack on one is an attack on the other.

 

This conflation also attempts to delegitimize non-Islamist Muslims working to free their faith from the grip of extremists, and it is no coincidence that Muslim reformers are often viciously attacked. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left organization known for its often inaccurate claims, lists Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation alongside Mr. Pipes as an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

 

The SPLC has branded Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz as an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

 

A lot of money finances these allegations. The Center for American Progress, for example, received a $200,000 grant from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) to “research and track the activities” of the Middle East Forum and other NGOs working to combat the spread of radical Islam in America. The Brookings Institution’s recent focus on so-called “Islamophobia” in America likely has much to do with its decade-long partnership with Qatar, which provided it with a $14.8 million 4-year grant in 2013.

 

The latest organization to level the “Islamophobia” accusation at MEF is the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF), which lashed out after we revealed publicly that it had provided $330,524 to two extremist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief. It turns out SVCF is getting paid too. According to its 990 form, the extremist International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) provided SVCF with $500,000 in “program assistance” in 2015.

 

Falsehood 2: Daniel Pipes regards Muslim organizations as subversive.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “Pipes views almost every possible Muslim activity as subversive and threatening.”

 

Center for American Progress: “The alarmist rhetoric of Daniel Pipes … brand[s] Muslims, Sharia, and even the instruction of Arabic as affronts to American freedom.

 

Fact 2: In keeping with Mr. Pipes’ oft-repeated belief that “radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution,” MEF’s Islamist Watch project was established with a mission to “expose the Islamist organizations that currently dominate the debate, while identifying and promoting the work of moderate Muslims.”

 

MEF has a long history of supporting, employing, and collaborating with Muslims working to free their community and faith from the grip of Islamists.

 

See a list here of Muslim organizations the Forum regards as vital allies in this fight, some of whom it helps fund.

 

Falsehood 3: Pipes supports interning Muslims, akin to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that ‘Pipes endorsed the internment of Muslims in America,’ referencing WWII Japanese American concentration camps as a model to be used against Muslims today.”

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “Daniel Pipes, president of Middle East Forum, has written in support of the model of Japanese internment camps in relation to American Muslims.”

 

Fact 3: This canard is a paradigmatic example of how charges initially levelled by one radical organization metastasize through repetition by others. The SPLC report misquoted at right by Jewish Voice for Peace actually states, “In 2004, Pipes endorsed the internment of ethnic Japanese in American prison camps in World War II and held that up as a model for dealing with Muslims today.”

 

But even this isn’t true. In 2005 an Islamist organization in Canada had to apologize and make a charitable donation to the Middle East Forum for making this claim.

 

The original article did not argue for internment camps as a model (a follow-up explaining how CAIR and others distorted Pipes’ position can be read here), but rather concluded with support for author Michelle Malkin’s thesis about threat profiling: “She correctly concludes that, especially in time of war, governments should take into account nationality, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in their homeland security policies.”

 

Falsehood 4: MEF is wrong to label CAIR as “terrorism-linked.”

 

Clockwise from top left: Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Bassem Khafagi, Rabih Haddad, Nabil Sadoun, and Muthanna Al-Hanooti

 

Fact 4: Here are many reasons why MEF can reasonably describe CAIR as “terrorism-linked.”

 

  • CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.

 

  • During that trial, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis concluded that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR…with Hamas.”

 

  • In 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim ally of the United States, designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

 

 

  • CAIR itself implicitly acknowledged the truth when it settled a 2004 libel lawsuit against a group making this allegation called Anti-CAIR, with no apology, retraction, or removal of offending Internet materials.

 

Falsehood 5: CAIR, Islamic Relief, and other Muslim groups criticized by MEF are respectable civil rights organizations.

 

False Statements

 

Jewish Voice for Peace: “Contrary to the Middle East Forum’s smear campaign, CAIR is a nationally-recognized civil rights organization that has received praise from seventeen U.S. Senators and 85 U.S. Representatives from both sides of the political aisle.”

 

Fact 5: CAIR and Islamic Relief are focused on promoting social insularity and distrust of authorities among U.S. Muslims, not defending their civil rights. In fact, both groups frequently host and promote extremist speakers who advocate against civil rights as most Americans understand them.

 

Siraj Wahhaj, for example, preaches that homosexuality is a “disease” of society, that the punishment for adultery is death, and that Muslims shouldn’t have non-Muslim friends. Omar Suleiman has rationalized honor killings, telling women thinking of promiscuity that they could be killed by their fathers for “offending Allah.” Jamal Badawi has said that men have a right to beat their wives. Abdul Nasir Jangda has argued that they have the right to rape their wives.

 

Falsehood 6: CAIR and Islamic Relief have clean bills of health on links to terrorism from the federal government and from charity watchdogs.

 

False Statements

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief … are nonprofit organizations in good standing with federal agencies, and do not appear on any U.S. government list as having been tied to terrorism.”

 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation: “GuideStar reports … whether a nonprofit organization is identified as a ‘Specially Designated National’ on the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s list. In simpler terms, this is the list of U.S. organizations designated as having links to terrorist organizations. Neither CAIR nor Islamic Relief is on this list.”

 

Fact 7: MEF is a research institution that promotes American interests. Islamist Watch presents factual research on the influence and activity of non-violent U.S.-based Islamist groups and their leaders. Some oppose Israel, to be sure, but most are more focused on targeting women, homosexuals, and others.

 

Campus Watch researches, analyzes, and critiques the academic study of the Middle East. It argues against “analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students,” but it accepts divergent perspectives. Campus Watch recently published a favorable review of a lecture at the City University of New York (CUNY) by Sari Nusseibeh, a former senior PLO representative under Yasser Arafat whose views hardly qualify as pro-Israeli. A cursory examination of the project’s research articles demonstrates that the characterization of Campus Watch as Israel-centered is false. As for the “dossiers,” CW took down those initial eight profiles 15 years ago in favor of an institution-focused survey method.

 

Falsehood 8: Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum have funded the political campaigns of Dutch right-wing leader Geert Wilders.

