CAIR

Newt Gingrich: Ban Shariah in America [with VIDEO]

By Robert Spencer

Just before his stunning victory in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich drew the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the deceptive Islamic supremacist group that bamboozles many with its pose as a neutral civil rights organization.  Gingrich, fumed a CAIR spokesman, was "one of the nation's worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry."  How did Gingrich earn this dubious honor?  By telling the truth about Islamic law, and making clear his determination to resist it.

 

It all started last Tuesday, when Gingrich took a question about whether he would ever endorse a Muslim for President.  "It would depend,” Gingrich answered, “entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Sharia,” the Islamic legal code that mandates stonings, amputations, and restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

"A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat,” Gingrich continued, but “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Sharia, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat."   He even came out in favor of a federal law banning the use of Sharia in American courtrooms.

Gingrich also displayed an admirable grasp of the realities of Sharia, noting that the “rising Islamization of Turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400% increase in women being killed,” and pointing out other negative manifestations of Sharia:  “The application of Sharia in places like Iran … churches being burned in Nigeria and Egypt, and … the decline of Christians in Iraq from a million, 200 thousand, when the Americans arrived, to about 500,000 today.”

Gingrich concluded:  "I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism.  I don't think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don't think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us."

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has challenged politically correct pieties so directly, and spoken so forthrightly about the realities of Islamic law.  In August 2010, Gingrich made a point that our political elites of both the Left and the Right have still largely failed to grasp:  “This is not a war on terrorism.  Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. … One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law, which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.”

In response to his statements last week, CAIR, which has several of its former officials imprisoned for various terror-related activities, thundered that Gingrich's “outdated political ideas look backward to a time when Catholics and Jews were vilified and their faiths called a threat."

There is just one problem with this:  Catholic and Jewish immigrants to the U.S. never had a political and social system that they considered superior to the American model.  Catholic and Jewish organizations were never working to undermine the American system in the manner of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated, in its own words, to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

Gingrich would be foolish to ignore that threat or bow to CAIR’s demands to ascribe concern about it to “bigotry.”  CAIR characterized Sharia as teaching “marital fidelity, generous charity and a thirst for knowledge," but left out the unpleasant bits.  Anyone who wants to see what Sharia is like can look to the states where it is implemented, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Western apologists for Sharia claim that it is so multiform that it has no particular character that anyone can point to.  In reality, wherever and whenever Sharia has been implemented, historically and today, it has looked pretty much the same, and has contained elements absolutely inimical to Western notions of freedom and human rights.

Newt Gingrich is one of the few major politicians to acknowledge that the problem America faces today from Islamic jihadists is not simply one of terrorism, but of a larger attempt to insinuate elements of Sharia into American society and to assert the principle that where Sharia and American law conflict, it is American law that must give way.  Gingrich is determined not to allow this principle to advance.  Bravo.

This article originally appear in Jihad Watch.

Wed, September 17, 2014 Muslim American Orgs. Must Condemn Islamism Not Just ISIS

An Islamic State fighter

An Islamic State fighter

by: 
Ryan Mauro

The Muslim-American community, including organizations with radical histories, swiftly and unequivocally condemned the Islamic State terrorist group (formerly and commonly known as ISIS). These statements are welcome, but they need to go further and challenge the Islamist basis of the group and those like it.

The vast majority of condemnations of the Islamic State focus on its violent tactics and not its belief that Muslims are commanded to wage jihad to build an Islamic state, i.e. a government based on Islamic law (sharia). Nor is its belief that Muslims must rebuild a caliphate being confronted.

President Obama is being criticized for stating that the Islamic State is “not Islamic.” The understandable objective was to avoid depicting the campaign against the Islamic State as a war on Islam, but the obvious truth is that the Islamic State is following an interpretation of Islam. Many Muslims feel it is an incorrect interpretation, but it is still an interpretation.

The Islamic State claims that its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was an Islamic preacher and has a doctorate in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. It also says he is a direct descendent of the Prophet Mohammed, the founder of Islam.

The Islamic State implements governance strictly based on sharia, or Islamic law. The very name of the Islamic State implies a fusion of mosque and state. The concept of the caliphate declared by the Islamic State is rooted in Islamic history and doctrine, even if most Muslims reject the Islamic State’s caliphate.

These fundamentally anti-Western goals emanate from the Islamist ideology that believes in sharia as a code of governance (which is also known as Political Islam). Not all Islamists support the Islamic State, but all members of the Islamic State are Islamists.

By declaring that the Islamic State is “not Islamic,” the Muslim world is relieved of its responsibility to challenge the group’s Islamic basis. Its origins can thus be blamed on the West or a murderous lust for power. The fundamental ideology of the Islamic State and similar groups is left untouched.

The Islamic State must be fought by challenging the basis of its name: an Islamic state with sharia governance. Limiting condemnations to tactics leads to endless arguments about which tactics are appropriate under what conditions. The debate needs to focus on the ultimate purpose of those tactics.

In truth, the Islamic State is acting on a popular agenda in the Muslim world. A 2007 World Public Opinion poll found that 74% of Pakistanis, 71% of Moroccans, 67% of Egyptians and 49% of Indonesians desire a caliphate that absorbs every Muslim country. The objective of strictly implementing sharia in every Muslim country was supported by 79% of Pakistanis, 76% of Moroccans, 74% of Egyptians and 53% of Indonesians.

A 2013 poll found that most Muslim countries want sharia as the official law of the land. Massive numbers specifically favor the brutal corporal punishments of sharia instituted by the Islamic State. Terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban still get double-digit support.

These pillars of the Islamic State’s ideology are left untouched in most Muslim condemnations of the group. For example, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, a coalition of Islamist groups, issued a condemnation of the Islamic State and its ideology without specifying what that ideology is.

It cites a Quranic verse about how the taking of one life is like killing all of mankind, yet leaders in the coalition have supported violent jihad and Hamas. Obviously, that means that the coalition and its fellow Islamists believe this verse does not forbid killing altogether.

This public condemnation and referencing of this verse makes the coalition look “moderate” but does nothing to address the beliefs of the Islamic State and other jihadists that killing is sometimes permissible.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a condemnation of the “actions” of the Islamic State, calling them “un-Islamic and morally repugnant.” But their statement focused solely on tactics, specifically the murdering of civilians and religious scholars and attacks on houses of worship.

Another CAIR statement blamed the rise of the Islamic State on “the fuel of injustice” and “the lack of freedom and justice in the region.” In other words: The West.

