Two years ago, the executive director of the Kashmiri American Council (KAC), Ghulam Nabi Fai, was riding high in Washington, D.C. circles. In March 2010, he hosted a pricey fundraiser in his own home for Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), the powerful chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia and co-chairman of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus.
In 2004, Fai testified before Burton’s subcommittee. Internal KAC documents show that in just 2007 alone, he had 33 meetings with members of Congress, congressional staff, the Bush administration’s National Security Council, and the State Department. He led congressional delegations to the disputed Kashmir region, and over the years nearly three dozen different members of Congress of both parties attended or spoke at Fai’s annual Kashmir Peace Conference held on Capitol Hill. KAC’s events were even broadcast live on C-SPAN.
One thing that bought Fai so much access was that Fai and the KAC board of directors generously spread campaign contributions all over Capitol Hill to members of both political parties. However, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the bulk of contributions by Fai, KAC’s board, and Fai’s associates went to Burton and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
That all changed on July 19, 2011, when Fai was arrested by the FBI not far from his Fairfax, Virginia home, where he had held the fundraiser for Burton sixteen months earlier. And just last month, a year after his arrest, Fai reported to federal prison.
According to an affidavit by FBI Special Agent Sarah Webb Linden that was the basis for the criminal complaint, an extensive investigation into Fai’s activities showed that all of Fai’s efforts over the past 20 years had been illegally financed and directed by Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI.
The FBI affidavit stated that Fai was in constant contact with his Pakistani ISI handlers: since June 2008, Fai and his handlers exchanged more than 4,000 messages.
The FBI also found that Fai and KAC had received more than $4 million from the ISI since KAC’s founding in 1990 through the use of U.S.-based Pakistani-American straw donors who would donate to KAC and receive tax deductions, and then be reimbursed in Pakistan by the ISI. This was arranged through Fai’s conspirator Fazeer Ahmad, a U.S. citizen who lived in Pakistan and was charged along with Fai in the case.
These straw-donor transactions concealed that KAC was not an independent public relations effort by U.S. citizens to advocate on behalf of the Kashmiri people, but rather an influence operation run by the intelligence agency of a hostile foreign power, one intended to influence members of Congress to shape U.S. foreign policy in Pakistan’s favor. The stated targets for much of KAC’s operations were the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
KAC’s activities didn’t have to be illegal. All Fai had to do was register his organization with the attorney general under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Doing so would have exposed the Pakistani ISI’s role in the operation, however, and would have closed most doors in Washington, D.C., to Fai and KAC.
The FBI gave Fai sufficient opportunity to come clean about his operation and its ties to Pakistani intelligence. In March 2007, the FBI interviewed Fai, who claimed he had never met anyone affiliated with the government of Pakistan.
In March 2010, the Justice Department sent Fai a letter stating that press reports in India had identified him as an agent of Pakistan, and that if true, he was required to file as a foreign agent with the attorney general’s office under FARA. In an email reply, Fai stated that KAC “has never engaged in activities on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan or any other foreign entity.”
What undoubtedly prompted that Justice Department letter was a meeting that Fai had with two of his Pakistani ISI handlers in Geneva just days before. In that March 2010 strategy meeting, according to notes of the meeting obtained by U.S. Customs officials when Fai reentered the U.S., Fai briefed his handlers on KAC’s 2010 goals and the targets of his efforts. Most notably: “E.B. [Executive Branch], State, DoD, WH [White House]; Media, Think tank; Congress; U.N.”
According to the FBI, the two ISI handlers Fai met with in that March 2010 Geneva strategy meeting were Sohail Mahmood and Major General Mumtaz Ahmad Bajwa, the then-head of the ISI’s Security Directorate, which oversees operations of several Kashmiri terrorist groups.
Bajwa had also attended Fai’s Tenth International Kashmir Peace Conference on Capitol Hill in July 2009. Also at the event was Fai’s then-ISI handler, Lt. Col. Touqeer Mehmood Butt, whose visa application noted his employer as “Pakistani Ministry of Defence, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Islamabad, Pakistan.” Among the speakers at that conference were Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), and the ubiquitous Rep. Dan Burton, as seen in the video below:
The event was even covered by the Hindi-language section of Voice of America:
The day after the 2009 KAC conference ended, Bajwa and Butt met with Fai in KAC’s Washington, D.C. office and had a conversation that was wiretapped by the FBI.
According to Agent Linden’s affidavit, the wiretap transcript shows that Fai gave his Pakistani ISI handlers a review of his efforts (p. 24):
His comments included the history of the establishment of KAC; KAC’s primary lobbying targets within the U.S. (to wit, White House, State Department, Pentagon, Congress, and the United Nations); KAC’s prior encounters with U.S. and Pakistani politicians; and Fai’s relationship with the Pakistani Embassy in Washington.
Agent Linden’s affidavit (p. 20) also notes a plan of action submitted by Fai to his handlers in December 2008 for the incoming Obama administration in 2009, outlining his strategy:
[S]ecure Congressional support to encourage the Executive Branch to support self determination in Kashmire, build new alliances in the State Department, the National Security Council, the Congress, and the Pentagon, and to expand KAC’s media efforts.
Fai’s budget for KAC for 2009 was $738,000, which included $100,000 intended for campaign contributions for members of Congress. After his ISI handlers balked, Fai reduced his budget to $638,000, most of which would be passed from the ISI to KAC through the U.S.-based straw donors.
The proposed activities for KAC in 2010 approved by the Pakistani ISI listed 61 events that Fai had planned for the year, including 10 briefings/events for members of Congress and their staff. In 2011, Fai was ordered by his handler to cultivate relationships with eleven identified members of the media and six intellectuals from D.C. think-tanks.
Under normal circumstances, you might think it would be front-page news that Pakistani intelligence had successfully penetrated the inner recesses of Capitol Hill and the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations; Pakistani intelligence had conducted a 20-year influence operation; and Pakistani intelligence made campaign contributions primarily to Republican members of Congress (including Burton — one of the most vocal critics of President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You would expect the establishment media to subject the issue to investigation rivaling the Jack Abramoff scandal during the Bush administration.
You would be wrong.
While Fai’s arrest was noted by many press outlets and a smattering of articles appeared in the subsequent days, within a week the story virtually vanished from the establishment media.
The New York Timesreported on Fai’s arrest, and the following day published an article announcing denials by Burton and his congressional colleagues that they had any knowledge of Fai’s ties to Pakistani intelligence. The last mention in the newspaper of the matter was less than a week later, when they reported that the FBI had attempted to arrest Fai several times, only to be stymied by the State Department and the CIA, who wanted to avoid heightening tensions with Pakistan. And except for a two-sentence mention on the New York Times India blog, the matter then disappeared from their pages entirely.
The Fai arrest got the same treatment from the Washington Post, which ran twostories and a short blog post in the days following Fai’s arrest, and later made short mention of his guilty plea. The paper has published nothing since.
The only full-scale treatment of the Fai matter and his influence on Capitol Hill was an October 2011 investigative piece by ProPublica researchers published by The Atlantic that outlined Fai’s background and lobbying efforts, as well as the extensive evidence compiled by the FBI in the case.
One might have at least expected a flurry of reporting when Fai pled guilty and was later sentenced to two years in prison, Alas, no. Nor was there any discussion of the 26-page Statement of Facts signed by Fai where he admitted in detail to his crimes outlined in FBI Agent Linden’s July 2011 affidavit.
The ambivalence about one of the biggest foreign intelligence influence operations on Capitol Hill in our lifetimes extended to Capitol Hill itself. No handwringing, no committee hearings or investigations, no press conferences by members of Congress explaining exactly how they had been duped for 20 years.
The Hill also made short work of the Fai affair, merely noting his arrest, guilty plea, and sentencing. No in-depth reporting, no stonewalling by congressional spokesmen, and certainly no chasing down members of Congress in the halls asking for comment.
About the only response from Congress was a two-paragraph press release from Rep. Burton’s office claiming he knew nothing, and promising to turn over the amount received by Fai to the Boy Scouts. In a brief interview with Rep. Joe Pitts by Lancaster (PA) Online, Pitts said in response to Fai’s arrest: “It never appeared to me that Dr. Fai was a lobbyist for Pakistan.” With respect to Fai’s attempt to influence him, “it didn’t work”.
In recent months I’ve conducted briefings for congressional staff and members of Congress on the Fai matter, and without exception have been met with blank faces and surprised stares.
So was the 20-year illegal lobbying effort by Ghulam Nabi Fai on behalf of Pakistan’s intelligence service really much ado about nothing? Was Rep. Pitts right that Pakistan’s influence operation on Capitol Hill “didn’t work”?
Or might there be something larger at work? Could it be that there’s more to the story of Ghulam Nabi Fai and the Kashmiri American Council than what you read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Hill?
The story of Pakistan’s two-decade influence operation in the heart of Congress, the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon is the biggest Capitol Hill spy scandal you’ve never heard about.
In Part Two, I’ll tell you the reason why.
In Part One, I explored the court documents in the case of Ghulam Nabi Fai, the executive director of the Kashmiri American Center (KAC) who admitted in a 26-page Statement of Facts at the time of his plea deal last December that he was an influence agent working for the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. He penetrated the halls of Congress and successive administrations over a 20-year period to help shape U.S. foreign policy in Pakistan’s favor.
As noted in the affidavit by FBI Special Agent Sarah Webb Linden that was the basis for the criminal charges filed in federal court against Fai, he was in constant communication with his ISI handlers, exchanging more than 4,000 emails between June 2008 and his arrest in July 2011. According to the FBI, the ISI spent more than $4 million funding Fai’s operation, funneling money to straw donors in the Pakistani-American community. The operation was coordinated by Zaheer Ahmad, a U.S. citizen living in Pakistan who was charged along with Fai in the case.
As I noted in Part One, while the establishment media reported on Fai’s arrest, the story virtually disappeared from all of the leading news outlets. But while the U.S. media was ignoring the scandal entirely, the matter was the subject of considerable media scrutiny in Indian and Pakistani media.
One curious episode that received no attention from the U.S. media was the strange death of Fai’s conspirator, Zaheer Ahmad.
Several months after Fai’s arrest, an extensive investigative piece (the only one ever published on the topic) by ProPublica noted Ahmad’s ties to Pakistani nuclear scientist Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood. Mahmood had met with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri prior to 9/11, wanting to help al-Qaeda obtain nuclear weapons. Ahmad told the ProPublica researchers:
In a phone conversation, Ahmad said he was free and working at Shifa. “Until this case is finished, I can’t discuss this,” Ahmad told a ProPublica reporter. “And it could be dangerous for you, too.”
Two days after the ProPublica exposé appeared, a bombshell report from the Hindustan Times placed Ahmad (Fai’s conspirator) at the meeting with Mahmood, Bin Laden, and Zawahiri just weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Two days after that Hindustan Times article appeared tying him to the meeting with al-Qaeda leaders, Ahmad, who was living in Pakistan, dropped dead from a “cerebral hemorrhage”.
So within one week the following happened: ProPublica published an exposé examining Fai’s efforts on Capitol Hill on behalf of Pakistani intelligence; another report tied Fai’s charged conspirator in the case with meeting with Osama bin Laden just weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks; and the conspirator dropped dead.
Yet that was not sufficient to stoke the curiosity of the American media.
Why did this story get buried?
The official response to that question will be that Fai’s arrest was part of the diplomatic game between the U.S., India, and Pakistan, which is entirely true. In fact, as the New York Timesreported, the FBI’s efforts to arrest Fai in 2011 were repeatedly opposed by the State Department and the CIA.
And considering the tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan after the raid that killed bin Laden in May 2011 and the subsequent closing of U.S. supply routes through Pakistan into Afghanistan, that certainly explains the reason why the U.S. government was so willing to cut a plea deal with Fai (which it did).
But it doesn’t explain the hands-off policy of the story by the U.S. media.
One possible reason: Fai’s operation had seen considerable success under the Clinton and Bush administrations, and documents obtained by the FBI in the raid of KAC showed that Fai anticipated his efforts would flourish in the new Obama administration. Was the media merely protecting Obama?
According to the FBI, a “plan of action” for 2009 submitted to his ISI handlers showed Fai’s plan to expand his operations by building new alliances with the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon under the incoming Obama administration. In 2010, his list of proposed activities included 61 key events planned for the year, including 10 briefings for members of Congress and their staff. In 2011, Fai was directed by the Pakistan Embassy in D.C. to expand his outreach even further by contacting and building relationships with 11 members of the media and six think-tank personnel.
It’s doubtful anyone in the establishment media was eager to investigate whom at the State Department, White House/National Security Council, and the Pentagon Fai had been meeting with.
Another possible reason for the media’s lack of attention to the Fai scandal can be seen in Fai’s own biography:
His articles appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Plain Dealer, Baltimore Sun, and many other foreign policy journals in the United States and around the world.
Not only did he have the political establishment fooled for 20 years, he had the media establishment snookered as well.
However, while the diplomatic sensitivities of the Fai case, the protection of the Obama administration, and self-interest were all possible contributing factors to the media’s sitting on the biggest spy scandal on Capitol Hill in recent memory, there is a more evident motive as to why the media took a pass.
Ghulam Nabi Fai was not only active in leadership roles in many of the largest Islamic groups in the U.S. — particularly those leading the U.S. government’s Islamic “outreach” efforts. These groups also actively aided in his operations.
The late Ismail Raji al-Faruqi was a professor specializing in Islam at Temple and would soon help found the International Institute of Islamic Thought. (The institute later came under investigation in a federal probe into terrorism funding, although no charges were filed.) Another professor, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a respected Islamic scholar, was trying to “Islamicize” the social sciences, Fai said.
At Temple, Fai became president of the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. & Canada, an organization started in part by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which had spread from Egypt through the Middle East. Some branches of the Brotherhood were hardline; others, more moderate.
Fai also started working for the ISI in about 1985 while at Temple, according to correspondence cited by the FBI, although the affidavit does not make clear what he was doing.
After earning his doctorate in 1988, Fai joined the advisory council for the Islamic Society of North America, an umbrella group started by the Muslim Students Association that also received Saudi funding. [PP – as federal prosecutors noted, Fai falsely claimed to have received his doctorate and presented himself as “Doctor”, but in fact he never obtained the degree.]
But that’s not all:
Incorporation documents filed in Maryland in April 1990 show Fai was one of three people who established the Kashmir center. A second founder was Rafia Syeed, the wife of Sayyid Syeed, one of the organizers of ISNA. The third founder’s father, who retired from the Pakistani military, also held a key post in a charity run by Fai’s alleged accomplice, Zaheer Ahmad. The Syeeds did not reply to requests for comment. The third founder, Mohammad Bilal Yousaf, denied knowing Fai. “I have never heard of Dr. Fai before, only what’s been reported in the media,” he said.