 

False Statements

 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes are reported to have put some $150,000 of foundation money into his campaign.”

 

Fact 8: Not a penny from Daniel Pipes or the Middle East Forum has gone to Wilders personally, his political party, or his campaign.

 

MEF did provide a grant to pay legal bills in Mr. Wilders’ trial over his film on radical Islam.

 

As the New York Times notes: “the funds that were sent to Geert Wilders were to help him in his legal cases and were not political donations.”

 

Falsehood 9: Campus Watch seeks to stifle academic freedom.

 

False Statements

 

CAIR: Campus Watch [is] part of a larger anti-intellectual campaign aimed at regulating discourse on the Middle East.

 

Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, The Nation: Campus Watch is “neo-McCarthyite” and part of the “New McCarthyism” that seeks to silence anyone with whom it disagrees.

 

Fact 9: Campus Watch critiques contemporary Middle East studies, which years ago jettisoned rigorous scholarship and teaching for politicized, biased, and inferior work. There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing and criticizing academic research.

 

No cliché is more hackneyed, no charge intellectually lazier than that CW engages in “McCarthyism” (see right). Unlike the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Campus Watch—a private organization—neither possesses nor seeks the ability to silence or persecute anyone.

 

Only in the fevered imaginations of some professors do rigorous critiques by outsiders equate with an anti-Communist witch-hunt.

 

Falsehood 10: Daniel Pipes has lost the support of his former academic colleagues

 

False Statements

 

Al Jazeera [interviewing a spokesman from the Center for American Progress]: Pipes has a “scholarly background, but … he has lost the support of many of the people he used to work with, and associate with, when he was a well-respected scholar.”

 

Fact 10: Mr. Pipes never stopped being a “well-respected scholar” When President George W. Bush nominated him to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003, 30 academics signed a letter in support of the appointment. For a more recent example, Professor Edward Alexander of the University of Washington lavished praise in 2016 on Pipes’ Nothing Abides.

 

That said, it is true that a radicalized academia condemns Pipes and the Forum for their mainstream outlook – and especially for their role in exposing the failure of Middle East studies.

_________________

©1994-2017 The Middle East Forum  

 

MEF About Page

 

With roots going back to 1990, the Middle East Forum has been an independent tax-exempt 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization based in Philadelphia since 1994.

 

Mission

 

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

 

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, we urge bold measures to protect Americans and their allies.

 

In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with the great advances of anarchy.

 

At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies.

 

Methods

 

The Middle East Forum realizes its goals through three main mechanisms:

 

  • Intellectual: The Forum provides context, insights, and policy recommendations through the Middle East Quarterly, staff writings, public lectures, radio and television appearances, and conference calls (see below for details).

 

  • Operational: The Forum exerts an active influence through its projects, including Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, Legal Project, Washington Project, Apartheid Monitor, and Shillman/Ginsburg Writing Fellowship Program (see below for details).

 

  • Philanthropic: The Forum annually distributes US$1.5 million in earmarked donations through its Education Fund, helping researchers, writers, investigators, and activists around the world.

 

Activities

 

 

MEForum.org (this website) hosts a complete archive of Middle East Quarterly articles; articles by MEF staff; audio recordings and summary accounts of guest lectures and conference calls; and MEF alerts for Forum events, media appearances, and news releases.

 

Middle East Quarterly, published since 1994 and edited by Efraim Karsh, it is the only scholarly journal on the Middle East consistent with mainstream American views. Delivering timely analyses, cutting-edge information, and sound policy initiatives, it serves as a valuable resource for policymakers and opinion-shapers.

 

Public Outreach. Television and radio rely on Forum specialists, who appear on virtually all the major American over-the-air and cable news programs, plus stations around the globe. MEF staff also brief ranking officials of the U.S. government, testify before Congress, and conduct studies for executive branch agencies.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

FOIA Reveals Shredding in FEMA or Worse!


fema-cair

Intro to Sutliff ‘FOIA Reveals Shredding in FEMA or Worse!

Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

February 20, 2017

 

Paul Sutliff may have uncovered yet another Obama Administration scandal involving radical Islamic elements within the U.S. borders. The scandalous Obama behavior is not surprising. And yet you have to know that the Mainstream Media which is so intent to bring down President Trump will not report on another Obama scandal, right?

 

This is what Paul is looking into: He believes that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is granting Federal funding to American Muslim organizations that either linked to radical Islam or tied to Islamic terrorism. Here is a soundbite from a 2015 article on the subject from Paul Sutliff:

 

FEMA created the Non-Profit Security Program (NSGP) to provide assistance to non-profits targeted and/or threatened by terrorist organizations. The intent was to help targeted organizations in high threat areas of the country, it was not to provide funds for people who defend terrorists. (FEMA is Funding Muslims in America Who Support Terrorism; Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad; 9/14/15)

 

You’ll read below that Paul is still looking at FEMA and Islamic terrorist funding connections AND that FEMA is not cooperating with his FOIA requests which points to the potential Obama scandal.

 

The grant money comes under the aegis of NSGP. Here is a paragraph description of the FEMA program:

 

The Nonprofit Security Grant Program plays an important role in the implementation of the National Preparedness System by supporting the development and sustainment of core capabilities. Core capabilities are essential for the execution of each of the five mission areas outlined in the National Preparedness Goal (the Goal). (Nonprofit Security Grant Program)

 

I’ve got to ask: What the heck does a National Preparedness Goal have to do with Islamic-American organizations with ties to foreign Islamic organizations that favor the institution of a global Caliphate?

 

Here is the FEMA National Prepared Goals under the introduction section says:

 

The National Preparedness Goal defines what it means for the whole community to be prepared for all types of disasters and emergencies. The goal itself is succinct:

 

“A secure and resilient nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.”

 

These risks include events such as natural disasters, disease pandemics, chemical spills and other manmade hazards, terrorist attacks and cyber attacks.

 

To learn more about the commitment to whole community involvement, visit the whole community page on this site.

 

Hmm … FEMA is giving money to Muslim American organizations that support a Jihad Caliphate agenda quite contrary to the U.S. Constitution?

