Tag Archives: Muslim Brotherhood

Why does the Southern Poverty Law Center hate the Center for Security Policy?

Why are the Southern Poverty Law Center and its Islamist friends so determined to suppress the Center for Security Policy? The answer appears to be CSP’s effectiveness, which is, in turn, animated by our love of freedom:

  • CSP’s love of freedom — not a desire to hate — puts us in opposition to Muslims who adhere to the supremacist Islamic shariah doctrine, and therefore are freedom’s enemies. We have no quarrel with Muslims whose faith practice is not shariah-adherent. They have as much to fear from the jihadists among them as do the rest of us. We are proud to work with non-supremacist Muslims to expose and help defeat our mutual enemies.
  • The Center for Security Policy’s love of freedom – not some irrational fear of Islam or fictitious “Islamophobia” – prompts us actually to do as we are officially told we must: “See something, say something.” In fact, when we see evidence of encroaching shariah, particularly that being insinuated stealthily by the SPLC’s friends in the Muslim Brotherhood, we not only say something about it. We do something about it, by working to counter and ultimately eliminate this civilization jihad and its motivating Islamist
  • CSP’s love of freedom also obliges us to respond appropriately to what is – far from some unfounded “conspiracy theory” – proof of an actual and perilous conspiracy to destroy the Constitution that guarantees our liberties and the government constituted to defend them.

In defending freedom against such adversaries, the Center for Security Policy proudly and indefatigably stands with:

  • the untold millions of non-Muslims and Muslims oppressed by Islamists around the globe;
  • the families of those who have been slaughtered or brutalized world-wide in the name of shariah and its jihad;
  • women, who have the right be treated as human beings, not as animals or property;
  • homosexuals who have the right not to be thrown off roofs or hung for their sexual preferences;
  • Christian, Jewish and other religious minorities subjected to forced expulsions and expropriation, torture, rape and murder; and
  • Muslim reformers who share our determination to prevent Islamic supremacists from imposing their abhorrent “man-made” shariah doctrine in our country – whether through violent jihad, or the Muslim Brotherhood’s preferred, stealthy “civilization jihad” kind.

We have no doubt where the vast majority of Americans come down in any choice between freedom and its enemies, foreign and domestic. Those who thoughtlessly or maliciously repeat, promote and otherwise disseminate the hate-mongering of the Southern Poverty Law Center are on the wrong side of that choice. The Center for Security Policy is not.

Q & A


Is the Center for Security Policy “anti-Muslim”?

Absolutely not. The Center for Security Policy stands against enemies of the United States, its Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed thereby – without regard to their ethnicity, geography, ideology or religious associations. Foremost among such enemies at the moment are Islamic supremacists, also known as shariah-adherent Muslims, also known as jihadists.

This subset of the followers of Islam are the ultimate hate-group. They hate Muslims who do not adhere to shariah. They hate women. They hate gays and lesbians. They hate followers of other religions. They hate democracy and any “man-made” law or government not submissive to their Quran. They hate anyone – including authors, songwriters and artists – whose free expression defies their totalitarian program of thought control.

The Center for Security Policy stands in defense of the billions of people around the world who are endangered or victimized by these hateful “Islamist phobias.”


Is the Center for Security Policy “Islamophobic”?

Absolutely not. To be clear, the term “Islamophobia” was first coined twenty-years ago by Islamists and their leftist enablers for use as an instrument of political warfare. They wield it to suppress the freedom of expression of their adversaries.

Specifically, by falsely accusing those who are critical of Islamic supremacism, shariah and jihad of having an unreasoned fear (i.e., a “phobia”) of Muslims, the perpetrators of this smear are trying to impose what amount to shariah blasphemy restrictions – a prohibition on any expression that “offends” them. What is more, by threatening, explicitly or implicitly, violence against those who give such offense, the Islamists are actually trying to instill fear in their enemies – non-Muslim and Muslim alike – in order to terrify them into submission. To ignore that reality would be irrational, and quite possibly fatal.

The Center for Security Policy has no fear of law-abiding, patriotic, tolerant, non-shariah-adherent Muslims. To the contrary, it views them as potentially invaluable partners in opposing the jihadists – violent and stealthy – in their midst.