IRS filings show the group got startup funds from two board members and a $20,000 loan from the North American Islamic Trust, an ISNA-linked group that holds titles to about 300 U.S. mosques, Islamic centers and schools.
To summarize what we know of Ghulam Nabi Fai:
He came to the U.S. to study under one of the top Muslim Brotherhood leaders, Ismail Faruqi, who founded the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which was identified by U.S. Customs as the hub of terrorism financing in the U.S.
Fai later served as national president of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), during which time, according to an email cited in the FBI affidavit, he began serving on behalf of his Pakistani ISI masters.
He then served on the Shura Council for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
The wife of ISNA’s longtime Secretary General and present Director of Interfaith Outreach Sayyid Syeed was one of the original incorporators of KAC. Syeed had preceded Fai as national president of the MSA.
According to IRS filings, KAC’s Pakistani intelligence influence operation was launched with a $20,000 loan from the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which owns the property to hundreds of mosques around the country.
No doubt these organizations would say that their associations with Fai are ancient history and that they had no knowledge that Fai was operating on behalf of Pakistani intelligence.
But Fai’s involvement with these organizations continues to this day.
In fact, just two weeks before his arrest, Fai was speaking at ISNA’s annual conference, as seen in this video:
After his arrest, many of these Islamic groups — again, which are closely tied to the U.S. government — issued a statement in support of Fai under the rubric of the “American Muslim Taskforce” (AMT). This is how the AMT describes itself:
AMT is an umbrella organization that includes American Muslim Alliance (AMA), American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), Muslim American Society-Freedom (MAS-F), Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA), National Association of Imams (NAIF) and United Muslims of America (UMA).
After that August 2, 2011 AMT press release, media mentions of Fai’s case, save for his plea deal and sentencing, virtually disappear.
Even after Fai entered into a plea deal and signed a 26-page Statement of Facts admitting his work on Capitol Hill on behalf of Pakistani intelligence, these same Islamic groups continue to support Fai.
In fact, after Fai’s sentencing and before he reported to federal prison, many of these U.S. Islamic groups hosted fundraising dinners across the country in support of Fai and his legal expenses, hailing him as a hero.
One of these events was held in Newark, California, on June 21, and was promoted by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and co-sponsored by such prominent groups as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and ISNA.
Here’s a flyer for the event:
The audio of the event speakers in support of Fai can be found here.
ICNA president Zahid Bukhari sent a letter in support of Fai to the federal judge, urging a lenient sentence:
Dr. Fai was himself a victim of the Indian Government’s inhumane polices in the occupied Kashmir. He was not able to visit his parents and family living in Kashmir since his departure from that part of world several decades ago. In America, he became the globally recognized face of the plight of Kashmiri people.
He presented the Kashmiri case in 17 sessions of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva from 2006 until June 2011. He participated in all summits of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) since 1991, and met with over 50 Heads of State over the last 20 years. He addressed the preliminary session at the Centennial Conference of the Parliament of the World’s Religions, held in Chicago in August 1993. Dr. Fai also organized ten International Kashmir Peace Conferences at the Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.
Federal prosecutors told the court in a sentencing memo that Fai’s cooperation with the FBI was lacking following his plea deal, particularly noting his lack of cooperation regarding “his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Pakistani terrorist groups.” (p. 9, fn. 3)
The story of the Pakistani ISI’s 20-year penetration into the heart of Congress, the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon should have been big news, especially since the U.S. government has identified the ISI as a terrorist organization in military tribunal documents.
But it wasn’t.
The media savaged Rep. Michele Bachmann and her congressional colleagues for daring to request an investigation into organizations that the U.S. government has gone into federal court and identified as front groups for the international Muslim Brotherhood yet somehow still considers helpful outreach partners. The story of how these same Islamic groups and leaders rushed to the support of Ghulam Nabi Fai and hailed Pakistan intelligence’s influence man on Capitol Hill as a hero even after admitting his crimes should be equally major news.
But it’s even worse than that. Fai was not only supported by these Islamic organizations, he served in senior leadership of these very organizations, which the U.S. government continues to consult with to help shape our domestic and foreign policy. These very same organizations are welcomed into the halls of Congress, the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon to this day.
That’s the reason I believe the story of Ghulam Nabi Fai, the Kashmiri American Council, and the Pakistani ISI is the biggest D.C. spy scandal you’ve never heard about.
The staggering implications of what federal prosecutors presented in court about this matter under any other circumstances would have shaken Washington, D.C., to its core. Instead, the political and media establishment closes their eyes in self-imposed blindness.
And in the end, it will be the American people who reap the consequences.
A magician typically succeeds when the attention of the audience is diverted from his main activity onto some distraction. President Obama has raised this sort of deflection into a political art form.
Take, for example, the matter of revelations by five Members of Congress and the Center for Security Policy that there appear to be a number individuals working for or with the Obama administration with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The possibility that their influence may be helping to shape U.S. policy in ways that increasingly align it with the demands, ambitions and goals of the Brotherhood and other Islamists is a national security problem of the first order. That is especially true at a moment when Muslim Brothers are consolidating their hold on power in Egypt with the cashiering of two top generals at the hands of the Brotherhood’s newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi.
Yet, Team Obama and its allies in the elite media have aggressively worked to deflect the focus away from these realities. At first, they did so by viciously attacking Congresswoman Michele Bachmann – even though she was just one of five legislators who asked for investigations into these seeming influence operations by inspectors general of five federal agencies.
Then, they sought to portray as a victim of racism and bigotry just one of those about whom the Members of Congress raised legitimate questions: Huma Abedin, the Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Journalists like CNN’s Anderson Cooper repeated uncritically – and unprofessionally – assurances that there was no factual basis for linking Ms. Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood. Where compelled to acknowledge that members of her family do have ties to Brotherhood-connected organizations, the administration and its allies denounced such concerns as “guilt by association” and “McCarthyism.”
Then, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, former Muslim Brother Walid Shoebat and other researchers established a direct tie between Huma Abedin and a Muslim Brotherhood front, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). IMMA was established essentially as an Abedin family business by Abdullah Omar Naseef, an officially designated al Qaeda financier.
Shortly after IMMA was founded under his chairmanship, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL) which Mr. McCarthy described in an August 8thspeech in Washington sponsored by the Center for Security Policy as: “the Saudi-financed global propagation enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood’s virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology is seeded throughout the world, very much including in the United States.”
It happens that Huma Abedin was listed for twelve years on the masthead of the IMMA’s journal as an associate editor. For at least seven of those years, Omar Naseef was also listed as a member of the editorial advisory board.
In his remarks last week, former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney McCarthy directly spoke to charges that Huma Abedin was being unfairly challenged by virtue of these various ties to the Muslim Brotherhood: “‘Guilt by association’ has nothing to do with fitness for high public office. High public office is a privilege, not a right. Access to classified information is a privilege, not a right. You need not have done anything wrong to be deemed unfit for these privileges.”
Andrew McCarthy added pointedly: “It is not a question of your patriotism or your trustworthiness. It is about whether you would be burdened by such obvious conflicts of interest that you would be tempted to act on those interests, rather than in the best interests of the United States.”
Nonetheless, two days later, the Deflector-in-Chief used the occasion of remarks at his fourth annual White House Iftar dinner – a ceremony marking the breaking of the Ramadan fast – to provide a shout-out to one of his guests, Huma Abedin. Mr. Obama pronounced: “Huma is an American patriot, and an example of what we need in this country – more public servants with her sense of decency, her grace and her generosity of spirit. So, on behalf of all Americans, we thank you so much.” Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Not only does Ms. Abedin’s relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood and involvement in policies favorable to its interests warrant close official scrutiny. There are at least six other individuals with Brotherhood ties whose involvement in Obama administration “Muslim outreach” and/or related policy-making also deserve investigation by the IGs and the Congress:
Rashad Hussain, Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation;
Dalia Mogahed, an advisor to President Obama;
Mohamed Elibiary, a member of Homeland Security Department’s Advisory Council;
Mohamed Magid, a member of the Homeland Security Department’s Countering-Violent Extremism Working Group;
Louay Safi, until recently the credentialing authority for Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military and now a leader of the Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council; and
Kifah Mustapha, a Hamas-fundraiser and graduate of the FBI’s ‘Citizens Academy’
The American people are entitled to know who is shaping the policies that are increasingly empowering, enriching and emboldening the Muslim Brotherhood – an organization sworn to our destruction. Under no circumstances should legitimate and well-grounded congressional requests for formal investigations be deflected, let alone suppressed.
And the results of those investigations must be available to inform the critical choice American voters have to make this November. It just might make all the difference in the outcome – which is presumably why the grand deflection is being pursued with such determination.
Christopher Holton delivered the following presentation, "Shariah Compliant Finance and Financial Jihad: What America Needs to Know," on Capitol Hill. He was introduced by Lisa Piraneo of Act for America:
Christopher Holton is Vice President for Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program.
He has been involved in legislation in 20 states to divest taxpayer-supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic.
In 2005, Holton was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, American Thinker, Family Security Matters, BigPeace, World Tribune, WorldNetDaily, Newsmax and The Hayride.com.
Before joining the Center, Holton was President of Blanchard and Company, a $200 million per year investment firm and editor in chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit.
CHRIS HOLTON: SHARIAH COMPLIANT FINANCE AND FINANCIAL JIHAD
[BEGIN FILE]
LISA PIRANEO:
– started right now. I’d like to thank everyone for coming today, especially Hill staff. I know that even when your bosses are out of town, it’s still really crazy in your individual offices and I appreciate you setting aside some time to come and talk about this very important issue, shariah finance or Islamic finance. This is something that is very much in place around the nation, particularly on Wall Street it’s very much in existence. But it really isn’t well known at all, definitely not without – not through the American communities as well as up on the Hill. It’s just not really an issue that folks know a lot about, so I think that’s why it’s very important that you all have come here today to set aside an hour of your time to listen to this report and discussion. So without further ado, I’m going to introduce our guest speaker, Christopher Holton, from the Center for Security Policy. This is an event that the Center for Security Policy is doing together with Act for America. I’m Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations for Act for America. And Chris will be able to really discuss in depth and in detail a lot about this issue, so I’m glad to have him here again today. Christopher Holton is Vice-President of Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program. He has been involved in legislation in twenty states to divest taxpayer supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2008, Chris has been the editor-in-chief of the Shariah Finance Watch Blog. In 2005, he was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, The American Thinker, Family Security Matters, Big Peace, World Tribune, World Net Daily, News Max, and thehayride.com. Before joining the Center, Chris was President of Blanchard and Company, a two hundred million dollar per year investment firm, and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit. So without further ado, I give you Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy. Thank you.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
How can something be called shariah compliant finance? I mean, after all, shariah is a code that has been around for a thousand years almost now. There weren’t stock markets and bond markets and things like that back then. What is shariah finance? Well, the fact of the matter is, is that shariah finance is not something that you’ll find in the Koran. Or the hadith. It is something that was man-made. It really had its genesis as recently as the 1940s. A guy named Abul Mawdudi essentially invented it. He was an Islamic philosopher born in India, eventually went to Pakistan. And his whole goal was to insulate the Islamic world from the Western Civilization. At that time, Western Civilization, through colonialism, was, at least in Mawdudi’s opinion, inflicting itself on the Islamic world. He thought the solution to that was a return to an Islamic way of life. He conceived of the concept of Islamic economics and a concept under which Muslims would do business with each other in an Islamic way to insulate themselves from the economic imperialism, as he called it, of the Western Civilization at the time. Particularly Britain. Also France, and to a certain extent, Germany and other countries that had colonies and interests in the Islamic world. Nothing much happened with that. In the 1950s, the famous Muslim Brotherhood philosopher, Sayyid Qutb, began to write about the concept of Islamic economics. He developed it a little bit more and developed it in such a way that we – that the Islamic world could insulate itself from Western colonialism by using a system of Islamic economics. But again, though he developed it a little bit more, nothing much happened on the ground with regard to the concept. Nothing really happened until the mid 1970s. In the mid 1970s, everything changed for a couple of reasons. Number one, the Arab oil embargo and the subsequent increase in the price of oil in 1973 as a result of the Yom Kippur War really enriched Saudi Arabia. And as a result, you started to see in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and in Sudan the development of large Islamic banking institutions who did business according to Islamic principles. So this was a man-made phenomenon. It was not – it’s not rooted in any actual verses in the Koran. But it was invented by men. It really took off in 1979 with the Islamic revolution in Iran. In fact, the Islamic revolution in Iran gave birth to a myriad of Islamic financial institutions in Iran and one of the dirty secrets of shariah compliant finance to this day is that Iran dominates the world of shariah compliance. You can read all about shariah compliant finance on the internet from what the purveyors of shariah compliant finance say and they won’t mention Iran a whole lot. They don’t like to talk about it.
But the fact is, you can add up everybody else’s shariah compliant finance – financial instruments under management and they don’t add up to what Iran has under management. Absolutely dominates the world of shariah compliant finance. Which should tell you something. Six out of the top ten shariah compliant financial institutions in the world are state owned Iranian banks. Who happen to be under US and economic union sanctions for terrorism financing and for financing activities in support of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs in Iran. So those who call shariah compliant finance ethical investing may want to rethink that. Just in view of the fact that the largest shariah compliant financial institutions in the world are under sanctions for things that I don’t think you and I would consider very ethical. Like supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, for example. So why is shariah compliant finance an issue, though, in the West and in the United States today. The fact of the matter is, is that shariah compliant financial industry has absolutely poor standards of disclosure and transparency as compared to Western standards of disclosure and transparency when it comes to financial operations. And those standards of transparency and disclosure are directly related to issues involving national security and terrorism financing. And that’s what has to be investigated. And what – and the problem is, is that US policymakers, US regulators, and Wall Street in particular, are not equipped to research those items. I’ll give you a few examples right from the start. You know, the main problems with shariah compliant finance are lack of disclosure and transparency. From the very start, you have the fact that shariah compliant finance is usually not referred to as shariah compliant finance. It’s usually referred to as Islamic finance or Islamic banking. That’s a euphemism for shariah compliant finance. Because the purveyors, the financial jihadis, the purveyors of shariah compliant finance know that shariah has very bad implications for people in the West.