 

Now for the Paul Sutliff thoughts on FEMA.

 

JRH 2/20/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

FOIA Reveals Shredding in FEMA or Worse!

 

By Paul Sutliff 

February 20, 2017 10:01 AM 

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

foia-fema-battle-royal-starwars-analogy

FOIA Battle Royale

 

“These are not the droids your looking for.”

 

“There is not the information your looking for.”

 

When Obi-won Kenobi of Star Wars comes to mind when you are trying to get information from the federal government something is wrong! I wrote a Freedom of Information Act request to FEMA on August 31, 2015 regarding the awarding of grants to these three entities under the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.

 

 

# Name and Info Amount
1 ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF BALTIMORE MD INC. $74,675
2. ISLAMIC CENTER OF SAN DIEGO, INCORPORATED $71,250
3. CAIR $70,324
TOTAL: $216,249

 

It took them over a year to fill my request. However, in saying they did fulfill the request they also denied my request. They simply sent me a print out from USA Spending.gov. Something you or I can access at home on the Internet. I reached out to the people in the FOIA office for FEMA explaining that I had received copies of applications before and that I had previously been sent a copy of the required confirmation of the claims. Which in the one case I received, was a police letter. This became an article on awarding a grant to those who support terrorism and an example of awarding a grant with confirmation of a threat.

 

So imagine my surprise when I received the following statement from the FOIA person working at FEMA on February 15, 2017:

 

After our discussion on the phone last week, as promised I did reach back out to the component within FEMA to double check that there was no additional information that was missing from your FOIA request. There was no applications found and so it cannot be provided to you. The program office is aware of the FOIA process and conducted multiple searches and no records were located regarding the applications.

To our knowledge on this Grant Program, FEMA would only consider the Grant applications (E.G. the four corners of the documents) and not any additional threat assessments or documents that may be provided by the non-profits. 

 

After receiving this I called the FOIA Officer and informed her I was filing a complaint with the Inspector General. Which I did that day! To say that an organization that approves grants did not keep a copy of the application or the supporting material is either a lie or evidence of shredding federal documents!

 

Maybe I should apply for the $20,000 award for evidence of the Obama administration shredding offered by Wiki Leaks? While the cash is a great motivator I would rather have the Trump Administration do some heavy stomping in FEMA and shake the tree that is hiding this information!

 

One other possibility exists regarding this “missing information.” It is that FEMA under the Obama Administration was awarding NPSG funding to Islamic organizations without even receiving a grant. This is “misappropriation of funds.” How can I make such damning accusations that FEMA has to have this documentation? The answer is simple.

 

The FEMA site claims that groups filed out applications. I have received evidence of this also through past FOIA requests.

 

fiscal-yr-2015-nonprofit-grant-program

Fiscal Year 2015 Nonprofit Security Grant

 

I even checked to see if there was a different way to file a FOIA for this information if the state FEMA awarded the funding. But as you can see below the state FEMA sites are federal sites and the FOIA requests go through DHS and more specifically FEMA.

 

fema-california

FEMA California

 

fema-maryland

FEMA Maryland

 

Since 2013 this FEMA program has award $56,000,000 to nonprofits claiming to be under a terrorist threat. I have only scratched the surface here. What if the majority of the organizations awarded never had confirmation of a threat? This too is misappropriation of funds!

 

I do not know about you, but I for one am very concerned that organizations such as CAIR that have been directly linked to Hamas in federal courts would receive any federal funding. It gets worse when you consider some of our allies have placed CAIR on a terrorist list. Did we fund the enemy of our allies? Sadly the answer is yes.

 

What can we do as American citizens to stop this? My only suggestion is to email or call the White House and voice your concerns.

________________

Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jihad! https://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-68237-562-4

 

The Egyptian Parliament Rebukes the UK Parliament on Political Islam


stand-up-2-islam-or-be-idiot

Here’s a political move you won’t see to often from an Islamic dominated nation: Egypt’s Parliament (or whatever the Arabic is) rebukes the UK Parliament on the British perception of Political Islam.

 

Interestingly, the Egyptian secularists in government are chastising UK Multiculturalist Leftists for looking the other way on the nefarious Political Islamists. PAY ATTENTION AMERICANS!

 

Bill Warner cross-posts on his Political Islam website the report by  Gamal Essam El-Din written on AhramOnline.

 

JRH 11/25/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

The Egyptian Parliament Rebukes the UK Parliament on Political Islam

 

Posted by Bill Warner

Nov 23 2016

Political Islam

 

This is an incredible report. The Egyptian Parliament says to the British Parliament that their report on Islam is totally wrong. They even say that they have not read any books on political Islam, which is a cancer for democracy. This Egyptian report reads like I wrote it.

 

AhramOnline
Egypt’s parliament report responds to UK parliament’s defense of political Islam
Gamal Essam El-Din, Monday 21 Nov 2016

The Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee said its report aims to expose Europe and the UK’s false views on “political Islam”

 

A 10-page report issued by the Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee on Sunday launched a scathing attack on EU and UK politicians and MPs who defend “political Islam.”

 

The report, issued in response to a UK House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee’s report on the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam on 7 November, said it does not aim to defend the Egyptian government’s security and legal measures against the Brotherhood group and its affiliated militant and terrorist organizations.

 

“Our report reflects our responsibility as elected MPs to stand against a group which seized its one year in power to turn Egypt into a religious state and show the world the true meaning of “political Islam,” said the report.

 

It added that the “Muslim Brotherhood tried to steal history and turn the Arab world’s first civilian state into a theocratic state that is hostile to human civilization and the values of freedom, equality and citizenship.”

 

The report said “if Europe and the West are really keen to stem the tide of religious terrorism and the political hijacking of Islam, they should correct their understanding of all political Islam movements which claim they have a licence from God to implement his laws on earth and impose the state of the caliphate on the world.”

 

Ahmed Said, head of the Egyptian foreign affairs committee, told reporters Sunday that Egypt’s parliament deplores the UK report’s inclusion of a number of horrible lies.