For example, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad reacted to the beheading of American journalist James Foley by tweeting that “Israel is the biggest threat to world peace and security.”

Former CAIR-Tampa leader Ahmed Bedier tweeted, “ISIS is not a product of Islam, it is a product of George Bush’s and Obama’s failed wars and policies in Iraq and Syria.” It was re-tweeted by Hassan Shibly, current director of CAIR-Tampa.

A September 10 press conference featured several Muslim-American leaders making strong condemnations of the Islamic State and calling on their community to stop radicalization.

Imam Mohamed Magid of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society Center said, “Young people, please don’t listen to this ideology.” Because he did not specify what that ideology is, all the audience knows is that the Islamic State is wrong for killing non-combatants. The issue of sharia is not addressed.

Azhar Azeez, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), said ISIS has “no basis in the teaching of Islam.” This statement gives the impression that it is not a product of an Islamic interpretation.

Azeez says Islam does not condone terrorism or killing civilians or destroying civilian infrastructure. ISIS would probably agree with this statement because it does not consider its actions to be “terrorism” or its targets to be “civilian.” The statement will do nothing to dissuade a Muslim dabbling in Islamism.

Azeez’s rejection of attacks on civilian infrastructure is ironic considering that Imam Johari Abdul-Malik of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center spoke at the press conference. In 2001, he said that attacks on bridges, power plants, the water supply and other infrastructure in Israel are justifiable as long as you don’t take innocent life.

Abdul-Malik does deserve credit for using the word jihadist and mocking how the Islamic State is appealing to youth by looking "cool." He said, “Nothing is cool about being a jihadist, you’re a loser.”

However, Abdul-Malik failed to challenge the specific interpretations of the Islamic State. He rejected linking the Islamic State to Islam in any way, arguing that the KKK was never linked to Christianity. Instead, he indirectly blamed the West by saying the Islamic State was exploiting anger over how Muslims are treated around the world.

Imam Talib Shareef of Masjid Muhammad asked the media to refer to the Islamic State as the “anti-Islamic State.”

He stated that the Islamic State is contradicting religious coexistence that occurred under the Prophet Mohammad’s Islamic state. However, by saying that the Islamic State does not represent a true Islamic state, it is implied that the pursuit of an Islamic state is noble.

Of the major Muslim-American groups, the one that has gone the furthest in confronting the ideological basis of the Islamic State is the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). It was founded by Muslim Brotherhood ideologues and has had a pro-Islamist past, but it has also taken some stances against Islamists like former Egyptian President Morsi.

Its D.C. office director, Haris Tarin, spoke at the September 10 press conference. Its President, Salam al-Marayati, has written several articles about the Islamic State and its beliefs.

In one of the articles, al-Marayati wrote, “This ‘caliphate’ [declared by the Islamic State] is a disturbed and failed attempt to recreate the glory days of the Islamic civilization of over 1,000 years ago, yet it is a forgery of anything close to Islam.”

Unfortunately, al-Marayati is ridiculing the caliphate of the Islamic State, not the desire to rebuild a caliphate. This is similar to the ruling of Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi who only opposes the Islamic State’s caliphate because of how it was accomplished.

Al-Marayati blames both the West and Islamic interpretations. He writes that “ISIS is the toxic and dogmatic response to centuries-old colonial propaganda that aimed to demonize and dehumanize the Muslim world.” However, “The failed response by Muslims is political Islam.”

In another article, al-Marayati says that the ideology of the Islamic State and those like contains takfirism, essentially an Islamic version of the Puritans who brand Muslims as apostates and persecute them. He uses Islamic history against the Islamic State by comparing them to the Kharijites, a sect of radical Muslims in the seventh century that waged war on those they saw as apostates.

He says the Islamic State is a product of modern takfirism that causes an “unholy alliance of clergy and state” spread by “co-opting religious authority, fabricating religious texts, and spreading selective interpretations and applications of Islam by establishing schools and funding those that would teach their literal and absolutist Islamic narrative.”

Confronting takfirism is an improvement because it specifies an adversarial ideology rooted in Islamic interpretation, but it is still too narrow. It is still a practice of Islamism, albeit a particularly aggressive one. The term thus enables Islamists to offer a group like the Muslim Brotherhood as a “moderate” alternative to the takfiri Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

Muslim-American groups need to launch a systematic refutation of the overall Islamist ideology. This means challenging the works of popular Islamist preachers like Ibn Taymiyyah, Hassan al-Banna, Maulana Maududi, Yousef al-Qaradawi, Sayyid Qutb, Ayatollah Khomeini and Muhammad al-Wahhab.

The youth must not be taught to idolize foreign Islamists like Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and Tunisian preacher Rachid Ghannouchi or American ones like Zaid Shakir and Siraj Wahhaj.

This means promoting progressive reformation and ijtihad, the independent interpretation of doctrine. Muslims must not be afraid to criticize the determinations of Islamist jurists, and texts with anti-Islamist points of view should be encouraged. Former Islamist and current Muslim reformist Tawfik Hamid writes about this need in a new Clarion Project article, and he’s published a "Modern Interpretation of the Quran."

Muslim activist Mike Ghouse writes that there are two Islams “mangled up” and Muslims need to welcome criticisms of authoritative scholars from the past like Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir. He says:

“The mistake we have made is to give their word a near equivalence of Quran and the Prophet; we can judge them against historical relativism but should not regard their work as integral component of Islamic teachings. All said, we must admit that whatever their intentions might have been, the medieval scholars messed up the interpretation of Quran. Instead of building cohesive societies, they were inclined to forge exclusive authoritarian societies.”

Ghouse is not disputing the fact that the Islamic State is practicing a version of Islam. He’s disputing that it is the right version of Islam. And he recognizes that the core problem is resistance to critical examination of sharia teachings.

The Muslim-American community has stood up to condemn the Islamic State. It now needs to step up to the greater challenge of confronting the Islamist ideology that bred it and other groups like it.

 

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

Mon, September 1, 2014 CAIR's Use of Lawfare, Threats Shut Down Discourse in U.S.

Federal agents outside the holy Land Foundation. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terror-funding trial in the history of the U.S.

Federal agents outside the holy Land Foundation. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terror-funding trial in the history of the U.S.

by: 
Ryan Mauro

Deborah Weiss, esq. is an expert in the Islamist tactic of pushing blasphemy laws under the guides of “combating defamation of religions,” as detailed in her previous interview with the Clarion Project.