They know that shariah itself is a system that Westerners are very suspicious of. So they choose to avoid the use of the term shariah at all. So it’s shariah compliant, but you won’t hear them say that very often. They will just say, well, we invest according to Islamic principles without defining what that is. But the main problem is, is that they do not disclose what shariah is. Right from the start. The very basis of this program is something that is being concealed. If you look in most of the prospectuses for shariah compliant financial institutions and instruments, mutual funds and what have you, they’ll very briefly sometimes mention shariah. One shariah adviser that I was in the presence of at one point, when asked to define shariah, his response was, it’s the path on which we walk. And that was it. Now can you imagine that as being disclosure in a prospectus? For anything other than shariah compliant finance in Western Civilization? That’s no disclosure at all. The path on which we walk means absolutely nothing obviously. The problem is, is that shariah is of material interest to investors. Shariah as a system, as a broad overall system, not just shariah compliant finance. You cannot divorce shariah compliant finance from shariah. It is embedded in shariah. The purpose of shariah compliant finance is to promote shariah. Shariah compliant finance would not exist if it did not exist to promote shariah. This was brought force very forcefully in 2009 at the World Islamic Economic Forum in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. Where there was a meeting of the finance ministers of most of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. At the time it was known as the Organization of Islamic – of the Islamic Conference. A bloc of fifty-seven nations in the UN. Their finance ministers got together in Kuala Lumpur and at the keynote address from the finance minister from the host nation of Malaysia, he encouraged the shariah finance industry to keep conducting its dawa operations. Well, what does dawa mean? Dawa means missionary work. They look at this as a form of missionary work to promote shariah and Islam. You cannot get away from that. Because of that, it has to be disclosed what shariah is and that is not being done at this point.
Not only are they not even talking about shariah, they’re not even mentioning it. So the lack of transparency and the lack of disclosure with regard to shariah is the first problem when it comes to shariah compliant finance. But it’s more than that. We can get into the nuts and bolts now. Beyond the overarching issue of shariah, we get down into the nuts and bolts of shariah compliant finance. The next issue that we have with regard to lack of disclosure with regard to shariah compliant finance has to do with the shariah scholars who essentially run the industry. Number one, there are very few of them, so there are lots of conflicts of interest that are built up within the industry and with competing financial institutions. You’ll have a shariah scholar who’s on the shariah advisory board of a financial institution and on a shariah advisory board of one of their competitor’s financial institutions, which in most walks of life, that would be considered a conflict of interest that you just wouldn’t have. But because there is a shortage of shariah advisers – there’s only about two dozen of them who are really the most qualified to sit on shariah boards – and that’s the way it basically works. If you have a shariah compliant financial institution or entity or instrument, you set up a shariah advisory board of usually three or more scholars, although in some cases, it’s just one scholar, and what this guy’s job is to do – and they’re all guys, there’s no women – is to keep the institution or instrument between the shariah lines. This person gets to decide, you know, you can invest in this, you can’t invest in that. And, you know, there’s a lot more to it than just like avoiding interest. A lot of people think that shariah compliant finance is just about avoiding interest. And to individual Muslims, that may very well be the case. Somebody might be investing in shariah compliant finance to be a pious Muslim. But on the institutional level, and on the doctrinal level, that is not what shariah compliant finance is about, unfortunately. It’s about a lot more than that. And if you look at the shariah advisers, you’ll see why. We’ve done background research on so many of these shariah advisers. And come back with really disturbing stuff.
For instance, there’s a guy named Mufti Taqi Usmani. Mufti Taqi Usmani was a member of the Pakistani supreme court for many years. He retired and he essentially cashed in. He is now a shariah scholar, a shariah adviser on dozens of institutions in the West and also in the Islamic world and in Asia as a shariah adviser. Usually, he is the chief of a shariah advisory board of a financial institution. Well, he used to be the chief of the Dow Jones shariah advisory board. He was also the chief of HSBC’s shariah advisory board. He’s not anymore. And the reason he’s not anymore is because they found out a little bit about the guy’s background. Now, they found out about it kicking and screaming. They had to be told about it over and over again. They had to be beaten over the head with it. Investor’s Business Daily, I think, was finally the straw that broke the camel’s back. But there were several publications that revealed that this guy, number one, he came from a madrassa and he was an officer of the madrassa that gave birth to the Taliban. Now, kind of a red flag. [LAUGHTER] He wrote a book called Islam and Modernity and he wrote another book called What Is Christianity? And in those books, you can pull out passages from his writings in which he said that Muslims in the West have a duty to rise up in jihad against their Western neighbors as soon as they’re strong enough to do so. Lots of stuff like that. He has written fatwas declaring whole sects of Islam to be apostates, resulting in what amounts to genocide of those sects of Islam within Pakistan. He is an evil man. Once this was revealed, HSBC and Dow Jones removed him from their shariah advisory boards. But keep in mind, he was the chief of their advisory boards. This stuff wasn’t that hard to find out. They could have found this stuff out if they had done any due diligence on this guy. All right? Now, when HSBC got rid of him, who do you think they replaced him with? His son. [LAUGHTER] So here we have a case where you’d got a really creepy guy with ties to jihadists controlling money. On a major – for a major financial institution in the West. And he’s still on the board of dozens of these institutions. He’s also the chief shariah adviser to the accounting and auditing standards organization for the entire shariah compliant finance – financial industry. He is perhaps the most powerful shariah adviser in the world and he is a complete jihadist. I’ve put out a dossier on him with more details than what I provide – than what I provide in this speech in your packet.
I’ll talk about a second shariah adviser who you’ve probably heard of. Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He’s been in the news relatively recently because he’s a famous Egyptian shariah scholar. He is probably the most prominent Sunni shariah scholar in the world. He’s the ideological mentor, at this point, for the Muslim Brotherhood. He was exiled to Qatar for thirty years from Egypt. He recently moved back to Egypt when Mubarak was taken out of office. And he has been on the shariah advisory boards of many financial institutions, including from 1988 to 2001, a bank called Al Taqwa. This bank was based out of the Bahamas. And it was associated with a real estate firm in northern Virginia named BMI. And what they were doing was they were conspiring to take a portion of their proceeds – and we’ll get to how this works in a minute – and send it to one of seven jihadist terrorist groups around the world. So this whole idea of their being a nexus between shariah compliant finance and some terrorism financing is not a fantasy, it’s not a theory, it’s actually been done. It’s been done in several cases, and this is one of them and it happened in the United States. Cause it involved a real estate firm in northern New Jersey. Bank Al Taqwa and BMI were shut down by the US Treasury Department and, of course, the shariah – the chief of the shariah advisory board was this guy Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He’s also the shariah adviser – chief of the shariah advisory board for Qatar Islamic Bank and Qatar International Islamic Bank. And if you look at those two banks, those are the two largest Islamic banks outside of Iran in the world. And this guy’s the shariah adviser to them. He is forbidden from entering the United States and Great Britain due to his ties to terrorism. He has written that suicide bombing against civilian targets in Israel is acceptable. He has called on all Muslims to support Hezbollah. He has stated that wife beating is absolutely permitted under Islam, but you’re not allowed to beat your wife if she enjoys it. He has endorsed female genital mutilation as a – which is euphemistically referred to as female circumcision. This guy is perhaps one of the most prominent shariah advisers in the financial world. He’s getting kind of old. He was a pioneer, though, when it was getting started. It could not have happened with Sheik Qaradawi’s help. So these are the kinds of people that we have sitting on shariah advisory boards of these shariah financial institutions. In many cases, if you look at the prospectuses of these shariah financial institutions, they don’t even mention that they have a shariah advisory board. And if they do, they don’t name them. In some cases, they might name them. Some cases, they might not. This is something that needs to be disclosed. And in fact, it needs to be researched.
The fact that somebody like Usmani could penetrate HSBC and Dow Jones and only through public humiliation get kicked off of those boards and then, of course, replaced by his son has got to be, you know, one of the most cynical moves by a financial institution that I can ever recall. That’s something that needs to be looked at by regulators and policymakers. Because of the next phenomenon which is, to me, the big problem when it comes to shariah compliant finance. Under shariah compliant finance, 2.5 percent, or one-fortieth, of the assets of the financial instrument have to be donated each year to zakat. Now zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam. It is a system similar to tithing in other religions. It’s ostensibly to eliminate poverty in Islam and that’s a good thing. The problem is, is that if you look at the shariah law texts, if you look at the actual shariah law authorities, there are eight acceptable destinations for zakat. Number seven is listed as those fighting in the way of Allah. And then if you look at the definition of those fighting in the way of Allah, it is defined – that is defined as those who are engaged in Islamic military operations for which there is no payroll on the army – on an army roster. In other words, irregular warfare – they are to be given the zakat even if they’re wealthy. And this is – these are codes that were written six or seven hundred years ago. But I mean, they could have been written by Osama bin-Laden twenty years ago. And then it goes on to say that families of those who are fighting in the way of Allah are to be supported as well with this zakat. In other words, if you’re a suicide bomber and you blow up a cafe in Tel Aviv, your family gets taken care of by rich Saudis or Saddam Hussein, which is what was going on throughout the 1990s. That is the system of zakat as defined by shariah law.
Now 2.5 percent of the proceeds from shariah compliant financial institutions go to zakat. That is very often not disclosed. In cases where it is disclosed, they will merely say something about it is donated to Islamic charities. And leave it at that. They won’t name the charities, they won’t talk about the activities of the charities. Now here’s the problem with that. Now fewer than eighty Islamic charities have been identified by the US Treasury Department or by British authorities or by the United Nations as funding jihad. Eighty. That’s not a small number. And the reason that so many Islamic charities fund jihad is because shariah law mandates that they do so. It is one of the eight destinations for zakat. This is not something that they think is wrong. So very many of these charities are involved in funding jihad. Now we saw it in Bank Al Taqwa with Sheik Qaradawi. It was absolutely happening with Bank Al Taqwa. And it was shut down because of that. Now more recently, our friend Sheik Qaradawi was named the head of a charity based out of Saudi Arabia called the Union of Good. The Union of Good is kind of like a United Way for Islamic charities. Depending on whose numbers you use, it’s either fifty-three or fifty-six or fifty-seven charities under the Union of Good. Okay? Now, the Union of Good has been designated a terrorist entity by the US Treasury Department. Because Qaradawi takes money from the Union of Good and he sends it to Hamas. I mean, that’s something that’s US government policy already. And this, remember, this guy who’s the head of this charity is also the chief shariah adviser to these big Islamic financial institutions. It’s not hard to connect these dots. There’s also twenty-seven other charities that have been designated by the US Treasury as terrorist entities. Including the three largest Muslim charities in the United States. The last one being the Holy Land Foundation. Which of course the offices of the Holy Land Foundation were convicted on all counts for material support of terrorism cause they were sending money to Hamas from right here in the United States. So we have a situation where there is no disclosure.
You can’t find any information on zakat and the charities that this money goes to in any of the publications from these Islamic financial institutions. And I’m here to tell you that Wall Street, they don’t want to fund terrorism, that’s for sure. But they’re so eager to win back some of the petrol dollars that we’ve sent overseas that they’re willing to take – take them at their word. You know, do these charities support terrorism? Oh, of course not. Okay. Good enough for me. And I’ve talked to people on Wall Street about this. I’ve talked to one person on Wall Street about this activity and he said, no, we’ve done the due diligence on shariah [MISPRONOUNCES WORD] [LAUGHTER] Interesting. How much due diligence did you do on shariah? [MISPRONOUNCES WORD] [LAUGHTER] So there isn’t – evidently, there’s not enough incentive for Wall Street to do due diligence on this. This is not a normal regulatory issue in that it’s got national security implications. There needs to be scrutiny of this. This is not something that we need to take lightly and say that this is big government getting in the way of Wall Street. That’s not what this is about. Cause a lot of people will say that all shariah compliant finance is, is a way for Muslims to invest according to their religious principles. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nobody should have a problem with that. The problem is with the doctrinal level of what shariah is and the fact that shariah is a totalitarian system. It is the opposite of a free market system. So when people – when free market people say that this is something that we have to allow to go unfettered and unscrutinized, because of free market economics, what they don’t realize is, is that they’re bringing in a system which is an anathema to free market economics. In fact, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi himself has called for replacement of capitalism by shariah finance. This is not capitalism. This is something else. It’s not communism. It’s not socialism. But it’s not capitalism, it’s not free enterprise. It is something else. It is a third way, if you will.
Another guy who said the exact same thing Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi did was our friend, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Who also, a couple of years ago, called for a replacement of capitalism by Islamic economics. And then, you may have been familiar, in 2009, an organization called Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is an international jihadist organization which has members in forty nations, has been banned in many nations, including Germany, their goal is reestablishing the caliphate. When they established their chapter in the United States, they held an event in Chicago – in Chicago [LAUGHTER] – and did I mention it was in Chicago? [LAUGHTER] Where else would it be? The name of their event was – I can’t remember the exact name, but it was essentially for Islam to replace capitalism. It wasn’t for Islam to replace democracy, it wasn’t for Islam to replace America, it wasn’t for Islam to replace Western Civilization. It was for Islam to replace capitalism. So shariah compliant finance is not about free enterprise. It’s not about free market. It’s not about capitalism. It is the opposite of that. And we’re allowing, literally, the camel’s nose under the tent by not seriously looking at this and determining where regulation is needed. Unfortunately, regulation is needed on this issue. That pretty much wraps up my prepared comments. Does anybody have any questions? Yes, ma’am?
WOMAN:
Have you guys any information on the financing [UNCLEAR] interested in, for that mosque at, you know, at 9-11 – I mean –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Well, that’s a good question. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] That’s a very useful question. The Ground Zero mosque, right. Now, we don’t know where that funding was going to come from. But it seems to be stymied right now. And the reason that it’s probably stymied is that it’s going to take a hundred million dollars to build it. And there’s two and a half million Muslims in the country and most of them, I don’t think, think that building a mosque at Ground Zero is such a peachy idea. So they’re not going to be able to raise a hundred million dollars from Muslims in America. You know, who, for the most part funds mosques in the United States? It’s the North American Islamic Trust. The North American Islamic Trust was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Depending on whose numbers you use, they own the title between twenty-seven percent and eighty percent of the mosques in the United States. And when you own a mosque, you get to decide the curriculum at the madrassa school associated with the mosque, you get to decide who the imam is, you get to call shots.