 

“Our committee’s report aims to expose these lies. We intend to send it to the Egyptian ambassadors in England and Germany to stand against the attempts of several politicians and MPs in these two countries to polish the image of political Islam ,” the report said.

 

Said said “we know from history that Europe was able to move ahead and achieve progress only after it made a separation between religion and politics.”

 

“So we are surprised by the new generation of European radical liberals and progressives who defend political Islam and thereby give cover for Islamist movements which claim victimhood to spread across Europe and create a fertile ground for Islamist radicals there,” said Said.

 

The report said the UK parliament’s report offered a very artificial interpretation of “political Islam.”

 

“We wonder how a parliament that was based on separating religion from politics approves that a country like Egypt be governed by a theocratic state,” said the report, adding that “this is a setback from all the democratic and liberal ideals which formed the foundation of European civilization.”

 

The report said that “the UK parliament made a very artificial and marginal differentiation between Islamist movements that exploit democracy to reach power on the one hand, and Islamist movements that seek the path of violence and armed jihad to impose their radical ideology on societies, on the other.”

 

“All studies that have been conducted on political Islam movements show that there are no essential differences among them and that they all seek one objective – that is trying to impose a strict code of Islam and Islamic Sharia law on the world, and to launch an armed Jihad against ‘infidel rulers’ everywhere,” argued the report.

 

“In other words,” the report added, “these groups want to Islamise the entire world and they only differ on when and how these objectives should be implemented,” said the report.

 

“While a group like the Muslim Brotherhood shows the face of artificial Islamic moderation to gain ground in the West and infiltrate societies there, other groups seek the road of violence. Each complements the other,” said the report.

 

The report described the Muslim Brotherhood “as the mother of all jihadist and Salafist movements.”

 

“The UK parliament report ignores – either on purpose or due to a lack of knowledge about historical facts – that since it was established in the first third of the previous century the Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for spreading the radical Islamic ideology upon which all terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida, ISIS, Hamas, Ezzeddin Al-Qassam, Al-Nusra Front and Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis were based,” said the report, adding that “most of the leaders of these terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida’s current leader Ayman Al-Zawahri were once members of Muslim Brotherhood.”

 

“This group is the godfather of all jihadist and Salafist ideologies which dream of resurrecting the state of the caliphate against the infidel West,” said the report.

 

“We doubt that UK politicians or MPs have any books about the ideological basis of this group, which is highly hostile to the West and what they describe as its “liberal and infidel culture,” said the report.

 

To press its case, the report reviews a number of political assassinations which the Muslim Brotherhood has carried out since it was established by its leader Hassan Al-Banna in 1928.

 

The second part of the response accuses the UK report of making “a big mistake” by drawing a comparison between the experience of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia.

 

“The Media and politicians in the West always like to portray Tunisia as the democratic, inclusive model in the Middle East,” said the report, adding that “this is a big mistake because facts show that Tunisia has become a fertile ground for Islamist jihadists who spread extremism and terrorism in France and Europe and that more than 1,000 Tunisians — the greatest number from any Arab country — a have joined the IS group.”

 

“Doesn’t this show that the Muslim Brotherhood ideology was behind the transformation of Tunisia into a breeding ground for jihadists,” wondered the report, adding that “not to mention that Tunisia is a small country – with 11 million people – but Egypt is a country with 90 million and the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which exploited political tolerance over eight decades to create a wide network of businesses and secret armed militias.”

 

“The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt owns banks, charity organizations and receives huge donations from wealthy sympathizers in the Arabian Gulf and throughout the Islamic world,” said the report.

 

The report also argued that the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia accepted democracy only for tactical reasons. “After they saw how millions in Egypt revolted against their mother group, they decided to backtrack only for tactical reasons,” said the report.

 

The report’s third section is devoted to explaining the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and internal structure “which is highly hostile to all democratic values.”

 

“Their ideology is based on strict obedience to the group’s supreme guide, not to mention that its main ideologues, such as Sayyid Qutb, were the ones who invented the jihadist ideology which states that “democracy goes against the rule of God and Islamic Sharia,” said the report.

 

The report also reviews in detail “the one year of the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.”

 

“They exploited the collapse of (former president) Hosni Mubarak’s ruling party to exclude all civilian political forces from power and impose their rule on the country. When millions revolted against them and expelled them from power on 30 June, 2013, they resorted to claims of victimhood again, only to find an ear in the UK and its parliament,” said the report, insisting that “Egyptians stand firm against the rule of ‘the supreme guide’ and will not allow their country to become a religious state.”

 

“Egyptians are in a battle of life and death against this group, which is the mother of all radical Islam movements,” said the report.

 

The report also said that many of those who implemented terrorist attacks against the US on 11 September, 2001 received training at the hands of old and veteran Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

 

The report spotlights what it calls the Muslim Brotherhood’s “empowerment ideology” which seeks to Islamise the entire world in a gradual way.

 

The report urges the UK parliament and politicians to review “the dark history of the Muslim Brotherhood” and to verify their information about it “instead of issuing distorted reports about political Islam.”

 

“While the world has become increasingly aware of the dangers of all radical Islam movements, we are surprised that the UK MPs and politicians still live in a coma, insistent not only on polishing the image of these movements, but also propagating the biggest lie: that it is a peaceful and moderate movement,” the report concludes.

 

The report includes a great number of details about the yearlong rule of former president Mohamed Morsi and how the Brotherhood exploited this year to isolate all political forces.

 

“For all those who believe in the West that Islamist movements can be integrated into the political process of Arab countries, we offer this bitter experience to put an end to this lie,” said the report.

 

The UK House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee released its report on 7 November, commenting on the findings and conclusions of a December 2015 review by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

The 2015 FCO report concluded that the group has long maintained a dubious position vis-à-vis the use of violence and terrorism to achieve political change.

 

The UK parliament committee said that the FCO review “undermined confidence in the impartiality of the FCO’s work” due to the “misguided appointment” of Sir John Jenkins, the UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to head the review effort.