She writes for several online publications and was the primary writer and researcher for a new book, The Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation, published by Citizens for National Security.

Her current work can be found at www.VigilanceNow.org.

The following is her interview with Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro:

 

Ryan Mauro: What are the strongest examples of CAIR using frivolous lawsuits and intimidation to stifle legitimate criticism?

Deborah Weiss: CAIR has filed numerous lawsuits against individuals and organizations as a means to silence speech either regarding CAIR or some Islam-related topic. The complaint usually involves an allegation of “defamation” or “libel” amongst other charges. 

However, Islam’s definition of defamation is a far cry from the definition we have in the American legal system.  In our system, only a person(s) or organization(s) can be defamed, not an idea or a religion.  Additionally, any statement that is true is not considered defamatory regardless of how negative it is.  By contrast, Islam and CAIR consider anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims to be defamation even if it’s true.  I think over the years, CAIR has learned that we have much freer speech in our system than does the Middle East. 

Most of the time, CAIR winds up dropping the case, settling the case, losing the lawsuit or the suit is dismissed by the court.  I doubt if CAIR even expects to win anymore.  When it persists, the lawsuit is used as a means to silence CAIR’s opponents by scaring them or bleeding them dry since legal representation costs money.  CAIR’s attorneys also often send “cease and desist” letters to its targets threatening legal action, even if it has no plan to carry out the threat.

A good example of one of CAIR’s lawsuits was against Andrew Whitehead who had a website titled, “Anti-CAIR.”  First, CAIR sent Andrew a cease and desist letter threatening a lawsuit unless it stopped making “defamatory statements” about CAIR.  When the website continued, CAIR filed a lawsuit, claiming that the website’s statements were false and made with malicious intent.  It sought one million dollars in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages, plus legal fees. Fortunately the defendant, who is merely an individual with limited funds, found an attorney to represent him pro-bono. 

The defendant counter-sued arguing that CAIR’s lawsuit was an anti-SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation), and that it constituted harassment and intimidation.  As soon as the lawsuit reached the discovery phase and CAIR was hit with requests to disclose its finances, ties to Hamas and to Saudi Arabia, all of a sudden CAIR dropped most of the charges, leaving only the defamation allegation. 

Eventually, the parties settled and the details were undisclosed to the public.  But let me put it to you this way: Andrew’s lawyer provided the court with evidence that Andrew’s statements were true, no apology was made and the statements posted on the Anti-CAIR website, which triggered the lawsuit, remain posted to this day.

Another example of lawfare was a letter CAIR’s attorney sent to the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), demanding that it cancel its scheduled speaker, Robert Spencer, who is known to have strong opinions opposing Islamist ideology.  He has extensive knowledge on the subject of Islam and has written numerous books.  CAIR’s letter threatened legal action if its demands were not met.  To its credit, YAF stood firm and indeed, the threat was not carried out.

However, CAIR has also largely switched tactics now that the public has caught wind of its litigious nature.  Instead, it uses pressure, coercion, reputation smearing, name calling (“bigot” or “Islamophobe”), misinformation and various types of threats to shut down speakers or get companies to capitulate to its demands.  

 

Mauro: Your book provides a number of examples where CAIR exerts rather serious threats and/or coercive pressure to get individuals, corporations or government entities to comply with its demands. Can you give us a few?

Weiss: Sure.  One is example is how CAIR treated Nike several years back when it launched a then-new sneaker called “Nike Air.”  Someone protested that the design logo for the word “air” resembled the word “Allah” in Arabic.  CAIR mounted immense pressure on Nike demanding that it make a worldwide recall of the product where it would lose very large profits, cease production of the logo, apologize to Muslims globally, donate tens of thousands of dollars to Islamic schools, sponsor Muslim community events and change its own internal production procedures to consult with CAIR on future logo designs to ensure that it would never use a design that “defames” Islam again. 

At first, Nike resisted CAIR’s demands, but due to fear of losing entire markets after CAIR threatened a worldwide boycott of, not just of Nike Air sneakers but of all Nike products, Nike finally capitulated on every point.  There are numerous other companies that have done the same from food companies to clothing designers to banks.  The list is rather broad and comprehensive.

Another example is how CAIR tries to undermine national security.  Several years ago, the Obama Administration, in part due to pressure from CAIR, totally rewrote all its national security and counterterrorism training programs.  It completely wiped clean any mention of Islamist ideology or Islamic terrorism in its training material.  It even discontinued working with counterterrorism experts whom had been training agency professionals for years if they made any mention of Islamic radicalism.  Now national security professionals in the FBI, CIA, State Department and National Counterterrorism Center are no longer learning about Islamic terrorism but instead are taught to focus on terrorist behavior. 

This is very dangerous because terrorism is merely a tactic.  It is spawned by a belief system that encompasses goals, motivations and strategy.  If you are unable to name the threat and identify how it operates, it greatly hampers your ability to catch and defeat it in its early stages.  It’s much more likely that it will be caught very late or too late, if at all.

Additionally, CAIR demands the firing of anyone who espouses views it doesn’t want the public to hear.  This occurred with former talk show host Michael Graham, who had a radio show on WMAL.  In July of 2005, he made the controversial and inflammatory statement that “Islam has become a terrorist organization.” He emphasized that this was merely his opinion, (his show was commentary, not news reporting) and invited callers to weigh in telling him why he was wrong.  He also asserted his belief that it didn’t have to remain this way if Muslims who don’t support terrorism would “step forward and reclaim their religion.” Graham stated that he cleared his statements with management prior to airing and was told that they support his right to free speech. 

Nonetheless, CAIR went on a mission to have Graham punished for his comments.  It started a campaign asking its members to flood WMAL and the show’s sponsors with letters demanding that Graham be penalized.  Accordingly, Graham was suspended without pay pending an investigation.  But CAIR didn’t stop there.  Once Graham was suspended, CAIR then demanded that he be fired from his job.  Less than a month later, he was fired.  This was not an isolated incident, but one of the tactics that CAIR frequently employs as a method to stamp out speech critical of either CAIR or Islam.

My final example will be that of a movie titled, “[T]he Sum of All Fears”, based on Tom Clancy’s book.