Does the Center for Security Policy believe there is an Islamist conspiracy to infiltrate and subvert the United States from within?

Eight years ago, the U.S. government established in federal court during the largest terrorism financing trial in the country’s history, U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, that, for more than fifty years now, the Muslim Brotherhood has engaged in a conspiracy with the mission – in the Brotherhood’s own words – of “destroying Western civilization from within.” (See: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/05/25/an-explanatory-memorandum-from-the-archives-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/.)

It is national security malpractice to ignore this reality and maliciously deceptive and/or delusional to portray those who refuse to do so as “conspiracy theorists.”

The Center for Security Policy has comprehensively documented the extent to which the Islamic supremacists are succeeding in penetrating virtually every major civil society and governing institution in furtherance of this conspiracy. (Publications in the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series may be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.) We are determined to expose, root out and neutralize such subversive influence operations in America.


In light of these facts, how should responsible journalists, public policy professionals and the American people more generally regard criticisms of the Center for Security Policy issued by the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center?

The SPLC’s assertions are utterly without foundation. They show a willingness to say and do anything to further a transparently political agenda. Such partisan, and often unhinged, criticisms are nothing more than efforts to incite hatred against, and thereby silence, their opposition.

Given the facts, those who cite or otherwise repeat such unfounded assertions are either witting partners in that odious, indefensible effort, or useful idiots who should know better – and desist.

Obama’s visit to Islamist mosque marginalizes our most oppressed minorities

President Obama visited the Islamic Society of Baltimore (ISB) today, his first visit to a mosque during his 7-year tenure. Obama used the context of the 2016 elections to bash Republicans whom he said were trying to “marginalize law-abiding, patriotic Muslim Americans.” Unfortunately, much like his 2009 “New Beginning” speech at Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, it was he who spoke over the heads of the truly marginalized in the Muslim community and empowered the Muslim Brotherhood and other theocrats who are oppressing them.

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy notes that, ‘The ISB links to radical Islamist cleric Yusuf Qaradawi, its leadership has called homosexuality a “mental disorder,” and has endorsed calls for gays to be “harmed.”’

Even the liberal New York Times called the visit a “tacit acceptance of a form of gender apartheid.”

Tolerant, peaceful and law-abiding Muslim Americans know who their oppressors are, and they are not GOP presidential candidates. Rather, they are their own religious and social leaders who openly state their anti-democratic and intolerant beliefs and intentions.

The 1-minute video below gives a disturbing glimpse at three Islamist voices: Imam Suhaib Webb of the Islamic Society of Boston tells us that a man who imitates a woman (or vice-versa) is cursed; American Islamic preacher Khalid Yasin openly calls for the death sentence for homosexuals; and a man attending Muslim Day at the U.S. Capitol openly states that homosexuals should be killed.

Please view and share:

U.S. Conditions IS Libya Fight on Unity Government

February 2, 2016, Secretary of State John Kerry met with officials from 23 nations in Rome to discuss combating IS. Secretary Kerry addressed his growing concerns of the Islamic State’s (IS) presence in Libya especially. The growing fear is that the terrorist organization will take advantage of the lack of stability to control oil fields to further finance its operations.

Libya has been in turmoil since the NATO-backed ousting of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi, in 2011. The Libyan government is currently split between an internationally recognized government in Tobruk, the General National Congress (GNC), and an unofficial government in Tripoli led by the Islamist Libya Dawn faction. Libya Dawn was able to force the GNC out of the Tripoli in 2014, and the international community has been working ever since to unite the two governments.

Libya Dawn and the GNC signed a UN-brokered agreement to unify the government last December. However, it is unclear what Libya Dawn hopes to get out of the agreement, as it was their decision to attempt to seize power following election losses that led to the current fissure.

While the Libya Dawn government may claim they want to end hostilities and unite the government, it’s likely just a play to regain power.

Libya Dawn is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the enemy of the El-Sisi government in Egypt. This had led to the decision by Cairo to fully back the GNC and openly opposed any agreement that would return the Islamists to legitimate political power. Egypt has been the driving force behind Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s anti-Islamist “Operation Dignity” campaign which has seen battlefield gains against the Islamist factions.