 

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/250403.aspx

 

_________________

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam

www.politicalislam.com

Facebook: BillWarnerAuthor

Twitter: @politicalislam

© copyright 2016

 

About Political Islam

 

What is Islam?

 

Islam is a cultural, religious and political system. Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims) since it determines how we are defined and treated. The Islamic political system is contained in the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of Mohammed) and his biography, the Sira.

 

Our Mission

 

Political Islam has subjugated other civilizations for 1400 years. Our mission is to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.

 

The Five Principles

 

Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.

 

All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—KoranSira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (his Traditions).


Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.

 

Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.

 

Political Islam always has two different ways to treat kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.

 

Kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life. Every aspect of kafir civilization must submit to political Islam.

 

These Five Principles can be READ THE REST

 

Attempting to Rewrite the History of September 11th


Flight 93 - 2nd Jet - World Trade Center 9-1-01

Two national Islamist organizations and other aligned Arab-American groups have hopped on the bandwagon to expunge references to “Islamic” or “Islamist” from a film about al-Qeda (sic), which will be shown at the National September 11 Memorial Museum.

 

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) are among the groups that called the video “ill-considered and insufficiently vetted” in a letter to museum leadership.

 

The signatories demand that “stereotypical” elements in the film, “The Rise of Al-Qaeda,” be addressed and (Islamic Groups Try to Censure Free Speech at 9/11 Memorial; By John Rossomando; the algemeiner; 4/28/14 12:24 AM)

 

CAIR is American-Islamic linked to Islamic terrorist organization Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. MPAC is also a Muslim Brotherhood front group. Hmm … Is it any wonder these two stealth promoters of Islamic terrorism and radical Islam are whining about the al Qaeda documentary?

 

In an email sent by Brigitte Gabriel of ACT! For America she explains why CAIR and MPAC are full of bologna in their criticism of 911 Memorial Museum documentary “The Rise of al Qaeda”.

 

JRH 4/28/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Attempting to Rewrite the History of September 11th

 

By Brigitte Gabriel

Sent 4/28/2014 11:20 AM

ACT link: http://tinyurl.com/m5nuq7h

28 APRIL 2014 07:59

 

On May 21st, more than 13 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the National September 11 Memorial Museum will open its doors to the public to make certain that Americans will never forget what happened that day.

Unfortunately, some are working to ensure that future generations of Americans never fully understand the attacks, which were the most deadly terrorist attacks in the history of the United States.

One of the exhibits in the museum will feature a 7-minute film called “The Rise of Al Qaeda.”

In that film, the Al Qaeda terrorists are referred to as “Islamists” who were waging “jihad” with the attacks upon America.

Those two words, “Islamists” and “Jihad” have caused a controversy, with a variety of critics calling for whitewashing the description of Al Qaeda and the attacks by sanitizing the museum commentary by removing those two words.

This would be a tragic mistake.

Despite the complaints, the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” in no way suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or support violence. No serious analyst in his or her right mind would make such an assertion.

Nevertheless, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality, so it makes perfect sense to call Islamists “Islamists” and to call Jihad “Jihad.” After all, in World War II, Nazis were referred to as Nazis, because they themselves referred to themselves as such.

America’s enemies in the war on terror do NOT refer to themselves as “extremists,” “militants,” or “radicals.”

They refer to themselves as Jihadists and Jihadis.

Interestingly, critics on both sides of the issue seem to dislike the term “Islamist.” Apologists for organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that the term too closely identifies Islam with “extremism.” Many in the countershariah and counterjihad movement say that the term “Islamist” is a term concocted in the West that has no meaning in the Islamic world.

Both are wrong.

The first known use of the term “Islamist” came from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late dictator of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Khomeini said: “We are neither capitalists nor communists. We are Islamists.”

There are many different definitions listed for the term “Islamist,” but that is not the point. The point is that one of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders coined the term to describe the revolution he led. It is entirely proper for the 9/11 museum to use the term “Islamists” to describe Al Qaeda.

The same is true for the term “jihad.” There has long been a debate about the use of the term jihad, with Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as CAIR particularly objecting to its use to describe violent warfare or terrorism.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America aims to convince Americans that Jihad only means “to struggle” or, more specifically, an internal, personal struggle.

This is only partially correct and any campaign that claims that the term Jihad only means an internal, personal struggle amounts to disinformation. The dualistic nature of Islam, in this case as it applies to the meaning of “Jihad,” is well documented both in historical Islamic doctrine and in contemporary use of the term.

And Jihad definitely does not only mean an internal, personal struggle. In fact, the most widespread meaning of the term that is of particular interest to Westerners who are threatened by Jihad does in fact entail violence.

A false and misleading statement has been attributed to the San Francisco chapter head of CAIR, Zahra Billoo:

“A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war, and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who’ve made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Such a meaning for Jihad has nothing to do with anyone with an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” It has everything to do with Islam itself.

Let us examine definitions of Jihad from two authoritative sources.

Jihad According to the Quran

The first is the Quran itself. In this case, specifically The Noble Qu’ran, translated into English by two scholars: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, PhD, professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings at the Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan of the same institution. The Noble Qu’ran was published by Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has been catalogued by King Fahad National Library. On page 818, in a glossary accompanying the text of the Quran, The Noble Qu’ran provides the following definition of Jihad:

 

Jihad: Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam”


Can the Quran itself be promoting “anti-Muslim sentiment” as CAIR’s Zahra Billoo asserts?


Jihad According to Shariah

Our second source is Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

Reliance of the Traveler is one of the world’s most widely read manuals of Shariah law. It has been endorsed by a variety of Islamic authorities, including Al Azhar University in Cairo, IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) in Herndon, Virginia, the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces and the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha in Damascus, Syria.

These can hardly be termed as those pushing “anti-Muslim sentiment” as Billoo claims.

On page 599 of Reliance of the Traveler, readers can find the following passage:

 

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

 

Jihad According to Terrorists

If Jihad truly means to “struggle” and not warfare to establish the religion, how does CAIR explain the names of all these terrorist organizations?