The book was about Islamic terrorists who shot down an Israeli plane which was carrying nuclear weapons over Syria.  CAIR insisted that having a film about Islamic terrorists constitutes “negative stereotyping of Muslims.”  Nobody ever said all Muslims were terrorists but apparently, in the eyes of CAIR, a Muslim can never be a terrorist, or it amounts to “stereotyping.”  The producer said that he was getting complaints before the script was even written.  CAIR protested the story line literally for years before the release of the film.  In the end, the film was changed to depict the villains as Australian Neo-Nazis instead of Islamic terrorists.  This also is not an isolated incident.  CAIR often protests storylines or plots in TV shows, films and the media.  That includes both fiction and non-fiction.

 

Mauro: How does CAIR get away with its activities without being prosecuted?  Are there loopholes in the legal system that is CAIR exploiting?

Weiss: Theoretically, CAIR could and probably should be prosecuted for whatever role it played in funneling money to Hamas regarding the Holy Land Foundation trial, whether its involvement was direct or more attenuated.  It should also be required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

Aside from that, because it doesn’t overtly espouse an immediate overthrow of the U.S. government or violence, it isn’t considered a terrorist organization.  In order for CAIR as an entity (or other Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Islamic Society of North America or the MPAC) to be prosecuted or shut down, the State Department would have to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and then treat all its affiliates as one entity.  To date, it has not done that.

In terms of CAIR’s coercive activities, it’s very hard to say it’s illegal.  For an activity to be illegal, it has to meet every element of a statutory crime. Frequently, CAIR’s activities will meet, for example, three out of four elements.  I’m not sure it’s a coincidence.  Either way, it might be wrong, but technically, it wouldn’t be prosecutable.  Every jurisdiction determines its own requirements regarding what constitutes criminal activity. 

But I’ll give you an example.  Generally, the definition of extortion is the taking of another person’s property by wrongful use of actual or threatened violence, force or fear under color of official right.  So, a threat must be made to the other person. It doesn’t have to be a threat to physical injury; it can be a threat to harm the reputation of your business or a threat to hurt one of your family members.  There has to be willful or purposeful intent.  In other words, sometimes people will take someone else’s property by mistakenly thinking it’s theirs. That wouldn’t qualify for extortion; it’s simply a mistake.

Some jurisdictions require that property must actually be acquired and some jurisdictions state that the intent to take the property is sufficient.  Obviously, CAIR threatens individuals and corporations in a myriad of ways.  But, there’s no evidence that it actually steals or seizes property, so therefore CAIR’s conduct doesn’t rise to the level of extortion.  There are numerous crimes for which CAIR’s conduct with meet all of the elements except for one.  That isn’t sufficient to charge it with a crime.

 

Mauro: What can be done to protect Americans from CAIR’s pernicious influence?

Weiss: I have recommendations for the government and recommendations for the general public.

First and foremost, the government should cut all ties with CAIR.  This means all federal agencies and local law enforcement agencies should terminate its relationship with CAIR, stop consulting with them, and stop asking them for advice.  CAIR is a terrorist-tied organization with an anti-freedom agenda.

Working with CAIR leadership gives it cover of legitimacy and, in my opinion, it is the farthest thing from a legitimate civil rights organization. CAIR does not seek what is in the best interest of American national security, and even if it did, it certainly has no qualifications to advise national security or counterterrorism professionals.

Second, because CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, it should be held to account.  There is no reason that the Department of Justice cannot proceed with a prosecution and it ought to do so.

Because CAIR receives large donations from foreign principals and worked with foreign entities like the OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference], CAIR should be required to register under the Foreign Agent Act (FARA) which mandates periodic disclosure of the agents’ relationships with foreign entities, as well as disclosure of its activities and finances.

There should probably also be a congressional investigation and hearings on CAIR in order to better inform Congressmen, their staff and the public about the truly subversive, deceptive and seditious nature of CAIR. 

It’s unfortunate that Congressman Peter King was so maligned when he held hearings on homegrown radicalization.  He was truly brave to try to address threats to our homeland’s security in an environment of political correctness that values votes and popularity more than safety.  I’m sure that a hearing about CAIR would cause a similar uproar, but if it’s presented properly, and it’s made clear that the focus is this particular organization rather than all Muslims, it should be done.  After all, there is substantial evidence of CAIR’s terrorist ties, illicit funding, arguably illegal activities and open support for State-designated terrorist organizations.  I think it would be difficult even for the most clueless of Congressmen, like Jackie Speier, to argue that all of this should be given a pass.

Finally, the State Department should officially designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO).  The Muslim Brotherhood has its roots in Egypt, and Egypt recently designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.  Now would be the perfect time for the U.S. to do the same.  It would really solve a lot of problems here in the U.S.  Labeling the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization would allow law enforcement and national security agencies to really keep an eye on any NGO’s that are affiliated with the Brotherhood and perhaps even shut them down.

As far as what individuals can do, the first course of action is to make sure you are educated.  Keep up to date on CAIR’s activities in your neighborhood as it is very active on a number of fronts.  Inform your family, friends and neighbors about CAIR’s history, goals, ideology and terrorist ties.

Second, do what you can to persuade your church or synagogue not to engage with CAIR or to invite them to “interfaith dialogues” or panels.  This just legitimizes them and gives them an opportunity to provide disinformation for those in the audience who are naïve and really come to learn something. 

Watch your school boards and make sure nobody from CAIR is on them.  Run for a school board position yourself, or campaign for someone else who might make a good candidate.  Islamists are rewriting school textbooks so it’s important to keep an eye on who is influencing the classrooms.

Hold your elected officials accountable, but keep in mind that it’s always easier to run a candidate that shares your positions than to change the positions of those already in office.  Often-times, politicians are not familiar with what CAIR really is because they have a lot on their plate.  A cursory, superficial glance at CAIR might not be sufficient to uncover their insidious nature.  Any constituent has the right to meet with his representatives on a local level.  You can put together some articles, papers and a one page paper listing the critical points about CAIR and provide them to staffers.

Most importantly, fight back.  If you attend a university or belong to an organization that has a scheduled speaker which CAIR is coercing you to cancel, don’t cave in.  You have the right to freedom of speech.  Your speaker has the right to freedom of speech, and the public has the right to hear more than one side of an issue.  If CAIR doesn’t like it, it can have its own event with different speakers.  You won’t be able to change CAIR, but don’t let CAIR change you.