And the overwhelming majority of the funding for the North American Islamic Trust comes from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. You should also – might also be interested in knowing that, remember Dow Jones’ chief shariah adviser was Taqi Usmani? Well, the adviser to the Dow Jones Islamic fund is none other than North American Islamic Trust. An unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing operation in US history. Was the adviser to that fund. Again, we have an example of one of the most respected financial institutions in the United States not doing their due diligence when it comes to an organization that was involved in terrorism financing. Now, let’s take a look at the non-profit that Imam Rauf and his wife Daisy were putting – had before they put together the Ground Zero mosque. This might give as a clue as to where they were seeking to get their funds to build the mosque. They have an – she actually had an organization called ASMA, American Society for Muslim Advancement. [LAUGHTER] It was not lost on me. So the last year we have figures, they had an operating budget in 2009 of one million, three hundred and sixty thousand dollars. Okay? Not a big non-profit. But they had a one million, three hundred and sixty thousand dollar operating budget for the year. Six hundred and seven-six thousand dollars that year came from the emir of Qatar. All right? Three hundred thousand came from the Kingdom Foundation from the king of Saudi Arabia. So nine hundred and seventy-six thousand out of a 1.36 million operating budget we know came from two foreign powers. So they couldn’t – they basically could not run their little bitty non-profit without donations from foreign powers. Where do you think they’ve been getting a hundred million dollars to build a mosque at Ground Zero? I have a hunch that it wasn’t going to come from the United Way or the Red Cross. [LAUGHTER]
I know of no waivers that have been issued. You know, I don’t have an exact count as to how many financial institutions in this country have shariah compliant finance windows. There are dozens of them. If you look at most of the big financial institutions, the big banks, the big Wall Street firms, they almost all have shariah windows or shariah visions. You know, if you named them, I could probably tell you yes or no, but you know they almost all do. There’s four or five hundred total worldwide, perhaps, outside of Iran. Then you add Iran, it probably doubles the figure. So maybe a thousand. It’s 1.5 trillion dollars estimated to be under shariah finance right now.
There’s no question that that is the big problem. It’s a problem politically as well as, you know, in the world of finance. Just as you point out. And part of it is, it’s a result of disinformation that’s being circulated by Islamists here in the United States and throughout the world. When they give answers to questions about, you know, what is shariah? Well, it’s the path on which we walk. That’s probably one of the least evasive answers that I’ve heard. If you look at – shariah is the law of the land in only three nations in the world right now. Now there’s other nations that have shariah law embedded in their legal systems and have their legal systems subordinated to shariah law, but there’s only – shariah law is only the hundred percent law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan. Now look at those three countries. Human rights violations galore. Genocide in one of them. They all three support terrorism. I don’t care what anybody says. Saudi Arabia supports terrorism. They’re all into all these bad things and that’s not an accident, that’s not a coincidence. Wow. They’re all completely shariah and at the same time, they do all these really bad things. That is shariah. That’s not an accident. When you impose shariah completely on a nation, you end up with a situation where you, according to shariah, you have to wage jihad to promote Islam by violence if necessary. And yes, ignorance of shariah is a problem. The problem that I see on Wall Street is that it is blissful ignorance. It is like, I’m making money hand over fist, don’t tell me about all this stuff. I don’t want to know. Just tell me you’re not funding terrorism. And if they can be convinced that they’re not funding terrorism, they’re cool with it. The problem is, is that they’re not in a position to know for sure. Does that answer your question? Yes, sir?
MAN:
Chris, the article by Jeane Kirkpatrick from 1989 on how the PLO was legitimized through the UN would be most instructive, cause you see the whole process of covering up and of excusing terrorist organizations. It isn’t counted as terrorism if you’re doing it against oppressive colonial power, which would be the West, Israel, Britain, you name it. In some cases, India. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Justify the raid on Mumbai.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
That’s exactly a good point and I think it’s part of the problem that she – she mentioned, was that we, you know, Wall Street will try to make sure that there’s no terrorism funding going on. And Islamists could look back at somebody from Wall Street with a straight face and say, no, we’re not funding terrorism. Because they don’t consider whatever they’re funding to be terrorists. They don’t consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. So they can fund Hezbollah with a straight face. According to their philosophy, that’s not funding terrorism. Yes, sir.
FRED GRANDY:
Chris, clarify something about zakat. The portion that must go to zakat, then is segmented among eight different categories, is that correct? Or is it determined –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] It depends on which school of shariah you’re talking about. But in some schools, it has to be divided between all eight. In other schools, you can divide it how you want between the eight.
FRED GRANDY:
And is it that imam or that shariah compliant adviser who makes that determination?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Yes. And that’s something I failed to mention. I appreciate you pointing that out.
FRED GRANDY:
So just to finish, assuming – well, knowing that the large, the American financial institutions, the large banks, Bank of America, Goldman, Wells Fargo, and others, if they received our bailout money in 2008 and they had shariah compliant products, is it fair to say that some of that money coming from American taxpayers underwrote terrorist activities?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
It’s certainly a possibility. Usually they segregate their shariah instruments from the rest of the institution simply because on the shariah side, it’s required. For instance, one of their things that are considered haram under shariah is to invest in any way in any Western financial institution. You can’t invest in a Western financial institution, but it’s okay to be a shariah adviser to Western financial institutions as long as your little segment is not, you know, involved in any of the rest of their business. So there’s supposed to be a division there. So I don’t know if TARP money would end up in the shariah division, but it, you know, the big example of that that I think you’re getting at is AIG. Where we know for sure that AIG was bailed out with tremendous amounts of TARP money and at the same time they were standing up this taqifal [PH] division, which is a form of insurance under shariah and that is an example where we know that, in essence, US government funds were being used to subsidize a shariah compliant instrument.
FRED GRANDY:
But at this point, even in the aftermath of Dodd Frank and with Sarbanes and Oxley on the books, there is no reporting requirement that would divulge or would create any kind of transparency as to where these products are, how they’re being used, and where that money might be going?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Absolutely not. There’s no requirement with regard to zakat at all. I mean, in some cases, it’s not mentioned at all. Yes, ma’am.
CHRISTINE BRIM:
If I’m a local investor, is there any kind of blue sky or any kind of, you know, consumer protection legislation – let’s say somebody comes to me and says, hey, I got this wonderful ethical fund and, you know, I like to do ethical investing and I buy green funds and I buy this and that, and I go, oh, this is great. It’s a Middle Eastern ethical fund. You know, peace in the Middle East. Nobody says shariah. Or if they do say shariah, I say, what’s this shariah [MISPRONOUNCES WORD] thing and they say, well, it’s, you know, the path we walk. And I go, oh, lovely. Is there anything out there that will help me know how to invest, know what I’m actually putting my money into?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
It’s a real good question. Let me address that in a couple of ways. First of all, she makes mention of the fact that this is often referred to as ethical investing. There is an absolute move in, especially Great Britain, but it’s also moved over to this side of the Atlantic, to promote shariah compliant investments to non-Muslims. In Great Britain, it’s very common for non-Muslims to invest in shariah compliant investments and also to put their money in shariah banks. In fact, there’s one major shariah bank in Britain where forty percent of the depositors are thought to be non-Muslim. Now, Sheik Yusuf DeLorenzo is probably the most prominent shariah adviser to shariah compliant finance here in the United States. He actually recently moved to Dubai. But he actually came out and said that in countries that are non-Islamic, it is perfectly acceptable not to refer to shariah, but to refer to this as ethical investing. And not to refer to the shariah advisers and shariah advisers, but as ethical advisers. So this is – it gets back to the whole problem, it’s moving in the wrong direction when it comes to disclosure and transparency. It’s moving in the opposite direction. They’re concealing what this is and they’re trying to do it to capture non-Muslim investors, essentially, and get their money invested. Now there is really nothing right now that forces a shariah compliant fund to identify itself as such, except there’s going to be one state that has just passed a law – it passed the House and the Senate in Louisiana – and it’ll be signed by governor Jindal in a week or so, which requires this type of disclosure. And we’re hoping that more states will copy this. But really it needs to be done on the federal level, because the amount of regulation in the securities industry on the state level is obviously very limited. But it’s the best we can do right now. But it’s something that needs to happen on the federal level. There needs to be this disclosure of shariah, needs to be disclosure of zakat and where the zakat money goes. It absolutely has to be transparent. Yes, sir?
MAN:
Quick question, though. Having a law would be very good, but enforcement of the law is critical. I, in my organization, back in ’08, we put in a freedom of information act request of the US Treasury Department to tell us about the two day conference they held here in Washington with Harper Business School in December of ’08 on shariah compliant financing. Stonewalled. Wouldn’t give us anything.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Really?
MAN:
Really. And we have a freedom of information act built, you know, law on the books. And they just completely blew us off.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Is it any wonder that there’s no disclosure by the financial institutions themselves? If the regulators aren’t disclosing –
CHRISTINE BRIM:
[OVERLAP] What is your organization?
MAN:
Family Research Council.
CHRISTINE BRIM:
Family Research Council. Thank you.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Yes, ma’am.
WOMAN:
Is there a list – I mean, how do we find out, like you just said HSBC, well –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
I can promise you HSBC is up to their ears and elbows in this.
WOMAN:
Right. And I mean, I had no idea. So how do we find out.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
I’ve attempted in the past to publish lists. The problem is, that’s a dynamic thing. You know, if a company has a shariah compliant division and then, later on, stops it and they remain on the list, you know, they’ll threaten legal action and stuff like that. I can give you my card, you can contact me if you want to know, you know, about a particular institution, I’ll be happy to give you what information I have on that. It’s something that we ought to do. It’s something that we’ve looked at. But I can promise you right now if you’re dealing with one of the big boys, they pretty much have a shariah compliant division. Yes, ma’am?
WOMAN:
Can you talk a little bit about what happens if there’s any kind of dispute regarding the shariah compliant finances and if it goes to an imam for settlement rather than the SEC, is that a legal conflict or –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
That is not something that I’m really aware of, of that type of dispute. Has that happened here in the United States?
WOMAN:
I mean, this isn’t my area. But my understanding is that that’s part of the problem. That it warns of creating like the parallel system –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] Well, that is a problem with shariah, but I mean, that’s something new to me. I’m not aware –
WOMAN:
[OVERLAP] Yeah. I don’t want to put it in writing. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Yeah.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
I’d have to take a look at the prospectus to see how conflicts are supposed to be resolved [OVERLAPPING VOICES] but if they’re supposed to be resolved by the shariah advisers to the fund, you know, good luck. Yes, ma’am?
WOMAN:
To follow up with what this woman said about which institutions actually have these products, can you go to their individual website if you want to see –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] No, not really. You know, you can to some extent. But there are some that have shariah divisions overseas, but you go to their website in the United States and you try to do a search to see if they have an Islamic division or something like that, it won’t appear, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t do it. They just don’t like to talk about it.
WOMAN:
So when you, for example, I get documents from board meetings so that I can vote for board of directors and so forth, are there ways on those forms, on those bios to determine this kind of information?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
On the bios for –
WOMAN:
Well, let’s just say Metropolitan, cause I just got one –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Oh, you mean Metropolitan Life?
WOMAN:
Right. So –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Probably you’re not going to have a problem with Metropolitan Life, I’ll tell you why. Insurance – unless they have a taqifal insurance division, which I don’t believe they do, you know, insurance is something that is set up very differently under shariah finance than it is under conventional finance. So there are some shariah insurance companies. The only one in the West that I know of, really, was AIG. And, you know, they were into it in a big, big way, obviously.
WOMAN:
But Metropolitan has a whole investment division –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
That’s true. You know, and I’m not aware of that particular one, but I’ll research it for you. I’ll be happy to.
WOMAN:
How about credit unions?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Most local credit unions, I don’t think you’d have a problem. You know, now maybe some of the big national ones, but I don’t think, yes, ma’am?
CHRISTINE BRIM:
There’s the blog shariahfinancewatch.org. If people have a question, they could also just search there. It might turn up.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
We have a search feature on the blog. You can go in and – you’re not going to find anything under Metropolitan Life there, though, I know. But I’ll be happy to look into that for you.
WOMAN:
Well, that was just an example. I mean, is there any way to tell from these documents that come to vote on a board of directors or –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] I’d be very surprised, unless they mention it overtly in the documents, you know, I’d be very surprised if it was disclosed. You know, very surprised. Cause most of these – when it comes to, you know, there’s a difference between a shariah compliant financial institution and a financial institution who has a shariah compliant division or maybe sells a shariah compliant product, all right? And in the United States, for instance, Chase – JP Morgan/Chase – has a shariah compliant division, okay? Now their overall financial institution is not shariah compliant. But they have a division that’s shariah compliant. That’s different from like Bank Melli in Iran, which is completely shariah compliant from soup to nuts. Do you understand the difference there?
WOMAN:
So these companies’ purpose is to put people on their boards or on their whatever, have someone to talk with them and decide about the shariah compliance?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Well, the shariah advisory board is more than just talk to them. I mean, those – the shariah advisers make the decisions. They make the decisions on whether you can invest in something or not and they make decisions on where the zakat money goes. Incidentally, there’s another aspect of that that I failed to mention. It’s called purification. It’s related to zakat, but it’s perhaps an even greater moral hazard. Under purification, let’s say that we’re running a shariah compliant financial instrument – a mutual fund – and we invest in your farm. And at the time that we invest in your farm, all you’re doing is growing corn. But we come back a year later and you’re making alcohol out of that corn. And that’s haram. We can’t profit by that. So what we’d have to do is we’d have to purify those funds. And shariah advisers would then take all the proceeds that we got from that investment, okay, and they would purify it by sending it to Islamic charities. And so, you know, you can see where, if you wanted to – if you wanted to send money to an Islamic charity that was supporting jihad, for instance, you know, first thing you’d do is you’d go find, pick a farm, invest in it and then come back a year later and say, oh, look what I’ve done. [LAUGHTER] How silly of me. And purify all that money. You know, it’s a great way to funnel money. And, look, it’s not a fantasy. Bank Al Taqwa did it. We know that it’s done. It’s breaking news in Bangladesh. A shariah adviser to one of the banks there was just arrested for taking part in an attack on a police station. I’ve got – that will go up on the blog later. I mean, this, he’s not a major shariah adviser. I’m not going to say he’s one of the top twenty-four, but, I mean, he’s a shariah adviser to a bank there. Yes, ma’am?