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India)
Islamic Front for Armed Jihad (Algeria)
Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (Israel)
Islamic Jihad Organization (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Union (Uzbekistan)
Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia)
Laskar Jihad (Indonesia)
United Jihad Council (India)

So, it is completely appropriate for the 9/11 museum to use the term “jihadist” and “jihad” to describe Al Qaeda terrorists and their activity.

Conclusion

We suspect that the sensitivity expressed with regard to the 9/11 museum goes way beyond the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad.”

The fact is, our country has never truly come to terms with the role that Islam plays in Jihadist terrorism.

It would be great if there was truly no connection whatsoever between Islam and Jihad. But the reality is Jihad is a tenet of Islam.

As previously stated, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality. It makes no difference what Americans think about the stated motivations and doctrine behind the actions of Al Qaeda. The only thing that truly matters is what the leaders and members of Al Qaeda think about why they wage warfare.

The fact of the matter is, Al Qaeda justify their actions by invoking Islam and Allah:

 

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,

The General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization Statement on the Succession of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden in the al-Qaeda Organization’s Command

With hearts that are satisfied with Allah’s ordainment, and assured of Almighty Allah’s promise and His good reward, the Islamic umma, the mujahideen in the al-Qaeda Organization, and in other groups received the news of the martyrdom of the reviver imam, the jihadist immigrant Sheikh Osama Bin-Muhammad Bin Laden, may Allah rest his soul in peace. We pray to the Almighty Allah to raise his rank and to reward him, on behalf of us and the Muslim umma, with the best of rewards.

Since jihad is continuing until the Day of Resurrection … the General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization announces, after completion of consultations, that Sheikh Dr Abu-Muhammad Ayman al-Zawahiri, may Allah guide him to success, has taken over command of the group…

 

Statement from Al Qaeda
Announcing Zawahiri as the
New leader of Al Qaeda after
Osama Bin Laden’s death

 

All these sins and crimes committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger and Muslims.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it…

We, with Allah’s help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

 

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Leader of Al Qaeda

 

It would be a tragic mistake if the 9/11 museum was to erase the role that their Islamic faith played in the leadership and membership of Al Qaeda’s horrific actions on September 11th, 2001.

____________________________

ACT for America Content, LLC. All Rights Reserved

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

 

No Reform For Islam


Islam not Religion of Peace

Below is a short essay by Justin Smith to the impossibility of reforming Islam into an actual Religion of Peace. I usually do a little intro to Justin’s essay however in his email sending the essay he introduced it to me. So I am going with the Justin Smith intro followed by the essay.

 

JRH 1/7/14

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Although I’ve always held out hope…very little hope…that the Muslim communities around the world would one day begin the hard work of real reforms within their belief system, especially when the modern era has made so much technology and information available to even the poorest among them, I think that it should be beyond obvious to the Western world and America… the civilized world…that such reforms are not within the realm of Islam, largely because of the system itself, the various fatwas and doctrine within Sharia law and the leadership hierarchy itself.

The following piece is an attempt to pull much of this together in just a short synopsis; it would take volumes to address this topic more properly. I hope You and others find this of worth and interest.

 

Justin O. Smith email introduction

__________________________________

No Reform For Islam

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 1/7/2014 10:48 AM

 

During the past few years, I have often stated the need for Muslims to reform Islam, in the same manner of Judaism and Christianity, even though I knew that Islam is incapable of reforming itself. Other experts and activists, such as Irshad Manji, Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan, have suggested that the reform of Islam should be directed towards secularism; however, to date, the only successful reform, led by imams and mullahs, has been a regressive return to the type of violence, increased terrorism and military conquests, once seen only at the height of Islamic power when Abd al-Rahman and his Islamic army were repelled from the Gates of France in 732 AD [About.com brief description of defeat of the Muslim invaders] by the Christian forces and their leader, Charles “the Hammer” Martel.

Two days before Christmas, fourteen people were killed and 120 wounded, as an explosion, felt in areas fifteen miles away, ripped through police headquarters in Mansoura, Egypt. Just days before New Year’s Day 2014, bombs erupted in Volgograd, Russia in the main railway station and on a trolley bus on the 29th and 30th of December, which killed 34 people and wounded sixty. The common link between these two cases and 99% of the terrorist acts worldwide is Islam.

One should note the book ‘al Islam wa usul al-hukm’- Islam and Bases of Power by Ali Abd al-Razia (1888-1966), which argued that modern Egypt should sever its connection to Islam altogether. Razia concluded that the caliphate is not mentioned in the Koran and Mohammed had not been the head of a state in the 20th century sense, so Egyptians were supposedly free to implement a European-style secular government.

Nazra Quraishi, a Michigan kindergarten teacher, stated in ‘The Lansing State Journal’ (July 5, 2006) that one “can embrace Islam but cannot get out.” If Islam is a “religion”/ideology one can only convert to and not leave upon choosing so, then it is a threat to every free person on the planet; this cuts to the core principle of any democratic state. “Radical Islam has come to mock the very principle of nationality and citizenship,” wrote Fouad Ajami.

There are not any moderate Muslims, only apostates, because a moderate Islam does not exist…a Catch-22 of sorts. In order to create a changed or reformed ideology, Muslims would have to confront their leaders. Muslims would have to stand against men like Shaker Elsayed, leader of Dar al-Hijrah – one of America’s largest mosques in Falls Church, VA, who was espousing the virtues of violent jihad in February 2013 and stated that “The call to reform Islam is an alien call.”

Islam is the fastest growing ideology__”religion”__in Europe and North America, in large part, due to the “Trojan Horse” of immigration, so brilliantly detailed by the late, great Oriana Fallaci, and the extraordinary high rate of procreation within Muslim populations. It has become more radicalized and fierce due to Saudi Arabian advocacy and financial support for Islam’s extreme Wahhabi sect, and the majority of its followers identify themselves with a pan-Islamic community that transcends borders.

