The Liberal Media's Hostility to Moderate Muslims

by Manda Zand Ervin

When a group of us -- American Muslims -- went to New York City to voice the concerns of the silent majority and support the law enforcement there, we were confronted by the mainstream media's unabashed hostility.

I was surprised at how some of them practically harassed us, rather than wanting to know our opinions.  They were argumentative and seemed to resent us for siding with the NYPD; they clearly had a highly suspicious attitude toward us Muslims, who were not falling in line with the pronouncements of those who echo the edict handed down from their local pulpit and did not represent those Muslims who prefer to represent themselves as perpetual victims. 

In reality, a large majority of American Muslims want to live in peace and not be the bearers of some outdated Cold-War anti-American agenda.  That silent majority, whose voices have been hijacked and misrepresented by Islamists, have no problem with law enforcement and have never been spied on or harassed by anyone.  And even if they were vetted, one has to realize that at a time of war, if one has nothing to hide, these are the norms that under the rule of law need to be respected or observed.  Organizations that are known lobbies of the Islamists' formula, like CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, NIAC, etc., promote themselves and claim to speak for that silent majority.

As a matter of fact, the only time I had two policemen come to my house was when an Islamist woman had sent them.  I had told her, in the shopping center parking lot, not to beat up on her little girl and not to force her to wear hijab.

When I saw The Five on March 6, I was amazed at Bob Beckel's rejection of our group and message.  "There were only 43 people, that was a complete set up, it was a public relations move, brining these guys," Beckel said with a dismissive attitude.

What this arbiter of political correctness is clearly unaware of is that his labels are irrelevant here and that he cannot use us to rationalize his weltanshauung.  We were not set up, and we were not just hired extras.  We are all educated and thinking people who will not be used by either Mr. Beckel or the hijackers of Islam in order to fit into a prefab social and ideological pigeonhole.  Thanks to the U.S. Constitution, we are free to speak our minds in America and organize genuine grassroots organization that celebrates the diverse American Muslim community, and counters those very Islamists and their apologists who reject the heterogeneity of Muslims, rather than some runaway unilateral dominion run by elitist insiders.

I suggest that Mr. Beckel and the rest of the media who disagree with our position do some research on the crowd that was purportedly  "set up by NYPD," as Beckel put it.  Visit our site and read our biographies and get to know the real patriotic American Muslims.

If it is acceptable for Mr. Beckel to confront or take issue with the American ultra-conservative Christian establishment, then why are we as Muslims prohibited from arguing that very point in the Muslim community?  Our question is: can't Muslims be progressives or intellectuals?  Can't there be any secular, non-practicing, or liberal Muslims?  Must we all be extremist radicals at war with the Western culture and way of life?  Can't there be any gays among the Muslim men and women?  Can't there be patriotic Muslims who are not totally submissive to or defined entirely by their religion, and who have a palpable appreciation for freedom, democracy, and the civil rule of law?  And we should all go along with the propaganda war that has been perpetrated by the petro-funded Islamist organizations and their media supporters. 

We have come to America from three different continents, 57 different countries, many different races of people, different languages, different cultures and historical backgrounds and many different sects of Islam.  American Muslims are as diverse as American Christians are.

Muslims have come to America for the same reasons as other immigrants: economic prosperity and freedom.  Many of us have fled the same radical Islamists who are now here with the same anti-American agendas, and this democracy has given them the power to speak.

American Muslims are Democrats, Republicans, or independents.  They are mostly educated and fiercely independent, and no one can set them up.  We came to America to get away from the Islamist dictatorships, and we now want to be left alone.

This article was published originally in American Thinker

Wed, March 21, 2012 21st Century Trojan Horse: Sharia Rolls into American Education, Court Systems

Meira Svirsky

The “Islamophic” card continues to be played in trump by Muslim organizations pushing their agenda in the American educational and legal systems. This time, a public interest law center is under attack by Islamic news agencies for pointing out that Muslim students are being given religious privileges not enjoyed by other religions in U.S. public schools.