WOMAN:
Are you saying that the average middle class American investor could possibly be investing in shariah law with their funds and not even know it?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Could happen. Absolutely could happen. It’s very common in Great Britain. Everything that happens over there tends to come over here a few years later. So it’s theoretically possible here now. If you look in Great Britain, it is happening – it’s almost widespread there. But what could happen right now is that you could be approached by somebody with the Amana group of funds and they could come to you and say, this is a socially responsible group of mutual funds We don’t invest in alcohol, pornography, we don’t invest in – pork, yeah. You probably don’t care so much about that, but we won’t mention that. We’ll talk a lot about pornography and we’ll talk a lot about alcohol. We’ll talk about, oh, we don’t invest in armaments industries. At least in armaments industries in the West. So those are the things that they’ll go to people and they’ll say, you know, this is ethical investing, socially responsible investing. And they won’t mention that, you know, it’s socially responsible according to who? According to Taqi Usmani and Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, they think it’s ethical as hell.
WOMAN:
So that would come through your investor and then your manager who’s managing your funds would relay that information to you, so it would be their responsibility to filter a lot of that out, correct? I mean –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] Well, yeah, I think there’s a chain of responsibility. There’s a chain of responsibility there. The responsibility, you know, is with the fund itself to properly disclose. If they’re not doing it, then it’s the responsibility of, you know, your registered representative or your financial planner to do his due diligence. To make sure that you’re not, you know, doing something against your own principles. I mean, if you’re someone that has expressed an interest in socially responsible investing, he obviously – he or she obviously knows that you care about what you invest in, so he or she should research it for you. But if the fund itself is not fully disclosing what this is all about, how is he or she going to know? I can tell you that most registered representatives and financial planners, they’re salespeople. They depend on the literature that they’re given from the fund. They don’t have access to, I mean, it’s very difficult for me to believe that Wall Street could ever police themselves on this. They don’t have the incentive and they don’t have the skills to do it. They don’t know what to look for. Yes, sir?
MAN:
What has to happen here, from your perspective, you described the problems as huge, is I think you’re suggesting you have to have full disclosure, first of all, and that’s going to take some time, okay. But then the next step after that or simultaneously with that is for, what, the Treasury to look at these things and do an investment –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] Well, I think that you’ll – under existing laws, this is something that should be scrutinized by the SEC. I think absolutely that that is the case –
MAN:
So that has to happen in order to solve this –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] Or more legislation needs to be passed to get them to do it or maybe hearings need to be held. Maybe they need to call in the SEC in front of, you know, a committee and say, what are you doing about this?
MAN:
Conduct hearings, okay.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Something. I find it astounding that the Family Research Council would do a freedom of information act request and get no answer on that. That’s – it’s astounding. Astounding.
MAN:
Yeah. And because of the tyranny of the urgent, other things pressing in, we didn’t keep at it, keep at it, keep at it. But –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Well, I’d like to talk to you after this and maybe we’ll –
WOMAN:
[OVERLAP] – get a lawyer, the documents magically appear. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING VOICES] I’m just telling you.
MAN:
They called it – they didn’t cover up what it was. They said shariah compliant financing. Now, this was December of ’08.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
I remember when they held that seminar.
MAN:
– two days. Department of Treasury. Harper –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
And they had Sheik DeLorenzo was, you know, one of the big guys there. Now, let me tell you a little bit about Sheik DeLorenzo. Sheik DeLorenzo was – he graduated from a prep school in Massachusetts at eighteen and went to Cornell for a year and dropped out of Cornell, like everybody moved to Pakistan. [LAUGHTER] And went to a madrassa which was, lo and behold, the same madrassa that was giving birth to all kinds of jihadi organizations in Pakistan. He excelled there and he became an adviser to Zia ul-Haq, who was the general who took over Pakistan in the 1970s and essentially imposed shariah law on their legal system, the Islamization of Pakistan was extensively written about in those days. And this guy DeLorenzo from Massachusetts, born a Catholic, converted to Islam, became a shariah scholar, was an adviser to him for many years, came back to the United States. He was the dean of the curriculum at the Islamic Saudi Academy right across the way here. Which we know that they were – they had textbooks that were telling children that apostates from Islam need to be killed and all this other kind of stuff and Christians and Jews are descendants from apes and pigs and all that stuff. And this guy was in charge of that curriculum at the Islamic Saudi Academy. And this is the guy who was the keynote speaker, so to speak, the big shariah adviser at the Department of Treasury’s event promoting Islamic finance in December of 2008. I could go on and on about the guy. I mean, he’s got all kinds of connections that are like – make you scratch your head. And they all do. I mean, this is like –
WOMAN:
Who’s the Harvard connection?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Yeah, the Harvard. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Yeah, I went to [OVERLAPPING VOICES] you’re catching me flatfooted here. The name of the – there’s two professors at Harvard, his name starts with a V – Vogel. One of them is Professor Vogel at Harvard –
FRED GRANDY:
Frank Vogel.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Frank Vogel, yeah. And there’s another guy there who’s into it. And I actually attended a seminar at Harvard Law School on shariah finance a few years ago. And let me tell you, I felt like I was on another planet. I mean, the way they were talking in there – first of all, they – I didn’t bring it with me, but they handed out a magazine from the banker in England, okay? And it was free to anyone that attended this seminar. And this was a big seminar. It was a big auditorium at Harvard Law School and everybody got one of these magazines. And it, you know, cover story, Iran dominates the world of shariah finance. I mean, they’re promoting and celebrating this and the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, who has a nuclear weapons program, and essentially has been waging a proxy war against the United States for a generation is the subject of the cover story of the magazine tat they hand out at the seminar at Harvard Law School. Now, I looked at it and I was like, gee whiz, I mean, does anybody see anything wrong with this?
MAN:
Harvard Law School or Harvard Business School?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Harvard Law School. The shariah finance division is at Harvard Law School.
MAN:
Was Kagan dean at the time?
CHRISTINE BRIM:
Yes she was. Yes she was. [LAUGHTER] There are three posts over at Big Peace that discuss Dean Kagan’s facilitation of shariah.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Yes, she was. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] I didn’t see her. I’d have noticed her. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] [LAUGHTER] But I took a lot of notes. That was a few years ago, but, you know, that was the first clue that I had that many people on the left in this country thought the Muslim Brotherhood was just peachy. I mean, they were talking about the Muslim Brotherhood like Palmolive or something.
WOMAN:
Well, I guess my question, how are they aiming it on the other side? What are they like a peace loving organization like a bunch of hippies from the 60s? I mean, what are they saying on the other side –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
When you say the other side –
WOMAN:
The left or –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] Well, the left hasn’t really chimed in on shariah finance. Now, on shariah, you know, they basically bought into the line that shariah is just something for pious Muslims and doesn’t have any implications beyond, you know, washing your feet before you pray. I mean, that’s their view of shariah. But the fact of the matter is, shariah is the enemy threat doctrine. And the way that they envision it and the fantasy that they have about it, shariah is not practiced that way anywhere in the world. You go anywhere in the world where shariah is practiced and you can pretty much find, you know, oppression of women and minorities, you can find sponsorship of jihad, you can find, in many cases, genocide. Which is usually an outgrowth of jihad. I mean, just – it just happens. It’s a totalitarian system. And totalitarian systems tend to be aggressive and violent. Shariah is, inherently. Yes, sir.
FRED GRANDY:
Could you just quickly tie in sukuk and sovereign wealth funds into how they fit under the arc of shariah finance?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
That’s another good question. All right. Sukuk is something called Islamic bond. The shariah finance community wanted to tap into the debt markets, but they can’t because they can’t either give or receive interest. So they’ve invented something that they call, it’s called Islamic bond, which is – the proper name for it is a sukuk. It’s not a bond at all. It’s a partnership system in which, frankly, it’s convoluted. They created this financial instrument which, you know, pays out money, but they don’t call it interest. They call it something else. And it’s – you’re starting to see many Islamic nations, especially from the Persian Gulf region, issue sukuk. And you’re also starting to see them to pressure Western nations and non-Islamic nations to issue sukuk as their sovereign wealth. And this plays both ways. Number one, when they offer money to a country like Korea or the Philippines, and this has happened in both cases, what they’ve basically said is, you know, we’ve got all this money and we would be happy to invest in your national debt interests, but it has to be shariah compliant. So it is a form of Islamic imperialism. You can go ahead and issue, you know, national bonds, but you’re not going to get our wealth unless it’s shariah compliant. So you must comply with our law in order to do it. And you’re starting to see, I mean, Russia has issued a sukuk. Korea is probably reluctantly going to issue a sukuk. Philippines have issued a sukuk. You’re starting to see it more and more around the world. You’re going to see it in Western Europe very soon. You’re going to see these nations issue sukuk. It’s all about getting us to play by their rules. Remember, the purpose of shariah compliant finance is to promote shariah. Several years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned that the incorporation of shariah law into some of British common law was inevitable. And then the prime minister of Britain, right after he said that, said, yeah, we’ve already accommodated shariah finance, after all, and it hasn’t done us any harm. This is a Trojan horse. It’s a means of getting us to play by their rules. And getting us comfortable with shariah so that next thing they can do is move in with family law. And then, little by little over time, get us to where we’re desensitized to where it’s where we don’t even care anymore. Yes, sir.
MAN:
Is there any debt held by the Americans under sukuk?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] Yeah, General Electric Capital Corporation has issued a sukuk. There are several sukuks that have been issued from the United States. Not the US Treasury yet. Thankfully. I say yet. But you can be sure that we will be under pressure to issue a US Treasury sukuk because our counterparts in the Persian Gulf region will pressure us to make sure that our debt is shariah compliant. And, you know, the whole issue of sovereign wealth funds. The emir of Qatar is probably the biggest one when it comes to this. He’s got a huge amount of wealth that he’s, you know, garnered from oil and natural gas in Qatar. And, you know, he goes around and invests that sovereign wealth. But in the process of investing, they put conditions on him. And usually those conditions have to do with shariah. So it is a foil with which they are able to impose shariah on the rest of the world. In a way – if you want our money, if you want us to invest with you, just make sure that you’re shariah compliant and then – [TAPE BREAKS]
I have not seen any reports on that, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening. I would imagine, given the close ties between Venezuela and Iran, that it’s probably happening there at some point. And Brazil has ties to the Middle East. I wouldn’t doubt that it would happen there. Just off the top of my head. I don’t know if any of these countries have issued a sukuk or anything like that. I don’t [OVERLAPPING VOICES] but the tri-border region of South America, where there’s a heavy Middle Eastern expatriate population, my guess is, is that there probably is a presence for shariah financial institutions down there. Yes, sir?
MAN:
A shariah compliant mortgage for a Muslim in this country, if he wants to get a shariah compliant mortgage, how does that differ specifically from a conventional mortgage?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
That’s a real good question. It’s called murabaha, okay. And, you know, how does it differ? Well, I could tell you the convoluted way, but basically what it is – [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Basically what it is, it’s this. You know, they will advertise that as interest free mortgages. And that is incredibly unethical, because it’s not interest free. It’s just you don’t pay interest. You pay fees and charges. Which, coincidentally enough, fluctuate almost in lockstep with prevailing interest rates. Except the other difference between the shariah compliant mortgage and a conventional mortgage is that almost across the board, the charges and fees associated with a shariah compliant mortgage are greater than the interest charge would be on a conventional mortgage. And then they advertise them as interest free. And they do that, make no mistake about it, they advertise them as interest free to try to get non-Muslims to buy – to sign up for them.
MAN:
Is it difficult, if I want to go buy that house over there and it had a mortgage on it and it was a Muslim-owned shariah compliant finance – financial institution, would it be easy for me to buy that house or would it be easier for a Muslim to buy that house? I mean, are there restrictions? Do they try and keep that –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
I think you can probably do it. If you approach them and say, I want to have one of these –
MAN:
They don’t care?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
They – one of their goals is to have non-Muslims abide by shariah law. And the purpose of this is to promote shariah. So if you want to have a mortgage according to shariah law, they’re happy for you to do that.
MAN:
Are they more sympathetic or more willing to deal with people who are going to buy their mortgage? I think you would say – I see what you’re saying, but –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] I don’t know. I don’t know. I have never been in that position. I don’t know. I don’t know if you’d be treated nice or not. I would imagine you would be, though. If you just went in there and say, I heard this is a much better way of –
MAN:
[OVERLAP] – discriminate against those people who are non-Muslims and –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
I think probably, unfortunately, just the opposite. [OVERLAPPING VOICES] Yes, ma’am?
WOMAN:
Getting back to the General Electric sukuk bond, can you say that a portion of that money, then, through General Electric, [UNCLEAR] General Electric, goes to further the cause of –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
[OVERLAP] No question. This is one of the cases where it – something is disclosed in the prospectus. I have a copy of the prospectus and they do actually acknowledge in the prospectus that a portion of the proceeds do – does get donated to Islamic charities. They leave it at that. That’s the extent of the disclosure. And to me, that amount of disclosure right there is enough to draw my interest, okay? Cause it’s like, all right, which Islamic charities? And what do you know about these Islamic charities? Because if you ask the folks at GE, my guess is they don’t know anything. Yes, sir?
MAN:
Do you have a copy of that prospectus –
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
I do have a copy of that prospectus, I’d be happy to share it with you. If you get my card, I will be happy to send it to you. Yes, sir?
MAN:
Would it be fair to actually say that these are different forms of fundraising for jihad?
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Well, yeah. Incidentally, sir, that sukuk is not offered for sale in the United States, all right? It’s a General Electric Capital Corporation offering, but it’s not something that they’re offering here in the United States. It’s not regulated by the SEC. Okay? So I guess they realize that they may have a problem offering that here in the United States and they chose not to. [BACKGROUND VOICE] I’m sorry, say that –
WOMAN:
It’s called material support.
CHRISTOPHER HOLTON:
Material support for terrorism. No question. Any other questions? Thank you very much for coming. I appreciate it. [APPLAUSE]
My friend and generous mentor, the historian and fearless human rights activist, David Gerald Littman, died yesterday, May 20, 2012, succumbing to acute myelogenous leukemia, after a stoic, typically intrepid struggle.
In addition to amassing own his unique and prodigious output, David was a devoted husband and champion of the pioneering scholarship of his wife of 53 years, Gisele Orebi, better known under her nom de plume, Bat Ye’or. Despite stultifying modern taboos, together, the Littmans worked indefatigably to educate humanity-non-Muslim and Muslim, alike-about the genocidal living legacy of jihadism.
David’s remarkable personal biography melded first-rate, original scholarship, with uniquely erudite and brave activism-combined efforts spanning over 50 years.
For example, Littman was the driving force behind the daring 1961 Operation Mural (chronicled in this 55 minute documentary). Mural was Mossad’s code-name for David whose cover was a public-school-educated Anglican gentleman, a cordial tennis partner with the British consul, and also possessing excellent security contacts in Casablanca. David Littman successfully completed the mission: defying the Moroccan ban on Jews wishing to emigrate to Israel, he smuggled 530 Jewish children out of Morocco to what the Moroccan authorities thought was a holiday camp in Switzerland-in reality, a mere way-station to their permanent re-location to Israel.