Today in America, many Muslim leaders are in agreement with the ideas of British Muslim leader Anjem Choudary, as they praise the 9/11 terrorists and call for Sharia law in the U.S., and they claim that “The United States belongs to Allah.” One such leader, Muzammil Siddiqi is associated with Hamas terrorists and the Islamic Center of Washington, DC, and during an October 2000 rally near the White House, he blamed the U.S. for the Palestinian situation and warned “the wrath of God will come.”

Although smooth talking Saudi princes dismissed the fact that Princess Haifa “accidently” funded the 9/11/01 murderers and terrorists through an intermediary, Majed Ibrahim, as “coincidence”, it is now all too apparent that Saudi hands were involved in the Boston Marathon Bombing. Abdul al-Harbi was quickly spirited away by Saudi diplomats, after he progressed from a “suspect” in the attack to “a person of interest” to “innocent” within a week. Ominously, it becomes clear that a terrorist was allowed to escape by U.S “authorities”, once one discovers that six of his relatives, such as Badr and Khalid al-Harbi, actively fought for Al Qaeda and three more__Salim, Majid and Muhammed al-Harbi__ are currently in Gitmo prison.

Does anyone really think that a “religion”__that Islam__ that produces men who will eat the heart of an enemy (see Syria 2013), draw and quarter American contractors and hang them over the Euphrates River, or kill nearly 300 school children in Beslan, Russia (September 2004) in the name of Allah, here and now, in the 21st century, will ever reform itself?

Currently and confirmed by then-Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC) in 2010, Iran’s terrorist arm, Hezbollah, is building a power base in Mexico, along with Al Qaeda, and it is training Mexican drug cartels in the use of explosives. In 2010, a drug cartel detonated a car bomb for the first time in Ciudad, Juarez.

In 2011, Roger Noreiga, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, gave a clear and urgent warning: “If our government and responsible parties fail to act…there will be an attack on U.S. personnel. Installations or interests in the Americas, as soon as Hezbollah operatives believe that they are capable of such an operation without implicating their Iranian sponsors in crime.”

How many Muslims have forced jihadist imams from their mosques? How many Muslim parents are prepared to say that they came to our nation to raise their children as loyal Americans, not Saudis, Iranian or Palestinian and such?

Whether the islamoNazis attack us from their enormous fear of Ataturk’s 1922 brand of secularism, which they claimed would destroy Islam, or simply because America is predominantly a Christian nation and they hate our principles and ideas on freedom, they still attack; they are not remotely considering reform. As Hussein Massawi, former Hezbollah leader, stated: “We are not fighting so that you will give us something. We are fighting to eliminate you (the infidels).

The sweet dream of world peace and “coexistence” has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict. Bomb us and the Left-wing media agonizes over the “root causes”. Shoot up Ft Hood or detonate a few bombs in Boston and our community-organizer-in-chief Obama rushes to the nearest mosque to declare “Islam is a religion of peace.” Murder a school full of children, and our academics join Ossama Bahloul, imam of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, and Jamal al-Badawi, in explaining that to the vast majority of Muslims “jihad” is a harmless concept surrounding personal struggle: This resurgent Islam will not be stopped by a few new laws or outreach to the ummah, but by firm resolve and tough action across the board in all areas of U.S. policy.

 

By Justin O Smith
________________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All explanatory links submitted by Editor

© Justin O. Smith

Huma Abedin’s Mother exposed by CSP


Hillary Clinton & Saleha S. Mahmood Abedin

John R. Houk

© July 22, 2012

 

The Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) – sometimes recognized as the lamestream media – in collusion with Muslim apologists have attacked Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other Congressmen have been attacked as bigoted Islamophobes for demanding an investigation to Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the U.S. government.

 

Although I don’t have an irrational fear of Muslims as connoted by the epithet of Islamophobe, I like to think I wear the Islamophobe badge proudly. Islamophobia could better be defined as a rational caution relating to the agenda of Radical Islam to force an international Caliphate on the world that if they are sane will have nothing to do with the anti-Liberty principles inherent within Sharia Law.

 

As such Radical Islamic proponents view that there are two enemies to be destroyed; i.e. the little Satan Israel and the great Satan America.

 

Now that Egyptian voters have elected a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) candidate to be President of Egypt, the MB is now or should be recognized as a transnational organization that government National Security interests should be focusing on. Somewhat in the same way (hopefully) there is a National Security watch on Iran.

 

The MB is big on the concept that the USA is the big Satan that must be destroyed by infiltrating America to create the environment that will allow Islam to overcome the U.S. Constitution. You Need to READ:

 

§  The Muslim Brotherhood “Project”

 

§  The Muslim Brotherhood “Project” (Continued) – “The Project” Translated

 

§  MB General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America (The English Translation after the original Arabic)

 

So when U.S. Congressmen recognize there are individuals with ties to the MB or an MB affiliate in the U.S. government and desire an investigation then that is NOT bigotry! Rather an investigation is awareness that something is afoot that endangers the U.S. Constitution of which every government employee up to and including the Office of President of the United States is sworn to uphold. If there are people in government that have sworn to uphold the Constitution OR at the very least work in a government Office sworn to uphold the Constitution yet desire the Constitution’s demise, then those people need to be excised from government responsibility at the very least. If there is an “at most” a criminal investigation must occur to discover if our nation has been harmed internally.

 

I am glad that the Center for Security Policy (CSP) has put together an exposé of Huma Abedin’s mother Saleha S. Mahmood Abedin. Huma Abedin is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s close aide. That means she has access to Classified materials that her MB mother might be interested in acquiring. That would not be good for America. Below is the CSP email sent to highlight a free PDF document entitled “Ties that Bind? THE VIEWS AND AGENDA OF HUMA ABEDIN’ S IS LAMI S T MOTHER”.  

 

JRH 7/22/12

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

Center Report Reveals Radical Islamist Agenda of Senior State Department Official Huma Abedin’s Mother

 

Sent by Center for Security Policy

Sent: Jul 22, 2012 at 11:33 AM

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

For more information and to schedule an interview, contact

David Reaboi dreaboi@securefreedom.org (202) 431-1948

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.:  A book published and translated by the mother of Obama administration State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin provides fresh evidence that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closest aide has deeply problematic foreign associations that could, in violation of departmental guidelines, “create… a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.”