IS has become a growing concern to North African nations. The Free Fire Blog recently discussed the growing connections between the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and IS’s growing trade network with Hamas in Gaza. In Libya, IS has taken control of Sirte, a city that links east and west of Libya, and has launched numerous attacks around the country.

International Business Times reported last year of IS threatening to wage war on Libya Dawn, but those hostilities may subside while both sides are being targeted by Egyptian and UAE airstrikes.

Breitbart News reports on troubling news of possible cooperation  between IS, Al Qaeda (AQ), and the Muslim Brotherhood within Libya. This merger would threaten any chance Libya has at stability, and if the Brotherhood were to take over, it would further threaten the neighboring government of Egypt.

Libya’s hopes for stability are quickly fading, and the Obama Administration may be apart of the blame. The Obama Administration allowed for weapon shipments to be sent to armed rebel groups during the uprising against Qaddafi. Some of these weapons fell in the hands of jihadist groups which allowed them to fight for control of Libya once Qaddafi was killed.

While the U.S. initially armed rebel groups, it has taken a step back from Libya. Instead, the Obama Administration has harshly criticized those who take part in Libya’s issues through violence, especially the UAE and Egypt. It seems ironic for the Administration to criticize others for trying to stop terrorism when they were the ones who facilitated it.

Libya’s stability is crucial against the fight against terrorism. Terrorists have been smuggling fighters through Libya to Europe and Syria. Libya is also an important connector between Islamic State’s home base in Syria and it’s efforts in West Africa. Without a stable government to prevent this, it will continue to threaten the stability of the region.

While Secretary Kerry may be worried about IS in Libya, there must be a greater focus on the wider Islamist threat to the country. The Muslim Brotherhood poses just as large a threat to Libyan stability as IS, and if they are given any political legitimacy it will only serve to expand jihadist activity in the country. Despite the Obama Administration’s insistence to the contrary, a GNC victory over Libyan Dawn would have a better impact on security than enforcing upon Libya a unity government that neither side really wants.

Continued Tunisia Protests Raise Questions for “Arab Spring” model

Protests have erupted in Tunisia this past week amid the growing unemployment rate due to the lack of available jobs. The protests began in the province of Kasserine, near the Algerian border, after a man was killed while climbing a telephone pole. Radha Yagyaoui, 28, was  taken off the shortlist for employment and began to protest in the streets only to be killed in the act Saturday the 16th.

Tunisia’s unemployment sits at 15% through 2015. While this number is lower than the 18% unemployment in 2011, pre-Arab Spring, it has increased from the past two years’ 13%. While the country average sits at 15%, there are some areas, including Kasserine, where rates are as high as 30%.

Protests have become increasingly violent as they have spread throughout the country. Police and security forces have been targeted in the protests, and last Thursday a police station was attacked by protestors. Due to the escalation in violence, the Tunisian government has imposed a nationwide curfew in hopes of quelling some of the destruction.

The situation worsened after Finance Minister Slim Shaker’s announced a plan to create 5,000 jobs in Kasserine only to have the government retract the claim, calling it a communication error. The finance ministry came out the next day to say they were planning to add 5,000 job training positions in a region that desperately wants jobs.

Tunisia’s 2011 revolution ousted President Zine el-Abedine Ben Ali, former dictator of Tunisia. While Tunisia has been considered one of the more stable Arab Spring counties, it has also faced repeated terror attacks against its economically important tourism industry, as well as political violence.

Tunisian President Beji Caid Essebsi has publicly claimed that there are “dirty hands” involved in the increased unrest in the country. President Essebsi claimed outside actors have been targeting protestors to join their cause. The President names The Islamic State (IS) and “others” as the main external actors working to target the unemployed.

While President Essebsi has not come out with any conclusive evidence that IS or other terrorist organizations have been involved, he is correct in believing they may benefit from the chaos. Terrorist activity has the ability to thrive in countries where political unrest is high. Terrorists can easily blend in to the population or cross borders more easily while governments are focused on internal disputes..