Ever resilient, David Littman overcame a speech defect (i.e., stuttering), and developed into a truly gifted orator, who made countless presentations to the Orwellian-named UN Human Rights Commission (UN-HRC). These frequently memorable appearances showcased David’s erudition, valor, and wry sense of humor, while he tackled vexing and critically important issues-cynically ignored by all other UN-HRC representatives in there monomaniacal focus on Israel’s putative "abuses"-including: the first public exposures of Hamas’ 1988 charter sanctioning the jihad genocide of Israeli Jews, the related heinous advocacy by Islamic religious clerics of jihad "martyrdom operations," i.e., homicide bombings, which included the deliberate targeting of non-combatants, and Iran’s nuclear jihad genocidal aspirations toward Israel; highlighting the scourge of female genital mutilation, and its specific sanctioning, for example, by the Shafiite school of Sunni Islamic "jurisprudence," which helped elucidate, unapologetically, why this misogynistic barbarity was an overwhelming problem in Islamdom; and the repeated exposure of mainstream institutional Islam’s efforts-via the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now Organization of Islamic Cooperation)-to impose Sharia-sanctioned abrogation of freedom of conscience and speech and nullify modern human rights constructs, founded upon the US Bill of Rights and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As a trained historian, and meticulous independent scholar, David was equally bold and original His recently published magnum opus, L’Exil Au Maghreb. La Condition Juive Sous L’Islam 1148-1912. [Presses De L’Université Paris-Sorbonne] Paris, 2010. 792pp.], written in collaboration with Dr. Paul Fenton, will likely remain the definitive sourcebook and analysis of the plight of Jews in North West Africa [Maghreb] under Islam between 1148-1912.
But it is a much less auspicious work by Littman (with assistance from Professor Yehoshafat Harkabi) that captured his singular ability to quickly digest and disseminate the most urgent ideas of our era, with unmatched prescience. Littman’s updated Preface to the 4th edition (made available online) of this seminal work, "Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel," describes its origins:
In January 1971, while browsing in the library of St. Anthony’s College, Oxford University, awaiting a friend, I came across the 1970 English edition of the Proceedings of this Al Azhar Conference, published by the ‘Cairo General Organization for Government Printing Offices’. Only a few months earlier, I had met professor Yehoshafat Harkabi in Tel Aviv, author of a seminal work, Arab Attitudes to Israel (1971; Hebrew edition, 1968), who informed me of the contents of the Arab edition which he showed me, particularly the lecture by Kamal Ahmad Own on "The Jews are the Enemies of Human Life as is Evident from their Holy Book". On discovering the English translation by chance, the article by the ‘Vice-principle of Tanta Institute’ caught my eye, as well as a fascinating trove of vivid ‘explanations’ on Jihad and other theological subjects. I immediately informed Professor Harkabi and suggested that it might be a good idea to publish extracts from the 935 page edition (no official copyright was indicated) which I would prepare, and our joint introduction. It could be published by Editions de l’Avenir in Geneva and would be widely distributed by the Centre d’Information et de la Documentation sur le Moyen Orient (CID) in Geneva, recently founded, with friends, by my wife and I, whose publications we directed then.
Littman effectively captured the ugly essence of the full 935 pp. Proceedings-a modern doctrinal elaboration of Islam’s timeless institution of jihad, sacralized Islamic Jew-hatred, and salient aspects of Islamic Law-the Sharia. Most importantly the extracts, and certainly the more extensive full Proceedings which Littman helped bring to world attention, made plain how the entire global umma, including Muslim immigrant Muslim communities living outside Islamdom sought to re-establish regional and ultimately global hegemony via jihad, beginning, axiomatically, with the jihad destruction of Israel. Thus four decades before its advent, Littman had uncovered and brought to our awareness what might aptly be described as "The Protocols of The Elders of the Arab Spring."
Upon receipt of the Mossad Hero of Silence Order, July 1, 2009, a gracious and humble David Littman commented,
Looking back, I can truly say that the best decision I ever made in my life was to marry my wife, Gisele, and the second best was to volunteer to bring out Jewish children from Morocco to Israel, via Switzerland. Our Casablanca mission remains indelible in our minds, as will this unforgettable moment here. In conclusion, I wish to quote those inspiring words of the prophet Jeremiah: "Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child . . .: a great company shall return thither. They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them . . . . And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord; that thy children shall come again to their own border" [31:8-9]. Yes, the children of Israel have returned to "to their own border"- to the Land of Israel-and the long history of Moroccan Jewry is a special part of Israel’s unique saga, achieved with much tears, pain, and suffering, but also with joy and hope, and great expectations over the ages. The Casablanca mission remains indelibly in my mind. When I think of those days, let me say from my heart in simple Hebrew: Toda raba laMalam–
When the occasion demanded it, David could be edifying, while appropriately firm and blunt. Shortly after I met him and Gisele, they both delivered invited lectures to a group of Jewish and Muslim students at Georgetown University, who were apparently under the corrosive thrall of the University’s notorious apologist for Islam, John Esposito. With sad predictability, the craven Jewish students turned on the Littmans for simply describing the tragic consequences for non-Muslims of Islam’s living institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Addressing a particularly strident, if cowardly Jewish student, David remonstrated,
If you continue to behave like this, you’ll perish.
Finally, David would often, albeit half in jest, exhort colleagues, quoting Shakespeare (Henry V, Act III, Scene 1),
…[S]how us here The mettle of your pasture
David Littman’s rich life example was one of enduring moral, physical, and intellectual mettle.
Below is my translation of an Arabic-language paper published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) in 2007, and presented at their 2008 careers conference in Houston, which provides guidelines for American Muslims on what they can and cannot do vis-à-vis infidel legal systems. The paper makes clear that according to Islam, the only legitimate law is that which comes from Allah, and in fact authority to make laws rests with Allah alone. This renders every other legal system-including the American system-illegitimate.
Since the fact nevertheless remains that many Muslims do live under such ‘infidel’ legal systems, the paper provides guidelines for how they should act under these systems, specifically addressing issues such as Muslims studying man-made law (i.e. non-Islamic law), Muslims governing under infidel legal systems, Muslims working as judges or lawyers or prosecuting cases in infidel courts, and Muslims granting powers of attorney to non-Muslims in disputes. Throughout the paper it is made abundantly clear that Muslims should view the American and other non-Muslim legal systems as infidel systems, and that they are only to participate in them in specific circumstances in order to benefit Islam and Muslims generally. They are specifically instructed to feel hatred in their hearts toward such infidel legal systems, and to do everything within their power to make the Islamic Shari’a supreme, even if that means engaging in deception in certain cases.
It is important to note that AMJA–whose stated purpose is to "clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America"–is not just a fringe organization with no influence. The Islamic scholars involved with this group occupy influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. Below is a list of some of their prominent members, along with the names of universities and other organizations with which they’re affiliated, as accessed from AMJA’s website:
Hussein Hamad Hassan (Chairman of the Board at AMJA), Director of Dar al-Sharia Legal and Financial Consultancy (Dubai) (firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and others);
Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center (Virginia);
Mohammad Naeem AlSael, University of Texas, American Open University (AOU) (Virginia);
Waleed Basyouni, North American Imam Federation (NAIF) (Arizona), Texas Dawah Convention, AlMaghrib Institute (Texas);
Ahmad Al Soway’ey Shleibak, Professor at AOU;
Al Sayed Abd Al Halim Muhammad Hussein, President of Al-Eman Islamic Association of New York;
Hatem AlHaj, Sharia Academy of America (Florida), Albert Lea Medical Center (Minnesota), NAIF, Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota;
Abdel Azim AlSiddiq, Professor at Islamic American University (IAU), Imam/Director of Aqsa Islamic Society;
Deya-ud-Deen Eberle, Lecturer at AOU;
Ahmad Al Sherbiny Nabhan, Professor at AOU;
Ahmad Abd Al-Khaliq, Imam of the Islamic Center in New Jersey;
Gamal Helmy, Chairman of Religious Affairs in the Muslim Association of Virginia (MAV);
Gamal Zarbozo, Islamic writer and researcher in Denver, Colorado;
Haitham Abu Ridwan Barazanji, Imam of the Islamic Center in San Pitt, Tampa, FL;
Ibrahim Dremali, Imam of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, Florida;
Ibrahim Zidan, Imam of Al-Huda Islamic Center (New York);
Mohammad Faqih, Khateeb and Lecturer in Columbus, Ohio;
Mostafa Tolbah, Imam of Islamic Center in Detroit, Michigan;
Muhammad Abo Al Yosr Al Beyanony, Imam of Islamic Center in Raleigh, North Carolina;
Muhammad Sayed Adly, President of Imams and Duat Association of South and North Carolina, Imam of Masjid Al-Muslimeen in Columbia, South Carolina;
Muhammad Muhammad Musa, Imam of Islamic Center in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan;
Mukhtar Kartus, Member of Board of Trustees and Daia in Islamic Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
Mustafa Shahin, Lecturer at IAU;
Mustafa Balkhir, MA student at AOU;
Mustafa Al-Turk, Chairman of Islamic Organization, Michigan;
Omar Shahin, President of Executive Committee of NAIF, Lecturer at AOU;
Sadeq Muhammad Al Hassan, Director of Masjid Annur, Sacramento, California;
Samy Muhammad Masaud, Imam of Aleman Mosque in New York City;
Tho Al Fokkar Ali Shah (variant: Zulfiqar Ali Shah), President (Former) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Executive Director of Fiqh Council of North America, Religious Director of Islamic Society of Milwaukee;
Yassir Fazaqa, Imam of Islamic Center of Orange County, California;
Waleed Al-Maneese, Dar-al-Farooq Islamic Center (Minnesota), University of Minnesota, AOU, NAIF;
Muwaffak Al Ghaylany, Islamic Center in Grand Blank City (Minnesota), Shari`a Academy in America (Florida), NAIF;
Main Al-Qudah, MAS Katy Center (Texas), AOU, Islamic American University (Minnesota), Al-Yarmook University (Iraq);
Salah Alsawy, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences (Virginia), AOU, Sharia Academy (Florida), Al-Azhar University (Egypt), Umm Al Qura University (Saudi Arabia); and
Muhammad Adam Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.
Credit goes to the Center for Security Policy for discovering this paper and bringing it to me for translation, and providing the background information to give it context.
(Note about the translation: This is a gist, and not a verbatim translation, of the 47-page Arabic-language paper produced by AMJA. Certain sections of the paper are gisted in more detail than others simply due to Translating Jihad’s assessment of their relative significance. All Qur’an quotes included in the translation are taken from Yusuf ‘Ali’s English translation of the Qur’an, accessed from quran.com. Page numbers included below are taken from the original Arabic-language paper, which can be seen here.)
The gisted translation follows:
Page 1 (Title Page):
Published By: Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)
Title: "Judicial Work Outside the Lands of Islam-What Is Permitted and What Is Forbidden"
By: Dr. Walid bin Idris bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz al-Manisi, Member of the Permanent Fatwa Committee for AMJA; Member of the Faculty of American Open University; Imam and Speaker at the Dar al-Faruq Islamic Center in Minneapolis
Date: November 2007
Page 2 (Introduction):
Millions of Muslims have had to live outside the lands of Islam, or have been forced to do so, and many of them are persecuted in their religion. Muslims are permitted to reside in Dar al-Kuffar (i.e. The Land of the Infidels) under two conditions:
1- He is permitted to practice his religion openly in Dar al-Kuffar;
2- He is not permitted to practice his religion openly, but he is unable to emigrate to Dar al-Islam (The Land of Islam)
Because of Muslims’ residence outside the Dar al-Islam, there have been (legal) disputes between them and non-Muslims, both with individuals and with governmental and non-governmental organizations. At times the disputes are between themselves as Muslims as well. Thus they need to know the rulings of the Shari’a in their situation, including for some Muslims who have gained employment as lawyers or judges in non-Muslim countries, in order to preserve the rights of Muslims, and help them overcome persecution. That’s why AMJA has prepared this study.
The importance of this is further increased considering that many Muslim lands have been occupied by foreign powers, and have had foreign judicial systems imposed on them which are secular and which disallow the Shari’a from being used in court, or only allow it to be used for personal and family issues.
Page 3:
The study has been divided into a foreword and five chapters. The foreword deals with governing by other than that which Allah sent down, and when it becomes disbelief in Allah (kufr). The first chapter deals with the study of man-made law. The second chapter deals with being employed as a lawyer outside the land of Islam. The third chapter deals with being employed as a judge outside the land of Islam. The fourth chapter deals with prosecuting in foreign (i.e. non-Islamic) courts. The fifth chapter deals with granting powers of attorney to non-Muslims in disputes.
Page 4:
Foreword: Governing by Other Than That Which Allah Sent Down
First Question: The permissibility of governing by other than that which Allah sent down.
Linguistically ruling means preventing or prohibiting, but in proper usage ruling by the Shari’a is ruling by what Allah has spoken. Legal rulings are divided into two sections: 1) obligatory and 2) positivist (or man-made).
Obligatory ruling is Allah’s word concerning those whom he commands, whether by requirement or by choice.
Man-made rulings are reasons or conditions or prohibitions which the lawmaker has put in place which by their existence either affirm or deny the rulings of the Shari’a.
The difference between the two is that the former requires the person to either comply with it or not, while the latter has put in place guidelines or descriptions for either doing it or not doing it.
The authority to legislate rests with Allah alone (quotes various Qur’anic scriptures related to this).
Page 5:
Various sources in the Qur’an and hadith attest to the fact that making it permissible to rule by other than that which Allah sent down is disbelief in Allah (kufr) and outside the pale of Islam.
(Quotes from Ibn Taymiyya to the effect that whoever makes permissible what Allah hath forbidden or makes forbidden what Allah hath made permissible is an infidel (kafir), and all jurists agree with this)
(Quotes from Ibn Kathir’s commentary on the Qur’an, in which he explains that anyone who substitutes man-made laws for those of Allah is an infidel (kafir) and must be fought against until he restores the laws of Allah)
(Quotes from Ibn Hazim al-Andalusi, repeating the same sentiment, and adding that anyone who does this is a polytheist (mushrik), and is joined to the Jews and Christians.)
(Quotes from Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibrahim Al al-Shaykh on the same issue, who also quotes some passages from the Qur’an to support this view.)