 

In light of the escalating controversy over the role being played in U.S. security policy-making by Ms. Abedin and others with personal and/or professional ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see Part 8 of the Center for Security Policy’s online curriculum at MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), the revelations contained in a new Center report– Ties That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mother— could not be more timely, or important.

 

The Center’s report excerpts and analyzes relevant passages from a book published and translated by Saleha S. Mahmood Abedin called Women in Islam: A Discourse in Rights and Obligations by Fatima Umar Naseef. Naseef is a past head of the “women’s section” and professor of shariah at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, where Dr. Abedin is also on the faculty.  The book was published in 1999, the same year Dr. Abedin founded Dar Al Hekma, a university for women also in Jeddah, that Secretary Clinton visited and spoke admiringly of with Huma Abedin in February 2010.  [See Remarks on that occasion by Mrs. Clinton, including her comment that Huma holds a “very sensitive and important position” in her department, and those by her hosts.]

 

Excerpts from Women in Islam in Ties That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mother include Islamic shariah justifications for the following:

 

§  Stoning for Adultery when Married; Lashing for Adultery when Unmarried

 

§  No Death Penalty for the Murder of an Apostate

 

§  Freedom of Expression Curtailed to What Benefits Islam

 

§  Women’s Right to Participate in Armed Jihad

 

§  Social Interaction Between the Sexes is Forbidden

 

§  Women Have No Right to Abstain from Sex with their Husbands

 

§  A Woman Should Not Let Anyone Into the House Unless Approved by Her Husband

 

§  Female Genital Mutilation is Allowed

 

§  Man-Made Laws “Enslave Women”

 

The organization responsible for the publication of Women in Islam was the International Islamic Committee for Woman & Child (IICWC), chaired at the time by Dr. Abedin.  IICWC misleadingly describes itself as “an international organization of concerned women who are committed to improving the condition of women and children around the world.”  In fact, like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim World League (MWL) and other Islamist organizations with which it is associated, the IICWC is committed to eviscerating the rights of women and children by imposing everywhere shariah, a code that denies them fundamental – and, in the United States, constitutional – liberties.

 

Specifically, the book published by Dr. Abedin wholeheartedly affirms: limits on women’s free expression; the permissibility of stoning as a punishment for adultery, killing of apostates and female genital mutilation; the contention that “man-made laws” enslave women; and more.  It also endorses women’s right to fight in armed jihad.  Women in Islam is available online and sold at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an Islamist organization co-founded by Huma Abedin’s mother and her late father, Dr. Syed Zainul Abedin.

 

On July 21, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy posted an essay at National Review Online that should be required reading for everyone commenting on the request by five Members of Congress led by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota for Inspector General investigations of Muslim Brotherhood influence operations within the U.S. government.  In it, he observed that the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs “was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 ‘with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.’ It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood.”

 

Mr. McCarthy notes that:

 

The five House conservatives… are asking questions that adults responsible for national security should feel obliged to ask: In light of Ms. Abedin’s family history, is she someone who ought to have a security clearance, particularly one that would give her access to top-secret information about the Brotherhood? Is she, furthermore, someone who may be sympathetic to aspects of the Brotherhood’s agenda, such that Americans ought to be concerned that she is helping shape American foreign policy?

 

Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman – a convicted terrorist and clerical inspiration for jihadists worldwide, whose release from federal prison at the insistence of Muslim Brother and Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi has been the subject of discussions within and enabled by Mrs. Clinton’s State Department – goes on to observe that:

 

The State Department is particularly wary when it comes to the category of ‘foreign influence‘ – yes, it is a significant enough concern to warrant its own extensive category in background investigations. No criminal behavior need be shown to deny a security clearance; access to classified information is not a right, and reasonable fear of “divided loyalties” is more than sufficient for a clearance to be denied. The [Department’s own security] guidelines probe ties to foreign countries and organizations because hostile elements could “target United States citizens to obtain protected information” or could be “associated with a risk of terrorism.” Note: The Brotherhood checks both these boxes.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, said upon the release of the Center’s new report, Ties That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mother:

 

In the interest of informing the debate about the need to investigate Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and its agenda, and those of others shaping policy in the Obama administration, the Center for Security Policy offers in Ties That Bind? further cause for such an investigation.  That includes, for instance, evidence of Dr. Saleha Abedin’s personal involvement with the International Islamic Committee on Woman and Child’s affiliated organization, the International Islamic Council for Da’wah and Relief (IICDR). The IICDR was banned in Israel in 2008 for its collaboration with Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s Union for Good in the funding of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization, Hamas. In the United States, the Union for Good was designated a terrorist entity in late 2008.

 

This further documentation of Dr. Abedin’s positions on shariah law, her leadership of the IICWC and its affiliation with a designated terrorist entity such as the IICDR makes plain that a thorough investigation is fully justified regarding her daughter’s access to classified information and policy-influencing role.  In particular, in connection with the latter, Ties That Bind powerfully reinforces the Center’s earlier warning that the IICWC is currently advocating for the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to shariah. Americans want no part of such an agenda. They should they have no reason for concern that senior officials in their government are stealthily encouraging it.

 

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

__________________________

Huma Abedin’s Mother exposed by CSP

John R. Houk

© July 22, 2012

_________________________

Center Report Reveals Radical Islamist Agenda of Senior State Department Official Huma Abedin’s Mother

 

About the Center for Security Policy

 

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

Why Leftists Ally with Islamists


Muslim asks - Vote Dem

Has anyone ever wondered why Muslim Apologists and Leftists from the full scale of Socialism (Socialist Democrats, Christian Progressives, Marxists, Communists and yes even Nazis [as in Nazi is derived from the English National Socialism and German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei]) seem to have an unspoken agreement to attack the Biblical faith of Judaism and Christianity?

 

Walid Shoebat has some excellent insight on the odd unified agenda of Leftists and Islam.

 

JRH 6/1/12

Please Support NCCR