 

Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

Sun, August 31, 2014 Islamists Pressure FBI to Drop Training on Muslim Brotherhood

The Council on American Islamic Relations' National Communications Director and spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (left) with founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (right. (Photo: © Reuters)

The Council on American Islamic Relations' National Communications Director and spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (left) with founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (right. (Photo: © Reuters)

by: 
Ryan Mauro

A political alliance of 75 organizations led by Islamist supporters has published a letter demanding the removal of "anti-Muslim" material from FBI training. This purported objective is incontestable, but the thinly concealed objective is to end instruction about the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

The letter refers to legitimately offensive instances of anti-Muslim content in FBI documents, specifically a 2005 memo that used the fake name of “Mohammed Raghead.” Derogatory language has no place in governmental instruction.

However, this legitimate example of inappropriate teaching is conflated with examples of appropriate teaching that makes Islamists uncomfortable. It is another application of the "Islamophobia" strategy that has been used by Islamists for decades.

The bloc tries to lump the use of the bigoted term “Mohammed Raghead” together with the important work of former FBI counterterrorism expert John Guandolo, who served in the counterterrorism division of the Washington Field Office.

Guandolo is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and developed a training curriculum on the topic in 2006 that was endorsed as “groundbreaking” by the FBI’s former executive assistant director Willie Hulon. You can read the Clarion Project’s interview with Guandolo here.

 The letter states, “Echoing the ‘red under every bed’ hysteria of the McCarthy era, Guandolo believes that ‘hundreds’ of covert members of the Muslim Brotherhood are active in the United States…”

Simply acknowledging the existence of Muslim Brotherhood activities in the U.S. is branded as anti-Muslim, even though internal documents belonging to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood are publicly available and show a large presence of the group in the U.S.

In the Holy Land Foundation trial, the Justice Department even identified several entities of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and labeled them unindicted co-conspirators. One of these, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), belongs to the coalition protesting FBI education about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

Another coalition member is the Muslim Alliance in North America, led by radical cleric Siraj Wahhaj, whose mosque has been investigated by the New York Police Department. The group’s website features the preaching of Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of Hamas.

Yet another coalition leader is the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). It was founded by Muslim Brotherhood ideologues and has an extremist track record. One of the now-deceased leaders said that he came to the U.S. to spread the “Islamic Movement” inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder.

MPAC published a policy paper in 2010, which was referenced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The paper promotes the Brotherhood as a moderate alternative to Al-Qaeda, stating, “Conservative groups like the Muslim Brotherhood pose long-term strategic threats to violent extremists by siphoning Muslims away from violent radicalism into peaceful political activism.”

MPAC’s behavior has moderated in recent years and the group congratulated Egypt when President Morsi (from the Muslim Brotherhood party) was overthrown in 2013. However, MPAC has not condemned the Muslim Brotherhood or its foundational Islamist ideology.

The Muslim Legal Fund of America is another bloc involved in pressuring the FBI. The organization raised money for the Holy Land Foundation defendants. In that trial, Holy Land Foundation “charity” officials were found guilty of financing Hamas. The Foundation is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.

One of the organization’s board members is linked to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. A current member of the Board of Directors is Hatem Bazian, an Islamist radical who also is the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine, an organization that has Brotherhood links and is sympathetic to Hamas. Bazian is also a founder of the Islamist-led Zaytuna College.

Another Muslim Legal Fund of American associate is Rafeeq Jaber. He has been listed as the Midwest Coordinator for the organization. His resume includes founding CAIR and serving as president of the now-defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, a pro-Hamas group that was a front the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The Arab American Association of New York  is another endorser of the letter. The group lists a Muslim Brotherhood entity in Qatar (specifically linked to Qaradawi) as one of its main supporters. It was investigated by the NYPD for links to terrorism. The group’s executive director regularly claims that Islamic terrorist plots are “manufactured” by the U.S. government.

This pro-Islamist lobby rallied together its political and interfaith allies for its cause. Examples include the CAIR-friendly American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Interfaith Center of New York and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (which has had extremist leadership that legitimizes Hamas and Hezbollah).

It’s obvious what’s going on here. Pro-Islamist groups linked to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood want to stop the FBI from training its agents about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

These groups also were furious when it was revealed that the National Security Agency and FBI were monitoring the emails of five Muslim-American activists with links to terrorism and extremism. One of those activists, Nihad Awad, is the founder and executive director of  CAIR. The public record supports the U.S. government’s contention that this surveillance was justifiable.

This campaign treats this monitoring at as anti-Muslim, too. The letter states:

“The use of anti-Muslim trainers and materials is not only highly offensive, disparaging the faith of millions of Americans, but leads to biased policing that targets individuals and communities based on religion, not evidence of wrongdoing.”

That’s how these groups described the monitoring of the five activists’ emails. The common denominator in all of the coalition’s complaints is anger towards scrutiny of the coalition’s Islamist members.

The coalition has reason to hope for success. A eye-opening Clarion Project report shows how the Department of Homeland Security issued counter-terrorism training guidelines in 2011 that vividly fulfilled these groups’ pro-Islamist agenda.

The training recommendations, if followed, completely end instruction about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. Education about non-violent Islamist tactics ceases. Muslim and non-Muslim opponents of the American Islamists are cast aside as improper sources.

As confirmed by the Justice Department and Brotherhood documents, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network played a significant part in the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism-financing case in U.S. history.

Teaching about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is absolutely essential to understanding the presence of Islamic extremism in the United States and the challenges facing the U.S. today.

The Islamist extremists shouldn’t get to decide what the FBI teaches about them. 

 

Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

Wed, August 27, 2014 Huffington Post Lists Known Terrorists As Opponents of Terror

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi seated next Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. Screenshot, The Huffington Post.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi seated next Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. Screenshot, The Huffington Post.

by: 
Elliot Friedland

The Huffington Post has included several known terrorist leaders and supporters in a slideshow titled "Muslim Leaders Condemn Terrorism."

The Huffington Post published an article August 25 about a demonstration in Norway by a group of Muslims who were protesting against the Islamic State and its supporters in Norway. At the end of the article is a slideshow titled "Muslim Leaders Condemn Terrorism" which features various high-profile Muslim leaders who have issued statements condemning terrorism. Most of the examples were statements condemning the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. that killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Center. 

However, the Huffington Post's slideshow included terrorist supporters and financiers as well as leaders of the known terrorist group Hamas who are listed below. 

Sheikh Yousuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qaradawi has been filmed openly calling on Muslims to perpetrate a second holocaust against Jews and expressing a desire to kill Jews personally, as documented in the video clip below.

In the picture selected for the slideshow Qaradawi is sitting next to Ismail Haniyeh, a senior leader of Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist group by the US, the EU, Canada and Japan.