IS and other outside actors may not be the only ones to have an interest in the protests. The unrest with the current government could provide an opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Ennahda Party to reclaim control of the government. The Ennahda Party won control of the government after the 2011 revolution but was ousted from power following protests which claimed the party played a role in the assassination of secular left politicians.

While the Ennahda Party has condemned the most recent violent protests, their potential to regain power is not to be overlooked. They recently reacquired the majority of the seats in the Tunisian parliament after several members of the Nidaa Tounes Party, current Party of the President, defected.

The current protests have the potential to change much more in Tunisia than its economic policy. With terrorists on the borders and the possibility of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates controlling the government, Tunisia is far less than a beacon of hope for Arab democracy it has been portrayed as. If the Tunisian government fails to establish order it may come to resemble an increasingly ungovernable territory.

The West Can Defeat ISIS – But What Comes Next?

French President François Hollande is making the rounds of the world’s capitals, jet setting between London, Washington and Moscow with several meetings in-between.

He is engaged in a full-throttle effort to convince leaders of a plain and simple plan. Immediately eliminate the Islamic State that’s claimed responsibility for the massacre of 130 innocent men, women and children in Paris. That the jihadist state needs to go is not in dispute. It is creating chaos and mayhem throughout the Middle East, parts of Africa and beyond. ISIS is an aggressively metastasizing cancer that threatens Europe and North America.

Before a global coalition follows the French headfirst into this Indiana-sized caliphate located in the former Iraq and Syria, however, we need to answer questions related to competing political and territorial concerns.

The last time the U.S. led from behind the French, the message was also seemingly plain and simple. Remove Muammar Gaddafi by aiding, abetting and arming Libya’s al-Qaeda militias and the country will take care of itself as the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood assumes power.

History proved them disastrously wrong. Libya quickly collapsed into a failed state with Gaddafi’s massive munitions stockpiles – and very likely some of the weapons and training that NATO gave to the Libyan jihadis opposed to Gaddafi – finding their way into Syria to form the early core of ISIS.

Indeed, arguments could be made that none of the interventions by the West in the Middle East and northern Africa turned out well. The common lesson learned in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya is that nothing is as simple as it looks. Every situation is difficult with many different considerations that all carry grave ramifications.

Let’s examine all of the intended outcomes as well as the possible unintended consequences of current decisions.

Whether we like it or not, ISIS currently plays a role in the balancing act between Shia and Sunni in the Middle East. What happens to the equilibrium once it is removed from the equation?

Do the U.S. and Europe propose to formalize the Shia crescent of dominance from Tehran, through Baghdad to Damascus, ending in Beirut? Russia is the coalition’s primary benefactor, so the axis now also includes Moscow. Is this how the West envisions that part of the world coalescing? Or does the West see some other as-yet undefined coalition of Sunni forces filling the void? How would U.S. allies such as Israel, Jordan and Turkey respond to a Shia crescent?

Have the leaders responsible thought about possible contingencies, and how to achieve better outcomes?

Have we considered that the very rise of ISIS, with broad support from local Sunni states, was itself a reaction to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army as the only credible counterweight to the Shiite rulers in Tehran? These states, from Saudi Arabia to Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, will and must have a say in what happens next. They will not allow a nuclear-armed Iranian hegemony to expand unchallenged. They recognize that the U.S. has been an unreliable ally at best, as it facilitated the overthrow of Sunni regimes in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and allowed for the advancement of Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities.

Further, the Middle East battleground is crowded with competing ethnic, sectarian and tribal interests, most of which harbor jihadist sympathies. So, with which should the U.S. ally itself against ISIS: the al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra? The Turkish-backed Ahrar al-Sham? Are we helping Bashar al-Assad cling to power by fighting side-by-side with Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp? What about our relationship with Vladimir Putin’s Russia?

The Obama administration has already demonstrated its proclivity to side with the wrong party – al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood – in Libya and Egypt. We should not allow ourselves to become drawn into such mistakes again, especially when the ability of the West, Russia and Iran to fully destroy ISIS – or its jihadist ideology – is not entirely clear right now.

We need to think of this as a game of chess in which leaders strategize three to four steps ahead into a future without ISIS. Current decisions will have a domino effect on subsequent outcomes.

