OIC

Wed, April 25, 2012 Muslim Brotherhood Takes Charge of FBI Counterterrorism Training

by: 
Clare Lopez

Cultural suicide” is what Rep. Allen West calls the direction that U.S. national security—and especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—is taking America with its policy of political correctness towards the Muslim Brotherhood. Speaking on “Fox and Friends” TV program, the Florida Congressman, left,  was reacting to reports that the FBI recently has edited its training curriculum in order to conform to Muslim Brotherhood definitions of non-offensive material for counterterrorism training.

West accepts that when the Brotherhood threatens to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” it means what it says. In return, he asserts what most Americans probably would consider to be basic common sense: “We should not allow the Muslim Brotherhood or associated groups to be influencing our national security strategy.”

In addition to the wholesale purge of FBI counterterrorism training materials, the Washington Post reported on February 16, 2012, that the FBI was “willing to consider a proposal from a coalition of Muslim and interfaith groups to establish a committee of experts to review materials used in FBI anti-terrorism training.”

Among groups represented at an 8 February 2012 meeting that included FBI Director Robert Mueller were the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, a Muslim Brotherhood front group that was listed by the Dept. of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land HAMAS terror funding trial) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). It may be recalled that MPAC president Salam al-Marayati published an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times on October 19, 2011, essentially threatening the FBI with a Muslim community refusal to cooperate with the FBI on terrorism matters unless Mueller purged FBI training materials of all references that link Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture to Islamic terrorism.

According to reports, some 700 documents and more than 300 entire presentations “were subsequently pulled from the agency’s training materials.” Now it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood, flush with the success of its blatant blackmail of the United States government, is going to get veto power over what may and may not be taught in future FBI classes about the doctrinal, historical, and legal linkages between Islam and Islamic jihad. In view of the October 2010 declaration of war (jihad) against the U.S. by Muslim Brotherhood Secretary General Muhammad Badi, it might be thought that the group probably ought not to be allowed anywhere near U.S. counterterrorism policy, but the FBI apparently thinks otherwise.

A key element of Islamic law (sharia) is the definition of the crime of slander. Unlike in U.S. law on slander, for which truth is an absolute defense, in sharia slander “means to mention anything concerning a [Muslim] person that he would dislike.” As may be seen at the website of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, (OIC – the 57-member head of state organization comprising the Islamic ummah – or perhaps, caliphate), one of the group’s top priorities is the global criminalization of the criticism of Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood, the political action arm of the OIC, working closely here with the FBI, has just taken a major step forward in achieving that objective.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, too, seems willing to accomodate OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu on something called “The Istanbul Process,” which is a thinly disguised campaign to insinuate Islamic law on slander into the U.S. legal system. A number of meetings on the subject already have been held in various cities around the world; at the most recent of these in December 2011, Clinton welcomed Ihsanoglu to Washington, D.C. for closed door meetings whose purpose, agenda and results were not shared candidly with the American public.

Some of it can be understood only too well, though, from the OIC’s charter, which commits it “to combat defamation of Islam,” while its action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” by all states to combat so-called “Islamophobia.” UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, adopted in March 2011, is an OIC-sponsored and U.S.-supported statement that takes direct aim at Americans’ constitutional right to free speech, especially about Islam, despite claims to the contrary.  

With the Department of State and the FBI both now apparently having capitulated to the OIC and Muslim Brotherhood agenda to outlaw criticism of Islam—handy thing for groups representing some of the most repressive governments and social systems on earth—it is more critical than ever that an informed citizenry remain engaged in the political process.