Rashid Ghannoushi, leader of Tunisia's Ennahda party. Ennahda is an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is listed as a terrorist organization by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and is under consideration to be listed as a terrorist organization by Great Britain.

Ghannoushi was quoted as having signed a letter condemning the 9/11 terrorist attacks alongside other 40 Muslim leaders (not all of whom were named).

However, the other leaders included alongside him can in no way be considered to be condemning terrorism, since many of them are or were the leaders of functioning terrorist groups, such as:

Mustafa Mashur, formerly the general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization listed in several countries as a terrorist organization.

Qazi Hussein Ahmed & Mutior Rahman Nizami (spelled Muti by The Huffington Post). Ahmed and Nizami were the leaders of Jamaat e-Islami in Pakistan and Bangladesh, respectively. Jamaat e-Islami was heavily implicated in horrific war crimes including -- but not limited to -- rape, murder, torture and mutilation of academics and ethnic Bengalis as well as Hindus. The crimes were committed in the 1971 war for the independence of Bangladesh.

Nizami is currently standing trial in Bangladesh for 16 counts of war crimes, including the murder of over 500 people and rape. Regardless of the problems with the court proceedings, which have been criticized by human rights organizations for being corrupt and unfair, Mutior Rahman Nizami's conduct during the war and the ongoing nature of the trial should have disqualified him from inclusion on a list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorism. Other Jamaat e-Islami leaders have been sentenced to death for their crimes committed in the war, in which an estimated three million people were slaughtered by the Pakistani army.

Perhaps the most perplexing inclusion on The Huffington Post's list of Muslim leaders condemning terrorism was Shaykh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, a group responsible for firing thousands of rockets into Israel on civilian targets and carrying out suicide bombings, abductions, etc.

Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), was also on The Huffington Post's list. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history.

On July 1, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis upheld  CAIR’s designation as an unindicted co-conspirator because of “ample evidence” linking CAIR to Hamas.

There are many Muslim leaders and activists that The Huffington Post could have listed who condemn terrorism. For example, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has fought against Islamic terrorism in the Sinai peninsula and has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood (as has Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

The former President of Indonesia Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid has fought tirelessly for his vision of a "global triumph of a pluralistic and tolerant understanding of Islam, at peace with itself and the modern world." Until his death in 2009, he was the spiritual leader of a Nadhlatul Ulama, a Muslim organization with 40 million members. Wahid set up an innovative counter-extremism program with worldwide reach.

Maulana Wahiddudin Khan is a leading Islamic scholar, mystic and peace activist who has received multiple awards for his non-violent campaigns. Khan was described by Georgetown University as "Islam's spiritual ambassador to the world." He runs an organization called the Center for Peace and Spirituality which he founded in 2001 with the ultimate goal of creating world peace by influencing people one at a time. The Center for Peace and Spirituality has put forward its own solution to terrorism, which is based on pacifist philosophy.

Yet instead of choosing any of these individuals or others with a genuine commitment to eradicating Islamist terrorism, The Huffington Post instead selected known supporters of terror to praise as condemning terrorism.

At press time, the slideshow was still available on their website. We have reached out to The Huffington Post for comment.

UPDATE: 08/28/2014 - Clarion Project received a response from the Huffington Post. It read as follows:

This article was written by The Associated Press. For comment as to why they included that in the article, you'd have to ask them.

Thanks,
L.

Clarion Project followed up by asking the following additional questions:

1) Is the slideshow Associated Press also, or is was it made by Huffington Post?
2) Huffington Post still made the decision to publish the slideshow on the website. How did Huffington Post decide to to publish it?

The Huffington Post have made no changes as a result of the correspondence, and the slideshow is still up on their website at press time. 

If they respond to our further questions, we will publish their response here.

 

Sun, August 17, 2014 Rev. Al Sharpton Keynote Speaker at CAIR Banquet

Al Shapton

Al Shapton

by: 
Ryan Mauro

Reverend Al Sharpton, host of PoliticsNation on MSNBC and former presidential candidate, will be the keynote speaker at the annual fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity with an extremist history.

CAIR’s 20th Annual Banquet will be held on September 27 in Arlington, Virginia and also features Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN).

According to the U.S. Justice Department, CAIR is an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. More specifically, CAIR is part of the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a secret body that was established to push the agenda of Hamas and the overall Islamist cause.

This is confirmed by Muslim Brotherhood documents.

A July 1994 Palestine Committee meeting agenda says attendees will discuss “future suggestions to develop the work of” CAIR. A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo lists CAIR’s predecessor, the Islamic Association for Palestine, as one of its fronts. Three of CAIR’s founders were leaders in that group.

In 2007, the Justice Department branded CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity found guilty of financing Hamas. The designation was upheld by a federal judge in 2009. The FBI subsequently ended its use of CAIR as an outreach partner, citing evidence linking it to Hamas.

In another terrorism trial in 2007, federal prosecutors stated in a court filing:

“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists … the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

The ongoing extremism of CAIR is evident in its suspicious money transfers, use of Islamist radicals for fundraising, defense of the Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group and the statements of its chapter leaders. CAIR officials questioned whether to honor U.S. soldiers on Memorial Day (prompting outrage from other Muslims)compared the U.S. military to the Taliban and criticized American nationalism.

Sharpton previously spoke for CAIR’s 18th annual banquet on September 29, 2012. He said he was “honored” to be asked to speak for “one of the most important civil rights organizations in the United States today and that is CAIR.”

Speaking at the same event was Imam Siraj Wahhaj, as Clarion reported at the time. Wahhaj has a long and blunt history of extremism. The New York Police Department placed his mosque under surveillance due to evidence of terrorist activity.

In the early 1990s, he preached that the U.S. is “the most wicked government on the face of the earth” and a “garbage can” that he prays “crumbles.”

In 1992, he preached that, “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir and give allegiance to him.”

Wahhaj also preached that Muslims should prepare for violent jihad, lamented that “some Muslims have lost the desire to fight,” and said, “I will never tell people don’t be violent. That’s not the Islamic way.”

He moderated his preaching after 9/11, particularly as it relates to instituting Islamic sharia law. He said in 2011, The trap we fall into is having a premature discussion about sharia when we are not there yet.”