More often than not, we are playing soccer of the worst kind, the bunch ball sort in which we watched our children all at once chase the ball and try to kick it downfield at the same time with little success. It is such a sad but true comparison, but how else do you explain losing the war after more than 14 years of endless battles since 9/11?

It’s Shariah, Stupid

Last night, President Obama used his third prime-time address from the Oval Office to try to allay widespread concerns in the aftermath of the San Bernardino attack that he neither understands the nature of the enemy that perpetrated that and similar acts of terror here and abroad nor has an effective strategy for defeating it.

Regrettably, those concerns were only reinforced both by what he said and by what hedidn’t say.

To his credit, the President made a leitmotif of his remarks a “destructive ideology” that must be confronted and defeated. Yet, he refused to name it, other than by association with the group he insists on calling “ISIL” – an acronym for what was once known as the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant, but that now simply calls itself the Islamic State (or IS).

If we are actually serious about defeating that ideology, we must be honest about its nature – and realistic about all its adherents.

In much of the Muslim world, the Islamic State’s ideology is known as “shariah.”  While IS has been particularly effective at branding itself as the world’s foremost enforcer of that brutally repressive, supremacist doctrine, the truth is that it animates every other jihadist group, as well – including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Boko Haram, the al Nusra Front, al Shabaab and the granddaddy of them all: the Muslim Brotherhood.

Our ability to acknowledge this reality, let alone act effectively upon that recognition, has been greatly hampered by another fact: Shariah is also regarded as the true practice of Islam by nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and by the religious authorities of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University.

This fact is particularly inconvenient since, according to Team Obama (among others): the Saudis are among our most important Mideast allies in the war on terror and a cornerstone of the President’s vaunted anti-ISIL coalition; the Iranians are our new-found strategic partners; and Islam is a “religion of peace” with which “we are not and never will be at war.”

To be clear, many millions of Muslims don’t practice their faith in accordance with shariah. Yet, many millions do. And the latter are obliged by shariah to engage in jihad or holy war.

Where practicable, shariah dictates they must do so through terrifying violence. Where not, they still must wage “holy war” through what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”

This is not so much a non-violent form of the effort to force the rest of the world – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – to submit to shariah and the dominion of a global ruler known as the Caliph. Rather, it would be more accurate to describe it as pre-violent jihad, since it is about setting the stage for the final, decisive use of terrifying force to accomplish the entire planet’s ultimate submission.

The use of stealthy, seditious techniques to subvert non-Muslim Western societies like ours means that we face more than what is increasingly called “radical Islamic terrorism” by those who fault President Obama for his failure to name the enemy. Influence operations aimed at penetrating and subverting of our civil society institutions and governmental policy-making are in many ways just as dangerous as the violent jihad they enable.

Evidence of that reality is not hard to find in the wake of the San Bernardino attacks. For example, the shariah-adherent Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas front group known as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) launched one of its classic political warfare campaigns in the immediate aftermath of those murderous shootings of unarmed Americans. It transparently sought to mislead the public about this act of jihad and to promote the meme that Muslims risked being victimized in its aftermath. It is no coincidence that President Obama has assiduously conveyed basically the same message from his bully pulpit.

If we are to survive the collective effort of shariah-adherent Muslims and their enablers around the world to force “non-believers” to submit to that toxic ideology, we have to recognize that a) that we are not just confronting the Islamic State, but all those who embrace and practice the same ideology; b) we must counter both the violent and the pre-violent jihadists; and c) this will require a comprehensive, clear-eyed and patient strategy akin to that utilized decisively by President Reagan to destroy the last totalitarian ideology that sought world domination: Soviet communism.

The Center for Security Policy has adapted the Reagan play-book in what we call theSecure Freedom Strategy. If we really want to prevail over today’s most dangerous and “destructive ideology,” this is the strategy we need.

Funding Terrorists

The United States, in the form of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is providing $100,000 to an organization directly linked to financing terrorism.

According to USAspending.gov, a government website which tracks grant allocations, USAID provided the funds to the Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), for Fiscal Year 2016.

Islamic Relief Worldwide is a United Kingdom-based organization co-founded by known Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam El-Haddad, currently jailed in Egypt. El-Haddad is also a former Clinton Foundation employee.