Page 6:
(Quotes from Shaykh Muhammad bin Amin al-Shanqiti to the same effect)
Page 7:
(Quotes from Shaykh Ahmad Shakir, who claims that infidel colonialists have imposed un-Islamic laws on the Muslims, which in fact represent an alternate religion to replace Islam; laments that most Muslim countries have adopted godless European systems of governance.)
Page 8:
(Quotes from Shaykh Salih bin Ibrahim al-Bulayhi (or al-Balihi), who calls ruling by other than that which Allah sent down to be disbelief in Allah (kufr); the only way to preserve the rights granted by the Shari’a is to govern by the Shari’a completely.)
(Quotes from Shaykh ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz bin Baz who also contends that governing against the Shari’a is disbelief in Allah (kufr).)
(Quotes from Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih al-‘Uthaymin to the same effect.)
These quotes from ancient and modern imams are sufficient to establish that governing by other than that which Allah sent down is major disbelief in Allah (kufr kabir), and departure from Islam.
Second Question: The total replacement of the Shari’a of Allah with another Shari’a
The total replacement of the Shari’a of Allah with a Shari’a of men was first done by Muslims during the time of the Tatars, in which they replaced the Shari’a with the laws of Yasiq (or Yasa) during the time of Gengis Khan, which consisted of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic laws. Yet at the same time they claimed to be Muslims.
Page 9:
This prompted Ibn Kathir to conclude that they were infidels (kuffar).
Page 10:
Some have mistakenly alleged that several well-known scholars have said that it is not disbelief in Allah (kufr) for someone to completely replace the Shari’a of Allah with another set of laws, unless they claim that these other laws are Allah’s laws. However, this was false and a misinterpretation of the scholars’ statements. However, it also doesn’t mean that you can automatically pronounce takfir (i.e. the act of declaring someone to be an infidel) on someone who has governed by non-Islamic law. The scholars were judging the action, not the actor, and there may be mitigating circumstances for the actor, i.e. he might be ignorant or compelled to do so.
Page 11:
Third question: The ruling on a case in which the Shari’a of Allah is partially replaced by another Shari’a
If a ruler governs by the Shari’a of Allah some of the time, but then governs by another law part of the time, he is not an infidel (kafir), but he is a corrupt tyrant. Allah used three terms to describe those who rule by other than the Shari’a: disbelief in Allah (kufr), injustice, and sin/immorality. ‘Ali bin Abu-Talha narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas: "Whoever denies what Allah sent down, has disbelieved in Allah (kafara). Whoever confessed it but then didn’t rule by it is an evil tyrant."
(Quotes the end of Qur’an 5:44, and several Islamic scholars’ interpretation of this verse, explaining that it means that whoever failed to judge by that which Allah revealed has disbelieved in Allah, but they haven’t left the Islamic community.)
(Quotes from Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzia, who explains that whoever rules by other than that which Allah revealed has committed infidelity (kufr), either great or small-great if they didn’t believe it was the right thing to do, and small if they believed it was the right thing to do but didn’t do it.
Page 12:
(Quotes from Imam Ibn Abu-al-‘Azz al-Hanafi to the same effect.)
Page 13:
First Chapter
The Study of Foreign and Man-made Laws
First Question: The ruling on their study and the categories of those who study them
There is a good and a bad side to studying foreign law. On the good side, it is in order to warn others of what’s in it, or to better understand what distinguishes it from the Shari’a, or to help protect Muslims from being oppressed by it, or to protect Muslims’ rights under the Shari’a. On the bad side there are those who do so to sow dissension (fitna), and prefer it over the Shari’a, or make it equal with the Shari’a, especially if the one who studies foreign law is devoid of knowledge, and doesn’t understand Islam.
Those who study foreign law are broken down into several different categories. The one who best explained this was Shaykh ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz bin Baz, with a fatwa titled, "Ruling on one who studied man-made laws or undertook to study them."
(Fatwa): Question: Is one who studies man-made laws or undertook to study them an infidel or not?
Answer: Allah has obligated all of his servants to be ruled by the Shari’a, and every other form of law is ignorance (jahiliyya). Those who study foreign law can be divided into three categories.
First category: This is he who studies it in order to find out the truth of it, or to know why the Shari’a is preferred over it, or to benefit from it in a way which does not contradict the Shari’a, or to benefit someone else. There is nothing wrong with this.
Second category: This is he who studies it in order to rule by it or appoint someone else to rule by it, with the knowledge that it is against the Shari’a to rule by other than that which Allah revealed. However, they do it for money or are carried away by some other fancy. These people are definitely evil-doers, and among them are those who are infidels and oppressors. However, it is the smaller disbelief in Allah (kufr).
Page 14:
Third category: This is he who studies it because he believes it is permissible or wants to make it permissible (under Islam). This is considered greater disbelief in Allah (kufr). Scholars agree that those make permissible what Allah has forbidden or make forbidden that which Allah had made permissible are infidels (kuffar).
Page 16:
Chapter 2: Working as an Attorney in Foreign and Man-made Courts
Question 1: Attorneys and their history
An attorney is one who advocates on behalf of another and offers legal counsel. Everyone also has the right to advocate for themselves. The purpose of an attorney is to have a well-spoken man who is familiar with the case, and who at the same time has knowledge of the applicable laws. Attorneys are supposed to help the judges understand the facts of both sides of the case so they can make correct judgments. In this way attorneys are considered aides of the judges.
Attorneys have been around since ancient times in various countries. In Islamic jurisprudence, jurists have discussed attorneys under the heading of Power of Attorney/Proxy in Litigation. In general, attorneys are considered legitimate by a consensus of scholars.
Granting power of attorney in the language of the scholars is a permissible request for legal assistance for the attorney to act as one’s representative.
Question 2: Attorneys in Islamic Countries
Page 17:
The work of attorneys is well-established in Arab and Islamic countries, and there are well-established fatwas from scholars which approve of their profession, as long as the attorney is seeking justice rather than helping someone who is guilty go free. It is permissible to represent someone who is guilty, as long as the attorney is merely seeking to prevent him from receiving an unjust sentence.
In most Islamic countries, attorneys are simply known as attorneys. However, Saudi Arabia has a system in place which is derived from the scholars’ discussion about the power of attorney in litigation, which is slightly different from the Western system, from which the systems in other Arab countries are derived.
The various Arab laws and regulations have generally stipulated, just as in the Western system, that attorneys are agents of the judges, and that their purpose is to serve justice and the public welfare.
Question 3: Attorneys at the Time of the Fathers (al-Salaf)
It has been narrated that ‘Ulya authorized ‘Abdallah bin J’afar to serve as an attorney in the time of ‘Uthaymin. It was also narrated that ‘Ulya authorized ‘Aqila to serve as an attorney in the time of Abu-Bakr.
Page 18:
Ibn Qudama also related that all of the companions of the Prophet agreed on the legitimacy of legal representation.
Question 4: Rulings from Scholars on Attorneys
Scholars have mentioned many issues related to legal representation in disputes. (Quotes from the author of Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq in Hanafi equating granting someone authority to act as your legal representative and granting someone authority to arrest someone else)
Imam Ibn Rushd al-Maliki said an agent can cease being an agent at any time, unless he is a legal representative in litigation. (Quotes from Asbagh, Abu-Hanifa, and Imam al-Shafi’i discussing the conditions under which an attorney can nullify his contract and cease being a legal representative)
(Quotes from Imam al-Shafi’i and other scholars and companions of the Prophet about the same issues)
Page 19:
In sum, attorneys are permissible under the Shari’a of Islam, under the section of authorized representation in litigation, which has been stipulated as permissible by scholars, as attested to in the texts of the four schools of Islam. There is no difference between attorneys, or advocating for someone before an Islamic or foreign or man-made court.
Page 20:
Chapter 3:
Working as a Judge in Foreign and Man-made Courts
First Question: Definition of the judiciary and its staff, and the declaration that it is a communal obligation (Note: Communal obligation (fard kifaya) in Islam refers to a duty that is shared by the Islamic community, so that not everyone has to engage in it as long as someone is doing it. The same term is used to describe the duty of offensive jihad.)
Linguistically ‘judiciary’ is taken from ‘to execute’, meaning ‘to execute the rulings on the matter’ and to complete it. Allah Almighty said: "So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days" [Qur’an 41:12]. (Note: The Arabic word translated as ‘completed’ in this verse is qada, which also means ‘to execute’, and is the root of the word qada’, which means ‘judiciary’.) Allah also said: "So decree whatever thou desirest to decree: for thou canst only decree (touching) the life of this world" [Qur’an 20:72].
The term judiciary or judgment means to eliminate disputes and conflicts through an obligatory ruling of the Shari’a.
(Delves deeper into the linguistics of the Arabic word for judiciary)
Given that it is necessary for the Islamic nation (ummah) to have a judiciary in order to resolve disputes, all scholars are in agreement that judgeship is a communal obligation. (Quotes from Ibn Qudama to support this)
Page 21:
The Prophet himself undertook this great work, and after him his companions and his successors also took on this work (i.e. of being a judge).
Second Question: The foundation for the judge not ruling except by the Shari’a of Allah
The foundation for the ruling, and the reference for the judge ruling by the Shari’a, comes from the saying of the Most High: "We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah" [Qur’an 5:46], as well as the saying of the Most High: "Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed" [Qur’an 5:49]. Ruling among the people means establishing justice without favoritism, and justice means putting things in their proper place. There is no justice except in the ruling of Allah. Therefore when one rules by other than that which Allah revealed, he has put something outside of its proper place. The Almighty said: "And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice" [Qur’an 4:58]. He also said on this topic: "O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge thou between men in truth (and justice): Nor follow thou the lusts (of thy heart), for they will mislead thee from the Path of Allah: for those who wander astray from the Path of Allah, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account" [Qur’an 38:26]. He also said: "Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah’s purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?" [Qur’an 5:49-50].
We have already stressed in the introduction the danger of judging by other than the Shari’a of Allah, and that it is disbelief in Allah (kufr), injustice, and sinfulness, and we don’t need to repeat ourselves here. Rather we will confine our discourse to the needs of Muslims in countries ruled by man-made law, and Western countries-is it permissible for them to work as judges in certain conditions? This is what we will clarify Allah-willing in the next question.
Page 22:
Third Question: Working as a judge in foreign and man-made courts
Scholars have differed on the ruling on working as a judge in foreign and man-made courts on two sayings:
First saying: It is not at all permissible to work as a judge in foreign and man-made courts.
This has been stated by a majority of scholars, and is included in the general meaning of the words that ruling by a law which is not the law of Allah is disbelief in Allah (kufr). We have already mentioned many of them, and published the texts of their statements.
Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rizaq ‘Afifi (may Allah have mercy on him) said that whoever as a Muslim with a knowledge of Islam rules contradictory to the Shari’a is an infidel (kafir) and is outside the pale of Islam. This also goes for whoever takes the ruling which is contradictory to the Shari’a and applies it to other cases.
The argument for those who support this position lies in the verses of the Qur’an which state that whoever rules by that which Allah did not reveal is an infidel (kufr), and is designated a tyrant. These say that ruling by that which Allah did not reveal makes one an infidel (kufr), and is only permitted under compulsion, and Muslims are not compelled to become judges in man-made courts. Imam Ibn Qayyim said there is no disagreement in the Islamic community (ummah) on the fact that it is not permissible to utter disbelief in Allah (kufr) except under compulsion, if the person is a believer.
Second saying:
It is permissible to work as a judge in an infidel nation or a nation which rules by infidel law, even if that leads to ruling by their law, if by so doing one is able to increase the good and decrease the bad as much as possible.
Among those who have stated this in classical times is the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him), and among contemporaries are the scholars of al-Azhar and Muslim Brotherhood leaders such as Hassan al-Hadyi and his son M’amun al-Hadyi, as well as ‘Abd-al-Qadir ‘Awda and others.
Page 23:
This position was also taken by Shaykh Muhammad Salim bin Muhammad ‘Ali bin ‘Abd-al-Wadud from what is now known as Mauritania. This Shaykh held several positions in the Mauritanian courts, through which he attempted to abolish the man-made law in the country, and replace it with the Shari’a, which he accomplished somewhat. To this day he continues to sit as the president of the Supreme Islamic Council, and also participates in several other Islamic organizations.
The argument of those who permit this is summarized as follows: Joseph (of Egypt) took charge in an infidel nation, and he wasn’t able to rule by all of the rulings of Islam. It cannot be said that he governed but did not judge, because the governor or ruler judges between the people. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya made it clear that the imamate is a type of judgeship. (Quotes from Imam al-Qurtubi, who elaborates on this interpretation of Joseph’s position in the government of Egypt as justifying ruling by other than that which Allah revealed, as long as he’s only there in order to improve things as much as he’s able, and not because he prefers infidel rule.)
(Quotes from al-Mawridi, who says that there are two opinions on the permissibility on working in a position of authority under a tyrant; first, it is permissible if he works righteousness in that which he is entrusted; second, that it is not permissible. Those who support the first opinion argue that, first, Joseph’s Pharaoh was righteous, while it was Moses’ Pharaoh who was a tyrant; and second, that Joseph looked after the Pharoah’s possessions, not his actions, so he was not liable for them.)
Page 24:
(Quotes from Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman ‘Abd-al-Khaliq, who says there is no basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah for saying that it is not permissible to work as a judge in an infidel nation, and also quotes from the story of Joseph in the Qur’an to support the idea that Muslims can work as judges in infidel nations. He also argues that if you’re going to say that Muslims can’t work as judges in infidel nations, then you might as well say they can’t work as engineers or teachers or anything else which supports the state. Says that it is among the worst sins to leave the affairs of Muslims entirely in the hands of their enemies.)
Page 25:
The Prophet (PBUH) approving of the rule of the Negus was also a case of a Muslim ruler in an infidel nation, which followed that some of the rulings were contrary to the Shari’a of the Qur’an.
(Quotes from several scholars who quote hadiths of the Prophet, in which the Prophet made an alliance with infidel polytheists. They use this to argue that the Prophet was essentially agreeing in the alliance to support some infidel laws, so therefore you can’t say that it is never permissible to act as a judge under infidel law.)
(Quotes a hadith narrated by Anas regarding al-Hajjaj bin ‘Alat and his return to Mecca to retrieve money after Muhammad conquered Khaybar, using this as justification for serving as a judge under an infidel power.)