In September 2013, the NYPD justified its surveillance of Wahhaj’s mosque, Masjid At Taqwa, by revealing evidence that it is connected to terrorism. Its court filing states:

“The NYPD’s investigation of certain individuals associated with Plaintiff Masjid At Taqwa was based upon information about their lengthy history of suspected criminal activity, some of it terroristic in nature. This information includes but is not limited to: illegal weapons trafficking by members of the mosque’s security team and the mosque caretaker both within the mosque and the store adjacent; illegal weapons trafficking by certain attendees of the mosque; allegations that the mosque ran a ‘gun club;’ and allegations that the assistant Imam had earmarked portions of over $200,000 raised in the mosque to a number of US Government-designated terrorist organizations.”

The NYPD also says that the mosque’s security team arranged paintball trips that included at least one convicted terrorist and the participants were referred to as “jihad warriors.” The security team has also learned how to disarm police officers and has held martial arts classes attended by convicted terrorists.

The host of a major cable news show does not belong at a CAIR fundraiser.

The Clarion Project has emailed MSNBC and Sharpton’s National Action Network and will post any response here.

 

 

Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

Former U.S. Defense Contractor Bankrolled CAIR

Submitted by Emily on Mon, 2014-07-21 04:36

URL: 
http://www.islamist-watch.org/16557/rahim-sabadia-portrait-of-a-disgraced-defense

Omar Ahmad - Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

- Omar Ahmad
Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Thu, July 10, 2014 Prominent Islamists Blast NSA for Monitoring Emails

Nihad Awad, (r) founder and executive director of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Nihad Awad, (r) founder and executive director of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

by: 
Ryan Mauro

A 45-member coalition -- including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), two U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities with extremist histories -- is accusing the Obama and Bush Administrations of persecuting the entire Muslim-American community by monitoring the emails of five Muslims with links to terrorists.

The coalition is responding to a new report based on classified documents leaked by former National Security Agency (NSA) employee Edward Snowden. It focuses on the monitoring of five Muslim-American activists, including CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. The authors of the report are Glenn Greenwald, who has spoken for at least three CAIR fundraisers, and Murtaza Hussain.

The documents provide about 7,500 email addresses monitored by the U.S. government between 2002 and 2008. This is not a shocking number, especially considering the activists’ histories and that there are 2.75 million Muslim-Americans.

Of these, only 202 are listed as Americans and some of these are multiple accounts held by one user. The authors of the report were able to identify five activists who were being monitored.

The Director of National Intelligence said in a statement it is “entirely false that U.S. intelligence agencies conduct electronic surveillance of political, religious or activist figures solely because they disagree with public policies or criticize the government, or for exercising constitutional rights.”  

Rather, before monitoring, an independent judge from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court must be persuaded that there is strong enough evidence that the subject is linked to terrorism or under the control of a foreign power.

Public information, much of it cited by the authors, links each of the five to Islamist terrorists. The authors of the report admit they do not know what classified information the NSA and FBI is in possession of; nor do they have any evidence that the NSA failed to get a judge’s approval as required.

Yet, the monitoring of these five activists’ emails is depicted as a scandal by the authors of the report and the coalition, depicting this as an assault on the entire Muslim-American community. Further, the coalition includes groups with their own checkered histories like CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Muslim Legal Fund of America.

There are very strong grounds to believe that the government has legitimate reasons for monitoring the five activists. They are as follows:

 

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR

Nihad Awad’s emails were monitored by the FBI from July 2006 to February 2008, at which point the surveillance was terminated. In 2007, the Justice Department designated CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Brotherhood front in Texas whose leaders were found guilty of financing Hamas.

The Justice Department listed CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, specifically its secret Palestine Committee that was set up to support Hamas.

In 2009, a federal judge upheld the designation because of “ample” evidence. The FBI stopped using CAIR as an outreach partner because of evidence linking it to Hamas.

In another court case in 2007, federal prosecutors stated in a court filing:

“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists … the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

Nihad Awad was the Public Relations Director for the Islamic Association for Palestine, a Muslim Brotherhood front founded by a senior Hamas operative. The FBI recorded a secret Hamas/Brotherhood meeting in Philadelphia in 1993, which Awad was present for, where they discussed the need to create a new front with clean tracks. Awad and another meeting participant founded CAIR the next year.

In 1993, Awad said, “I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO.” Awad told Greenwald that he does not support Hamas and made that statement before Hamas began carrying out suicide attacks, but the Investigative Project on Terrorism has proven that false.

Even if it were accurate, Hamas was formed as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and was violent and extreme from the beginning. Its charter talks about the killing of Jews as being the fulfillment of Islamic prophecy.

In 2004, Awad refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups in an Arabic interview with Al-Jazeera. Instead, he called them “liberation movements.” This tactic of saying different things to English and Arabic audiences was talked about in the 1993 meeting. Most recently, Awad tweeted in Arabic that the prosecution of Sami al-Arian on terrorism charges was due to an Israeli conspiracy.

CAIR continues to have radical leaders and engage in highly suspicious financial activity. The Clarion Project’s documented profile of CAIR can be read here.

In discussing CAIR, Greenwald and Hussain mention its “political moderation” and suggest it is the victim of political persecution by anti-Muslim bigots influencing the government. They write that CAIR became a “primary target of hardline neoconservatives after 911” and has been “publicly maligned as terrorist supporters by the Muslim-focused fringes of the far right.”

For CAIR to be “moderate,” the Justice Department, FBI and Judge Solis would all have to be a part of this anti-Muslim conspiracy. So would the Muslim Brotherhood, whose own internal documents show its ties to CAIR and Awad.

Even Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who no one could say is “far right,” talked about CAIR’s “ties to terrorism” in 2003. Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Barbara Boxer have also acknowledged CAIR’s extremism, though they subsequently continued to work with the group.

 

Agha Saeed of the American Muslim Task Force

Agha Saeed’s emails were monitored by the FBI from June 2007 until at least May 2008, when the documents state that the surveillance needed renewing.

In 1999, Saeed spoke at an ISNA conference (which, like CAIR, is an unindicted co-conspirator and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity). He said in his speech, “United Nations has a resolution …which says …     people in Palestine have the right to resist their oppression by using all means including armed resistance.”

The quote caused Hillary Clinton to return a $50,000 donation from one of Saeed’s organizations during her Senate race in 2000. She said his speech was “offensive and outrageous.”

In the Greenwald report, Saeed says that the NSA may have been concerned by his friendship with Sami al-Arian, a senior leader of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network who was convicted of being a Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader.