Islamic Relief Worldwide is a designated terrorist entity in both Israel and the United Arab Emirates since 2014, due to its ties to the Global Muslim Brotherhood network that provides material support to Hamas. In 2006, the Israel security forces arrested IRW’s Gaza project coordinator for links to the terror group.

Following their 2014 designation by Israel, Islamic Relief Worldwide carried out an “independent investigation” and declared that it was not in violation. The independent watchdog group NGO Monitor has contested the quality and independence of that investigation.

Islamic Relief Worldwide has also been implicated in financial ties with al Qaeda-linked organizations as well, particularly in Yemen. Terrorism researcher Samuel Westrop writes,

“In 2004, 2007 and 2009, IRW accounts revealed donations of tens of thousands of pounds from the Charitable Society for Social Welfare [CSSW], a charity founded by al Qaeda terrorist and ‘Bin Laden loyalist’ Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani. In 1998, the al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, eventually killed by a U.S. drone strike, served as vice-president of CSSW’s San Diego branch.”

Al-Zindani is a leading member of the Hamas financing network known as the Union of the Good, which has been designated by the U.S. Treasury Department. Islamic Relief Worldwide is one of the founding organizations for the Union.

American law enforcement officers have also reported that the group is known to play a role in financing Hamas, taking the place of the convicted Holy Land Foundation. In 2011, a Department of Justice source told investigative reporter Patrick Poole,

“We know that these Muslim leaders and groups are continuing to raise money for Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Ten years ago we shut down the Holy Land Foundation. It was the right thing to do. Then the money started going to KindHearts. We shut them down too. Now the money is going through groups like Islamic Relief and Viva Palestina. Until we act decisively to cut off the financial pipeline to these terrorist groups by putting more of these people in prison, they are going to continue to raise money that will go into the hands of killers.”

Islamic Relief Worldwide is technically legally distinct from, although closely linked to their U.S.-based affiliate, Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA). The two groups share overlapping leadership. IRUSA has provided tens of millions of dollars for its parent organization to distribute.

Islamic Relief USA recently fundraised in response to a devastating October earthquake in Pakistan where, according to Reuters, jihadist-linked linked charities played a leading role in the response. According to the Pakistan Tribune, Islamic Relief worked side by side with the Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation, a charity foundation tied to Laskar-e-Taiba, the group responsible for the Mumbai massacre. Also operating with Islamic Relief in the Earthquake response was the Alkhidmat Foundation, a charitable organization of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Jamaat-e-Islami organization, known to have financed Hamas.

Despite that Islamic Relief is well known by U.S. law enforcement, the group has continued to share a close relationship with the State Department and USAID under the Obama Administration, including hosting shared annual “Iftar Dinners“. IRUSA’s CEO, who is also a leading Islamic Relief Worldwide board member, has served on USAID’s advisory committee beginning in 2010, according to Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro. Islamic Relief USA described itself as a 2011 “partner” with USAID for operations in the Horn of Africa.

In addition to partnering with both the U.S. government and Terror-linked charities, one of Islamic Relief’s major projects involves support for Syrian refugees, including advocating for bringing Syrian refugees to “rich countries,” including presumably the United States.

Despite these long-running associations with Islamic Relief USA, the fund allocation directly to Islamic Relief Worldwide raises new questions. And while the U.S. government has previously been identified funding U.S. Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations like the North American Islamic Trust, which once shared a bank account with the Holy Land Foundation, the allocation of funds directly to an entity that two U.S. allies consider a terrorist group may be a new low.

The revelations that the U.S. government is giving money to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups that are closely tied to terrorism finance should raise serious oversight questions for the U.S. Congress, particularly as the last omnibus appropriations bill for the Obama administration’s second term is currently under discussion.

Islamic State expands its presence in Bangladesh

Always opportunistic and seeking to supplant its forefather al-Qaeda, the Islamic State appears to have struck in Bangladesh, claiming responsibility for the killing of Italian missionary Piero Parolari this past Wednesday.  This follows the killing of Italian aid worker Cesare Tavella, who was killed on September 28 in Dhaka, a murder also claimed by Islamic State. Bengali authorities arrested four men in connection with that killing, but denied any connection to the self-declared caliphate.