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

               

Sun, November 27, 2011 Criticism of Islam Could Soon be a Crime in America

by: 
Clare M. Lopez
When President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in June 2009, the free world trembled while the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) gushed with praise and begged  for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The OIC is the largest head of state organization in the world after the United Nations (UN) itself and comprises 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinians. It claims  to be the “collective voice of the Muslim world,” i.e., the ummah, and speaks on its behalf in effect as the seat of the next Islamic Caliphate. In 1990, the OIC membership adopted the “Cairo Declaration ,” which officially exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and replaced it with Islamic law (shariah). One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with “slander ,” which is defined in shariah as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.” At the OIC’s Third Extraordinary Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization adopted a “Ten-Year Programme of Action  to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.” A key agenda  item of that meeting was “the need to counter Islamophobia” by seeking to have the UN “…adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” The word “Islamophobia” is a completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship between the OIC and the Ikhwan.  
Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18 ,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.
The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and “blasphemy” against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief,” the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama’s Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18. 
Now, the OIC’s Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above. 
Events in the nation’s capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America”  in August 2011. Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned. 
The Justice Department soon got on board the “Islamophobia” bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole  confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive.
No doubt much encouraged by national capitulation at such a level, Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamic organization that shares the jihadist agenda and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote an op-ed  piece that was published in the Los Angeles Times on 19 October 2011. In his piece, Al-Marayati openly threatened the FBI with “collapse of a critical partnership with the Muslim American community.” Later that same day, the Justice Department convened a meeting with Muslim shariah advocates at George Washington University in WDC, chaired by its civil rights division chief, Tom Perez. Dwight C. Holton , the U.S. Attorney in Oregon who was also present, announced that, after speaking with Attorney General Eric Holder, he wanted “to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
A phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to give warning of an ideology resolutely committed to eradication of free belief, expression, speech, and even thought. It is suicidal for a free society willingly to collaborate with those, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC, which are determined to destroy Western civilization from within—and have told us so, repeatedly, consistently, and publicly. Further, collaboration in such an anti-freedom campaign represents abrogation of the professional oath of office of every federal official who has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Silencing those who would warn of impending catastrophe only ensures victory to the enemy and loss of our most rare and precious inheritance: the American love of liberty. 

When President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in June 2009, the free world trembled while the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) gushed with praise and begged for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The OIC is the largest head of state organization in the world after the United Nations (UN) itself and comprises 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinians. It claims  to be the “collective voice of the Muslim world,” i.e., the ummah, and speaks on its behalf in effect as the seat of the next Islamic Caliphate. In 1990, the OIC membership adopted the “Cairo Declaration ,” which officially exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and replaced it with Islamic law (shariah).

One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with “slander ,” which is defined in shariah as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.” At the OIC’s Third Extraordinary Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization adopted a “Ten-Year Programme of Action  to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.” A key agenda  item of that meeting was “the need to counter Islamophobia” by seeking to have the UN “…adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” The word “Islamophobia” is a completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship between the OIC and the Ikhwan.  

Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18 ,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.

The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and “blasphemy” against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief,” the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama’s Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18. 

Now, the OIC’s Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above. 

Events in the nation’s capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America”  in August 2011. Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned. 

The Justice Department soon got on board the “Islamophobia” bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole  confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive.

No doubt much encouraged by national capitulation at such a level, Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamic organization that shares the jihadist agenda and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote an op-ed  piece that was published in the Los Angeles Times on 19 October 2011. In his piece, Al-Marayati openly threatened the FBI with “collapse of a critical partnership with the Muslim American community.” Later that same day, the Justice Department convened a meeting with Muslim shariah advocates at George Washington University in WDC, chaired by its civil rights division chief, Tom Perez. Dwight C. Holton , the U.S. Attorney in Oregon who was also present, announced that, after speaking with Attorney General Eric Holder, he wanted “to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

A phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to give warning of an ideology resolutely committed to eradication of free belief, expression, speech, and even thought. It is suicidal for a free society willingly to collaborate with those, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC, which are determined to destroy Western civilization from within—and have told us so, repeatedly, consistently, and publicly. Further, collaboration in such an anti-freedom campaign represents abrogation of the professional oath of office of every federal official who has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Silencing those who would warn of impending catastrophe only ensures victory to the enemy and loss of our most rare and precious inheritance: the American love of liberty. 

Clare M. Lopez, a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund, is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues.

Recommended Reading

Take Action:
Don't forget to Like or +1 this article to recommend it to others

Syndicate content