In 1995, federal authorities raided the home of Al-Arian and found a plan they believed he authored. It instructed his colleagues “to infiltrate the sensitive intelligence agencies or the embassies in order to collect information and building close relationships with the people in charge of these establishments.”

Al-Arian’s orders were to “collect information from those relatives and friends who work in sensitive positions in government.”

Al-Arian and another secret Muslim Brotherhood partner, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, had astounding success in this endeavor, especially in regards to the Bush Administration with help from anti-tax activist Grover Norquist. Alamoudi was convicted on terrorism charges in 2004.

Saeed’s American Muslim Political Coordination Council Political Action Committee endorsed then-Governor Bush’s presidential campaign in 2000. Ironically, Greenwald reports that Saeed was among a group of Muslim activists due to meet with President Bush on September 11, 2001, but the terrorist attacks caused its cancellation.

Another person involved in the Islamist network friendly with Norquist and the Bush Administration was Faisal Gil, another activist monitored by the NSA.

 

Faisal Gill, Former Homeland Security Official

Faisal Gill’s emails were monitored by the FBI from April 2006 until February 2008 when the surveillance was terminated.

Gill was a spokesman for the American Muslim Council, the organization led by Alamoudi before he was arrested on terrorism-related charges. Gil claims he only met Alamoudi few times despite his prominent position.

In 2001, Gill became the director of governmental affairs for the Islamic Free Market Institute. This organization was founded by Norquist and Alamoudi’s close aide. As we chronicled here, the Institute had strong links to Islamist groups at this time.

After the 9/11 attacks, Gill joined the White House Office of Homeland Security, listing Norquist as a reference. He then became the policy director for the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence division. He was suspended after it was reported that the FBI discovered that he did not disclose his links to Alamoudi’s organization in his paperwork. Gill was then cleared.

In 2007, Gill ran for the Virginia House of Delegates as a Republican candidate and lost. His campaign received $3,000 from three companies belonging to the Safa Group, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group in Virginia that was raided as part of a terrorism investigation after 9/11. The Safa Group also financed the Islamic Free Market Institute.

Greenwald reports that Gill travelled to Sudan in 2007 as part of work with his law firm that he formed with Asim Ghafour, another target of surveillance. The pair met with officials from the Sudanese government, which is designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the U.S. State Department.

The meetings were to discuss representing Sudan in a lawsuit by victims of Al-Qaeda terrorism. The report says “Ghafoor was ultimately retained, and Gill performed the contract work on one case.”

To be fair, former government employees often do business with foreign governments. However, Sudan is a State Sponsor of Terrorism. This relationship alone may not warrant surveillance, but it certainly gives credence to the Intelligence Community’s claim that it had some kind of undisclosed justification for the monitoring.

 

Asim Ghafoor, lawyer and former congressional staffer

Asim Ghafoor’s emails were monitored by the FBI from March 2005 until at least March 2008 when the documents show the surveillance needed renewing.

Greenwald reports that Ghafoor worked as a legislative assistant for Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), who was in office from 2007 to 2011. Ghafoor left his position not long after the 9/11 attacks to pursue work in the private sector.

In 2003, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a charity based in Saudi Arabia that had its assets frozen by the U.S. government because of its links to Al-Qaeda, hired him. As the report explains, this led to him being hired by other suspicious characters like Osama Bin Laden’s brother-in-law.

As previously mentioned, Ghafoor also did business with the government of Sudan starting in 2007 with Faisal Gill.

In his interview with Greenwald, Ghafoor claimed he was monitored just because he has a Muslim name, Indian parents, and went to Saudi Arabia to fulfil his religious obligation of pilgrimage.

 

Hooshang Amirahmadi

Hooshang Amirahmadi’s emails were monitored by the FBI from August 2007 until at least May 2008 when the documents show the surveillance needed renewing.

As Greenwald reports, Amirahamdi is the president of the American Iranian Council. He has been a professor at Rutgers University since 1983 and used to be the director of the school’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

He has a reputation as a non-religious moderate. He twice tried to run for president of Iran but the regime rejected his candidacy. He alternatively refers to himself as a “secular Muslim” or an atheist. However, the Iranian government (a designated State Sponsor of Terrorism) apparently found him useful.

The Alavi Foundation, an Iranian government front linked to its nuclear program and propaganda campaign in the U.S., donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Rutgers University.

Greenwald acknowledges that the Alavi Foundation contributed to Amirahamdi’s operations at the school and that Amirahmadi said in 2007 that allegations that Iran sponsors terrorism are a “myth.” He also stated, “Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, they are defending their country and their nations.”

 

Conclusion

Based on these backgrounds, it isn’t hard to imagine that the NSA and FBI have strong classified evidence to justify its monitoring of these five activists. CAIR, ISNA and their coalition are using dramatic rhetoric to persuade audiences into assuming the NSA is guilty and their activist allies are innocent.

The coalition’s letter to President Obama says federal, state and local agencies are “targeting entire communities—particularly American Muslims—for secret surveillance based on their race, religion, ethnicity or national origin.”

CAIR says “The Obama administration continues to allow some government agencies to treat Americans as objects of suspicion.”

The group also stated, “This is an outrageous continuation of civil rights-era surveillance of minority community leadership elements who see threats in all patriotic dissent.”

ISNA President Magid went so far as to say that the NSA’s monitoring lacked probable cause, even though the NSA’s evidence is secret. He claimed, “This news report only confirms our worst suspicions: American Muslims have been subjected to profiling and surveillance by the NSA neither without probable cause nor in the act of committing any crime.” 

The Muslim Public Affairs Council stated, “All of the surveillance victims appear to have been targeted because of their Muslim backgrounds and their activities defending Muslims.”

Their hysteria is not in harmony with the facts and numbers. We’re talking about five Muslim-American activists, each with backgrounds pf concern, over a six-year period. Even if you consider the total of 202 American email addresses that were monitored, the number is miniscule compared to a total of 2.75 million Muslim-Americans.

The Islamist propaganda machine is distorting the justified surveillance of five Muslim-American personalities who have been supportive of terrorist groups into a picture of persecution of the entire Muslim-American community.

 

Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s National Security Analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and is frequently interviewed on top-tier TV stations as an expert on counterterrorism and Islamic extremism.

CAIR Leader Edits Tweet On Sami Al-Arian For His Western Readers

Submitted by Emily on Tue, 2014-07-08 11:06

URL: 
http://www.globalmbwatch.com/2014/07/02/cair-leader-edits-tweet-sami-al-arian-western-readers/
Syndicate content