Bangladesh relies heavily on NGOs and international assistance, a likely factor in the government’s decision to publicize a zero-tolerance approach to jihadi terror.  Nevertheless, rampant corruption, porous borders, and a history of Islamist activity make Bangladesh an attractive target as well as staging area for attacks in the Indian subcontinent.

The Bangladeshi branch of Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI), a group closely linked to the better known Muslim Brotherhood, has been active since the early 1940’s, becoming a political party following Bangladeshi independence in 1971.  Founded on the principles of Abul-Alaa Mawdudi, a key jihadi ideologue, the JEI advocates an Islamic government based on Shariah. Like the Brotherhood, it is prepared to participate in elections, but recent political support is limited, only winning a few seats in Parliament every cycle.

Through his numerous books, Mawdudi’s work on Islamic politics and jihad heavily influenced al-Qaeda. AQ, whose ties in the region go back to the “mujahideen” war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, announced in September 2014 the creation of “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.”  Seeking to unite the numerous splinter jihadi factions in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, AQIS was mainly established at least in part as a countermove to the declaration of the Caliphate by IS in June.

One of its first actions were attacks on secular Bangladeshi bloggers, who were accused of insulting the prophet and promoting apostasy from Islam.  At least four murders were attributed to AQIS, which were carried out by its local affiliates Ansar al-Islam Bangladesh and Ansarullah Bangla Team.

Keen to steal the spotlight from al-Qaeda, the Islamic State launched attacks of their own in the subcontinent. After establishing its Wilayat Khorasan in Afghanistan, IS apparently co-opted some jihadists from AQIS, as well as recruited and indoctrinated new members to carry out murders against Western missionaries (“Crusaders” in IS-speak).

The latest issue of their propaganda organ Dabiq spells out their goal: “These blessed back-to-back attacks have caused havoc among the citizens of the crusader nations and their allies living in Bengal and forced their diplomats, tourists, and expats to limit their movements and live in a constant state of fear.”

By targeting clergy and aid workers, the Islamic State’s strategy in Bangladesh follows their familiar tactics: undermine the credibility of the government, spread chaos, and strike terror in the population.  In the meantime, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government is now facing the challenge of dealing with both terror groups and their competition for jihadist supremacy.

CAIR-PA fundraises for Hamas-linked charity in wake of tragic earthquake

The Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently seized on the powerful October 26th earthquake in Pakistan which has killed several hundred in order to solicit donations to an allied charity with ties to financing Hamas.

This should come as little surprise, given CAIR’s own status as an organization of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, formed for the purpose of supporting Hamas abroad.

The organization CAIR-PA has been soliciting for is Islamic Relief-USA (IRUSA). Both IRUSA and CAIR share mutual ties in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Screen Shot 2015-11-04 at 12.51.14 PMIRUSA is the U.S. affiliate of the Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), a charity designated by the Israeli government for supporting Hamas. Nor is it just Israel that views IRW as a terrorist entity. The United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) has also designated IRW. Despite efforts to create the appearance of a firewall between the two (legally) separate groups, tens of millions of dollars have been provided by IRUSA to IRW over the years, and IRUSA and IRW has had key leaders in overlapping positions. In Pakistan in particular, IRUSA claims credits for funding projects directly administered by IRW’s Pakistan branch.

Media outlets have already noted how jihadist organizations in Pakistan have flocked to the affected region raising security concerns.

CAIR has a history of exploiting tragedy in order to fundraise for groups tied to terror finance. In 2001, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, CAIR’s website featured a donation link to “Donate to the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund”. The hyperlink led would-be donors directly to the Holy Land Foundation, the now convicted Hamas fundraising organization, and CAIR’s fellow Palestine Committee organization. When this exploitation raised hackles, CAIR changed the webpage, to make donations to HLF, and another group the Global Relief Foundation (GRF). GRF was designated by the Treasury department the following year, for its financing of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Interestingly, the CAIR’s solicitation came at the same time that Senator Ted Cruz and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart filed matching legislation regarding designating the Global Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity for its role in supporting,  indoctrinating, and funding terrorism worldwide.