In recent days, the Ahlul Bayt News Agency and the International Islamic News Agency, among others, have attacked the Thomas More Law Center, one of the first advocacy groups in the nation to take legal action against the double standard in public schools that favors Islam over other religions.

While the news agencies bemoaned the lack of facilities and, hence, the “unfair treatment” of Muslims in public schools, Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel at the law center, said, “What (school officials) are doing … is to give Muslim students religious benefits that they do not give any other religion right now.”

“Islam is more than a religion,” continued Thompson (right). “It is a political ideology that regulates every aspect of human existence, and calls for the Islamic domination of the world. Since radical Muslims know they can never defeat our military on the battlefield, they devised the strategy of internal subversion.”

The founder of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad, said to a group of American Muslims in 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on earth”

Omar Ahmad, (left), founder of CAIR and an officer of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) was captured on an FBI surveillance tape at a Hamas meeting in 1993 explaining that the IAP could not, for political reasons, admit its support for Hamas. He then discussed how the Hamas agenda could be cloaked and advanced. Ahmad’s airfare and hotel bills for this meeting were paid for by the Holy Land Foundation.


“Like the ancient Trojan Horse welcomed within the city’s gates, Islam has entered America disguised as a religion," Thompson continued. "But its ultimate objective is political: Destroy America and establish an Islamic nation under Sharia Law.  So while America sleeps, they are awake and subverting our government, as well as our public schools and universities.  And we will not be deterred from our efforts to stop them.” 

In 2002, the center filed a federal lawsuit against the Byron Union School District in California for a three-week course in the Islamic faith for its seventh-grade students which used the workbook, Islam, A simulation of Islamic history and culture.

The center contended that the course was nothing short of religious indoctrination, prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The 12-year old students were told:                                                                    

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling marked “Not for Publication,” decided that the Islamic program was not “overt religious exercises” that violated the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It is generally interpreted to forbid the establishment of a national religion for the United States as well as a preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

The Establishment Clause guarantees Americans a separation of religion and state but allows the government to accommodate the free exercise of religion. However, because the court forbid the publication of its ruling, it was not possible for the law center to use the case as a precedent to establish similar classes to educate students about other religions.

The law center reports that the kindergarten through grade 12 textbooks contain “sugarcoated versions of Islam promoted by the Council on Islamic Education.”  The textbooks fail to mention kidnappings, beheadings, slave trading, savage murder, persecution of non-Muslims and the repression of women common in Islamic countries that follow Islamic (sharia) law.

In another case, the Poway School District ordered math teacher Bradley Johnson, to take down banners (which he had been displaying for 25 years) which said “In God We Trust” (a phrase found on all U.S. paper money), and “One Nation Under God” (a phrase from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance) because they promoted a Judeo-Christian message and might offend a Muslim student. 

The case was appealed and in September, 2011, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court ruled that the banners, because of their large size, were promoting a “particular viewpoint.” The three-judge panel argued that an employer – in this case Johnson’s principal and school board -- has a right to place limits on employees’ speech.

Other large displays in the same school were allowed, including a 40-foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with a poster of Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins,” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X and a poster of the Dali Lama, a Buddhist religious leader.

The law center, which does not charge for its legal services, decided to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it is pending.

Law center head Thompson says the attack on him is in response to comments he made about Muslims coercing public schools into giving Islamic students special accommodations that are not afforded to Christian students, which he sees as an insinuation of Islam into the American public school system.

"You have this double standard where schools will bend over backwards to accommodate Islamic students and the Islamic message under the guise of multiculturalism or diversity," he explained. "They won't apply the Establishment Clause rules that they apply to Christian symbols, and Christians are being relegated to second-class citizens."

Despite the attacks on him, Thompson says the law center will not be backing down. "You're going to get flack if you're on target, and I think we're on target," Thompson said. "There is that double standard, and the Thomas More Law Center is going to continue to voice their concern and do what they can do right this wrong that's going on."

 Meira Svirsky is the content coordinator of, the former managing editor of The Daily Texan and the former editor of UTmost magazine.

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.

Fri, March 13, 2015 Chicago Tribune Ignores Own Reports on Islamist Group

Ryan Mauro

The Chicago Tribune printed a story on March 12 dismissing the Clarion Project's reporting on an Islamist group in Oak Brook, Illinois named the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The Chicago Tribune could have found the truth about NAIT's Islamism by checking out a critical source: Its own archives.

The article was published in reaction to a segment on The O'Reilly Factor in January that featured the Clarion Project's research, including a map that shows an Islamist organization in Oak Brook, Illinois. The organization is the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and you can see our fully-documented profile of the group here.

The Chicago Tribune article implies that the Clarion Project was evasive when questioned about NAIT, reporting that Oak Brook Village Manager Rick Ginex emailed me to inform me that the FBI found that no extremist group exists in the area.

I received no such email from Ginex nor did I receive a message from anyone identifying himself as being from the Chicago Tribune. Neither seems to have taken the logical first step of searching our website, where they would have easily found the widely-known facts about NAIT.

The irony in this reporting is that it was this same Chicago Tribune that published a blockbuster series of articles about Islamist groups in America, including the organization in question.

On September 19, 2004, the Chicago Tribune published an intriguing article titled "A Rare Look at Secretive Brotherhood in America."

The expose is about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmed Elkadi, who led it from 1984 to 1994. The Brotherhood is an Islamist extremist group rejected by many Muslims and banned as a terrorist group in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It deceptively presents itself as a moderate movement that rejects terrorism.

In fact, the Tribune itself writes in its 2004 expose:

"While separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of American democracy, the international Brotherhood preaches that religion and politics cannot be separated and that governments eventually should be Islamic. The group also champions martyrdom and jihad, or holy war, as a means of self-defense and has provided the philosophical underpinnings for Muslim militants worldwide."

The Tribune report says that Elkadi served as president of NAIT and that groups set up by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood promote Islamist texts that many Muslims in the area found objectionable.

On February 8, 2004, the Chicago Tribune published an article titled, "Hard-liners Won Battle for Bridgeview Mosque."

It describes a battle between Islamists and anti-Islamist moderates for control of the  Mosque Foundation, which was brought under the control of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network.

A turning point in that battle came when the deed was handed over to NAIT in 1981 despite how "the old-timers did not want the mosque turned over to an outside group with a growing reputation for fundamentalism." 

One of the Muslim moderates interviewed by the Chicago Tribune recalled it "was like a broken heart" when that happened. These Muslims tried to sign up new members in order to vote out the Islamist leaders before their mosque went to the radicals.

One flier that was sent around as part of the campaign warned that "the essence of NAIT is the [Muslim] Brotherhood." It accused the Brotherhood of using "deliberate and distorted means of dividing the community and tearing down what we have been attempting to build for one-half of a century."

Another flier from the opposition declared that their faith "is the Islam of flexibility and commitment to faith rather than fundamentalism and tension."

The women's group at the mosque responded to the signing of the deed to NAIT with a lawsuit accusing the leaders of having deceived their way into power. It did not work and, in the words of the Chicago Tribune, "the hard-liners were now firmly in control." The rest of the article makes it clear that these hardliners have not lost their grip.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood listed NAIT as one of "our organizations and the organizations of our friends" in a once-secret explanatory memorandum from 1991. The objective of these organizations, according to the memorandum, is to "work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…"

The March 12 article by the Tribune quotes Oak Brook Police Chief James Kruger as saying, "They [the FBI] said it is a legitimate place of business; there are no threats or other concerns in the village."

The FBI is a branch of the Justice Department and the Justice Department designated NAIT as an unindicted co-conspirator in a trial related to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's secret financing of the Hamas terrorist group. NAIT is listed in section VII of a Justice Department’s document submitted to the Dallas district court as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

A federal judge upheld the designation in 2009 because of "ample" evidence linking NAIT and related organizations to the Hamas-financing scheme. Federal prosecutors noted that money for Hamas was routed through a NAIT bank account.

Two declassified FBI reports show that an informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood was warning about NAIT as far back as 1987-1988.  

The first documents that the confidential informant is "convinced that this organization has a secret agenda which includes the spread of the Islamic Revolution to all non-Islamic governments in the world which does include the United States."

The second documents the intelligence that NAIT is receiving a flood of foreign financing and its leaders "have also indicated their support of terrorism in the U.S. to further the revolution." It says that NAIT's "support of jihad" includes the distribution of anti-Western propaganda and organizing political rallies.

There is plenty of more documentation of NAIT's Islamist extremism in our profile, but some of the best news reports exposing NAIT came from the Chicago Tribune itself. They are free for anyone to access—obviously including Chicago Tribune reporters themselves.


Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

Sun, February 15, 2015 French PM: West Must Fight Muslim Brotherhood Ideology

Muslims praying in the middle of a public street in France.

Muslims praying in the middle of a public street in France.

Ryan Mauro

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has stated that the West must “fight the discourse of the Muslim Brotherhood in our country” and scrutinize foreign funding of mosques, a sharp break from U.S. policy that views the Brotherhood as a moderate competitor to Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS).

Prime Minister Valls said the country needs to enact policies to combat the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists, making the point that Islamist terrorism is a product of radical preaching. He announced that the Interior Minister will lead a study on the foreign financing of mosques in France and the training of French imams.

“We seek to establish a model of Islam that is fully integrated, fully compatible with the values of the Republic,” Valls said.

France has a serious problem with growing Islamism that is hostile to nationalism, secular-democracy and integration. A 2011 intelligence report warned that “self-appointed” imams in Muslim-majority areas, specifically the city of Marseille, were spreading Islamism. It said only a “relatively low” percentage of the 250,000 Muslims in that city support violent jihad, but “Islamic fundamentalism has progressed to the point where it has won over the majority of the Muslim population.”

France recognizes that the problem is not just the act of terrorism, but the Islamist ideology that drives violence and is also detrimental to the West in many non-violent ways. The Prime Minister said after the attacks in Paris that the country is at war with radical Islam; a stark difference from the vague terminology of “violent extremism” used by the U.S.

Valls’ use of “radical Islam” wasn’t a slip of the tongue. It signaled a major shift in strategy and was repeated by the French ambassador to America afterwards.

“We are at war with radical Islam. It means that right now… Islam is breeding radicalism which is quite dangerous for everybody. So I think in the coming weeks or the coming months, we have to define the global strategy. Part of the strategy is to work with the Muslim countries,” the ambassador said.

The Prime Minister even said that Europe needs to recognize that Islamists slander opponents as "Islamophobes" to stop scrutiny of their ideology and leaders.

“I refuse to use this term ‘Islamophobia,’ because those who use this word are trying to invalidate any criticism at all of Islamist ideology. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people,” he says.

The Prime Minister’s bold statements come as Egypt has agreed to become the first country to buy French Rafale fighter jets. The Egyptian government will sign a $5.93 billion contract to acquire 24 aircraft.

The coinciding of Prime Minister Valls’ statement with the deal suggests that France wants to wage an ideological war against Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood and sees Egypt as a major ally in that campaign. President El-Sisi banned the Muslim Brotherhood and forcefully called for a reformation of Islamic interpretations that denounce any violence.

French President Hollande said that the deal was made because his country desires for Egypt to act as a stabilizing regional power.

“I believe that, given the current context, it’s very important that Egypt is able to act to uphold stability and to be in security, not only stability on its own territory, but stability in the region,” he said.

The word usage is important. Hollande means that the sale is not just an endorsement of Egypt’s fight against the ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula, but of Egypt leadership role in the Middle East. A central post of that role is crushing the Muslim Brotherhood and undermining Islamism, including airstrikes on Islamist militias in Libya.

The deal is seen as a subtle rebuke of the U.S. over its criticism of Egypt’s handling of the Brotherhood. The U.S. says it is “not concerned” about the deal, but observers recognize that Egypt is reducing its reliance on the U.S. for arms. Egypt immediately reacted to U.S. criticism by embracing Russia and signing a major arms deal, as well as a recent agreement for Russia to build Egypt’s first nuclear reactor.

The French government’s stance is also important because the President and Prime Minister are from the Socialist Party, heralding a political consensus between the right-wing and left-wing parties that Islamism is the threat and a strategy against that ideology and its proponents including the Muslim Brotherhood is necessary.

Current French President Hollande defeated his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy of the Union for a Popular Movement party, but they are both now on the same page in regards to this issue.

This is especially significant because Hollande emphasized his friendliness with the French Muslim community during the campaign. Soeren Kern wrote that Hollande’s victory was “the first time that Muslims have determined the outcome of a presidential election in a major Western European country; it is a preview of things to come.”

Sarkozy was warning about the lack of assimilation for years prior to the Paris attacks. He said policy adjustments were needed to integrate immigrants and to prevent “a society where communities coexist side by side.”

“Our Muslim compatriots should be able to live and practice their religion like anyone else…but it can only be a French Islam and not just an Islam in France,” Sarkozy said in 2011.

France and Egypt get it. They understand that Islamism is the problem due to the former’s experiencing of the Paris attacks by the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and the latter’s experience of Muslim Brotherhood governance. If the U.S. still doesn’t get it after 9/11, the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston bombings and countless other acts of Islamist violence, then what will it take?


Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

Manuel Valls - Islamophobia

I refuse to use this term ‘Islamophobia,’ because those who use this word are trying to invalidate any criticism at all of Islamist ideology. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people

- Manuel Valls
French Prime Minister

Tue, February 10, 2015 Egypt's Sisi: Muslim Brotherhood & ISIS – Same Ideology

Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (Photo: © Reuters)

Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (Photo: © Reuters)

Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has conducted an interview with the German newspaper Der Spiegel in which he called the Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhood essentially one and the same and reiterated his call for a sweeping reform of religious ideas.

Asked whether the Islamic State or the Muslim Brotherhood posed the greater threat, he responded, “They both share the same ideology. But the Muslim Brotherhood is the origin of all of it. All these other [Sunni] extremists emanated from them.”

He also tackled Islamism directly, saying, “I propose removing wrong and distorted ideas from the religious discourse.” This echoed his speech to Al-Azhar University, the pre-eminent seat of learning in the Sunni Muslim world in which he called on the clerics to challenge the ideology behind global jihadism. He told the clerics, “We need to revolutionize our religion.”

Al-Azhar’s clerics have so far responded tepidly to his overtures. They issued a statement after the immolation of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kassabeh by the Islamic State forbidding burning people alive.

Head of al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayib stated that, “Islam forbids killing of the innocent human soul ... It forbids mutilating the human soul by burning or in any other way even during wars against an enemy that attacks you.”

Sheikh al-Tayib also said the action of ISIS in burning Moaz al-Kassabeh “requires the punishment mentioned in the Koran for these corrupt oppressors who fight against God and his prophet: killing, crucifixion or chopping of the limbs.”

In the wide-ranging Der Spiegel interview, el-Sisi was asked many difficult questions concerning his human rights record. He defended the killings at the Rabaa mosque in which at least 650 supporters of ousted Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammed Morsi were killed. He argued that, “The number of victims at Rabaa could have been 10 times higher if the people had stormed the square.”

He also blamed the inferior quality of Egyptian police training. In answer to accusations that Germany’s police would have acted differently, he responded: “I am not ashamed to admit that there is a civilizational gap between us and you. The police and people in Germany are civilized and have a sense of responsibility. German police are equipped with the latest capabilities and get the best training. And in your country, protesters would not use weapons in the middle of the demonstrations to target police.”

He dismissed a question about the maltreatment of human rights activists who were instrumental in the 2011 revolution. Ahmed Maher, Mohammed Adel and Ahmed Duma were all founders of the April 6 Movement in the early days of the revolution but are now serving three years apiece for violating a new protest law.

He stated that the judiciary is independent, although he admitted he has the power to issue presidential amnesties.

Dodging questions about human rights, he instead focused on the importance of stability in Egypt.

His statements in this interview tally with the speech he gave at the end of January in which he declared war to the death against Islamist militants in the Sinai and vowed to crush them.

Syndicate content