Page 26:
Many who forbid acting as a judge in an infidel country at the same time make it permissible to act as a legislator in said country, in which their job is to legislate by other than that which Allah revealed. However, the two jobs are actually very similar, and in fact both fall under the category of ruling by that which Allah did not reveal. Salman al-‘Awda explained that entering the legislature is a way of helping to reduce oppression, and enact positive reforms. Just because one enters the legislature does not mean he is recognizing that the infidel system is good, nor is he confessing his belief in it.
(Quotes from Ibn Taymiyya, who cited the example of the Negus to support this position.)
Page 27:
(Continues to quote from Ibn Taymiyya, who again cites the example of Joseph working under the Pharaoh.)
Page 28:
It seems to me that this issue cannot be easily divided, because it involves an infidel job, and causes injustice, and definitely negative consequences will result from a Muslim being employed as a judge outside the lands of Islam. But I think that Muslims should be forbidden from being employed as judges in infidel countries or those ruled by man-made law, except in certain limited cases where they can rule by the judgments of Allah. Besides that, it is not permissible to work as a judge except to defend Muslims against some great evil which would befall them unless some of them worked in the judiciary. These cases are covered in a special fatwa directed at a small number of individuals, in which the following conditions are presented:
· That he understand the Shari’a in such a manner as to be able to rule by it in every case brought before him, or at least as close as he’s able to from the cases brought before him. He also must in his heart hate the man-made law.
· That his goal in working as a judge be to help the oppressed and cease the oppression from them, and as much as he’s able decrease the bad and increase the good that happens to Muslims. He must also do everything in his power to enact laws that allow the Muslims to practice their Shari’a. He must keep it in his mind that he was not permitted to take this job except to serve Islam and Muslims. If he is unable to achieve this objective, and fails in his goal, then he has thereby lost the justification which permitted him to undertake this profession. He must also choose the judicial profession which is closest to the Shari’a.
· That he judge by the rulings of the Shari’a as much as possible, even if by a ruse, as the Prophet Joseph did when he pulled a trick to take his brother by the Shari’a, and prevent him from being punished for stealing according to the law of the king [Qur’an 12:76]. In other words, since he wasn’t able to rule by the Shari’a, he judged by that which was as close to the Shari’a as possible.
Page 29:
Fourth Question: Working on a jury in a man-made court
(Gives brief explanation of the jury system we employ in the West.) It is permissible for a Muslim to participate as a member of a jury with the condition that he rules in agreement with the law (comment: probably referring to Islamic law). This is because it gives him the opportunity to judge according to that which he thinks is right within the confines of the articles of the man-made law. Often this permits him to apply Islamic law to the case. The decision is made according to the number of votes on the jury, so having Muslims on the jury to express their opinions on the cases can have the benefit of introducing Islamic judgments to the secular judges. The Muslim could be successful in co-opting some of the other jury members to agree with him on the ruling, whereby the Islamic ruling gains a majority of the votes, which could contribute to achieving justice among people as much as possible.
(Quotes a fatwa from Dr. Sa’ud bin ‘Abdallah al-Finasan to support this viewpoint.)
Page 31:
Chapter Four: Referring Judgment to Foreign and Man-made Courts
First Question: Declaration that in general referring judgment to non-Islamic law is disbelief in Allah (kufr)
In general, referring judgment to non-Islamic law is disbelief in Allah (kufr), according to the explicit statements in the Qur’an. This is what the Muslim must evoke in situations which might warrant taking someone to court, even if he knows it is necessary. Allah said: "Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee and to those before thee? Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Evil One, though they were ordered to reject him. But Satan’s wish is to lead them astray far away (from the right). When it is said to them: "Come to what Allah hath revealed, and to the Messenger": Thou seest the Hypocrites avert their faces from thee in disgust. How then, when they are seized by misfortune, because of the deeds which they hands have sent forth? Then their come to thee, swearing by Allah: "We meant no more than good-will and conciliation!" Those men,-Allah knows what is in their hearts; so keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their very souls" [Qur’an 4:60-63].
The Almighty also said: "They say, "We believe in Allah and in the messenger, and we obey": but even after that, some of them turn away: they are not (really) Believers. When they are summoned to Allah and His messenger, in order that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come). But if the right is on their side, they come to him with all submission. Is it that there is a disease in their hearts? or do they doubt, or are they in fear, that Allah and His Messenger will deal unjustly with them? Nay, it is they themselves who do wrong. The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey": it is such as these that will attain felicity [Qur’an 24:47-51].
(Quotes from Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, who explains that this means that these people want to refer judgment in their disputes to the tyrant, whose judgment they prefer over Allah’s.)
Page 32:
(Quotes from Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman al-S’adi, who explains that Allah is amazed by the hypocrites who claim to be believers, yet want to refer their judgments to the tyrant, which is anyone who rules by non-Islamic law. For belief requires one to adhere to the Shari’a and its rulings in everything, so whoever claims to be a believer yet chooses the rule of the tyrant over the rule of Allah is a liar.)
(Quotes from Muhammad Rashid to the same effect.)
Second Question: The forms settled as forbidden or permissible
Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman al-Harafi stated that the forms settled as forbidden are the following:
1. Whoever refuses to refer judgment to the Shari’a, but rather refers it to man-made law is an infidel (kafir), guilty of greater infidelity (kufr akbar), and is outside the pale of Islam, even if he didn’t agree with it in his heart. (Quotes Qur’an 4:60).
2. (Page 33) Whoever likes to refer judgment to man-made law, even if he doesn’t actually do it, because liking infidelity is infidelity (kufr).
The forms settled as permitted are as follows:
· He who is complained against, and requested to appear before the courts of tyrants, for this is required in order to defend himself. (Quotes again from the story of the Negus to justify this position).
· He who is forced to refer judgment to man-made courts and laws, such as he who is arrested, or he who seeks political asylum fearing for his life, etc. Allah said: "Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty" [Qur’an 16:106].
Third question: Conditions for permitting referring judgment to man-made law
Page 34:
The Muslim living in a non-Muslim country has rights and interests which will be lost if they are not referred to for judgment, and his opponent will reject them if he refers to the Shari’a for judgment. The Muslim does not have power in himself to enforce the law, however the man-made law obligates the police to intervene and enforce it. This is an oft-repeated scenario for Muslims living outside the land of Islam. If they are forbidden from referring judgment to man-made courts in these situations, they will be deprived of their wealth and rights, and subjected to whatever their enemies bring against them. The issue becomes even more important when it involves referring judgment to man-made law for cases involving the rights of Muslims as a whole. This situation can possibly be better understood by referring to the large institution set up to demand rights for Muslims and fight against anti-Muslim discrimination, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). (Quotes from 2003 CAIR report on its efforts in the US, written by Arab Affairs Director Alaa Bayoumi)
Page 36:
It is a principle of jurisprudence that a general and public need brings the status of necessity. Therefore every issue which is needed by the Muslim general public is necessary and permitted.
(Quotes from Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi to support this point.)
Page 37:
(Cites Ibn Najim to support the same point.)
Among the resolutions passed by the Islamic Fiqh Academy which is part of the Muslim World League regarding the novel published by the one known as Salman Rushdie, was the third resolution: "The council declares that this person ought to be tracked down, and a criminal lawsuit filed against him and against the publishing house which published the novel for him, in the relevant courts in Great Britain. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents Islamic countries, should raise this complaint and empower the best criminal attorneys to prosecute the case in the British penal system." From this it is clear that they intended to refer the case for judgment to the British courts.
Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Razaq ‘Afifi was asked about this issue: "What is the ruling on courts which rule by man-made law?"
He responded: "If possible, one should not refer cases to them for judgment. However, if he cannot claim his right except by this means, there is no fault in it."
Shaykh Salih bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz Al al-Shaykh explained that this means:
· It is required for a Muslim to be hostile to courts which rule by man-made law, and to dislike them.
· Do not freely choose to refer another to those courts for judgment. Doing this freely without compulsion is what Allah revealed: "They want to refer to the tyrant for judgment." Note that He said ‘they want’.
· If you were wronged and you demand your rights which are guaranteed by the Shari’a, and you have no other recourse but to go to the man-made courts, and you have hatred in your heart for the courts, you are permitted to do so.
· Some scholars say "with hatred for the courts," but there is no validity for the hatred. It is permitted for him to reclaim his right without hatred.
Page 38:
To summarize the words of the scholars, it is permitted to seek recourse in man-made courts if the following three conditions are present:
1. You are unable to reclaim your rights in any other way, because your adversary refuses to refer the case to the Shari’a, or he refuses to execute the ruling of the Shari’a.
2. You do not take more than the rights guaranteed to by the Shari’a; for if they ruled that you should receive more than your rights under the Shari’a, you do not take more than what you’re entitled to by the Shari’a from your adversary.
3. At the time that you go to the court, you feel hatred for it in your heart.
Without these three conditions present, it is forbidden to refer judgment to man-made courts. He who does so is in danger of apostatizing from Islam, Allah forbid.
Page 39:
Chapter 5: A Muslim Giving Power of Attorney to a Non-Muslim in a Dispute
The ruling on a Muslim giving power of attorney to a non-Muslim in a dispute: Many Muslims have the need to empower a non-Muslim to plead on their behalf before (man-made) courts. Scholars have made clear that there is no requirement in Islam, in general, on granting power of attorney, except in limited cases where there is some disagreement, such as empowering an infidel (kafir) to pay zakat, or slaughter meat, etc. However, granting power of attorney in disputes has been permitted by most scholars, because the Prophet did so with Jews and other polytheists on several occasions.
(Quotes from Ibn Qudama and Hawashi al-Sharwani to support this)
However, many Maliki jurists have forbidden a Muslim from granting power of attorney to an infidel in a dispute with another Muslim. Their reasoning is that the infidel could treat the Muslim harshly. For this same reason, some of them don’t permit power of attorney to be granted to a Jew in a dispute with a Christian or vice versa, due to the enmity that exists between them.
(Quote from Imam Ibn ‘Arafa al-Dasuqi to support this idea)
Page 40:
I agree with the majority of scholars on the permissibility of a Muslim granting power of attorney to a non-Muslim, whether his opponent in the dispute is a Muslim or a non-Muslim, for the following reasons:
· The general evidence points to the legitimacy of entering into various contracts with non-Muslims.
· It can be difficult to find a Muslim attorney, and if one does find one often he is not as capable as a non-Muslim attorney.
· What the Malikites feared about non-Muslim attorneys humiliating Muslims are treating them harshly does not apply in today’s system of attorneys and laws, which prevents attorneys from abusing their opponents.
However, the door is open for those who are worried about a non-Muslim attorney gloating over or take advantage of the disputes to tarnish the image of Muslims generally and turn people away from Islam, even if these cases are rare. But as a general rule, it is permissible for a Muslim to grant power of attorney to a non-Muslim.
Page 41-45:
Closing:
(Here he simply summarizes the points made throughout the study, which I won’t repeat)
As we witness surging Muslim violence against non-Muslims in Afghanistan, Egypt and even here, the response seems increasingly that the victims must apologize to the perpetrators. In particular, the United States government – from President Obama on down – has been assiduously seeking forgiveness for giving offense to Islamic sensibilities by accidentally burning Qurans. This was felt necessary even in a case where the books had been defaced by captured Afghan jihadis as a means of encouragingtheir comrades to further acts of violence against us.
It seems that Christians are also widely considered to be at fault for having churches, Bibles and religious practices that offend the ascendant Islamists in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Certainly, no apologies are forthcoming when the Christians are murdered or forced to flee for their lives, their churches and sacred texts put to the torch, etc.
And in America last week, a Pennsylvania judge felt the need to dress down a man assaulted for parading in a Halloween costume he called “Zombie Mohammed.” Far from punishing the perpetrator, a Muslim immigrant, Judge Mark Martin sympathized with him for the offense caused, noting – seemingly without objection – that it was a capital crime to engage in such free expression in some countries.
Worse yet, the judge suggested that the victim in this case had exceeded the “boundaries” of his “First Amendment rights.” Such a view seems to track with the Obama administration’s collaboration with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in fashioning international accords that would prohibit “incitement” against Islam.
This is a short step from – and enroute to – the OIC’s larger goal of banning and criminalizing any expression that offends Muslims or their faith. As such, it poses a mortal peril to the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.
What is going on in country after country, in international forums like the UN Human Rights Council and even in some American courts is a calculated effort, backed by terrifying violence or its threat, to make us “feel subdued,” as the Quran puts it. The idea is to use Western sensibilities and civil liberties, notably, respect for the free practice of religion, to deny the rest of us our fundamental freedoms. These include the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and, yes, freedom of religion.
The trouble is that when we accommodate such demands, it is seen by Islamist enemies of liberty as evidence of our inevitable submission. According to the doctrine of shariah, they must, under such circumstances, make a redoubled effort to achieve their ultimate triumph, including through the use of violence.
So, far from alleviating the threat posed by shariah’s adherents when we accommodate, apologize and appease, we are actually exacerbating it, at home as well as abroad.
In short, we find ourselves in what is, properly understood, the civil rights struggle of our time. Those who stand up for freedom against shariah are quite literally protecting the rights of women, children, people of faith, homosexuals and other minorities sure to be abused by its misogynistic, intolerant and domineering doctrine. That means protecting, as well, Muslim Americans who have come to this country to escape the long arm of shariah law. In due course, though, shariah’s repressive strictures would not simply be a threat to these communities. They would be a toxic blight upon all of us.
Ironically, today it is defenders of our freedoms who are being denounced as “racists,” “bigots” and “Islamophobes.” Such terms are, in truth, being used in much the same way and for precisely the same purpose as the Ku Klux Klan’s members reviled an earlier generation of civil rights activists for loving Negroes: to defame, threaten and isolate their opponents. We cannot, and certainly must not, tolerate the Islamists’ intolerance.
Muslims are, of course, free to practice their faith in America like anyone else – provided they do so in a tolerant, peaceable and law-abiding way. What they are not entitled to do, in the name of religious practice, is subvert our Constitution, deny us our rights or engage in sedition without facing concerted opposition – if not prosecution.
Today, every bit as much as in the civil rights struggles of the past, there are those who are prepared to go along with what they know is wrong, in order to get along. Now, as then, the few who recognize that any such accommodation makes more certain the ultimate triumph of evil, may be vilified and even harmed. But now, as then, more and more Americans are emerging who see the danger posed by our time’s totalitarian threat – shariah – and who will do their part to secure freedom against it, both here and, as necessary for that purpose, elsewhere.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
Over the weekend, a drama with potentially horrific consequences for freedom-loving Americans played out half-a-world away.
A Saudi newspaper columnist named Hamza Kashgari was detained in Malaysia, reportedly on the basis of an alert by the International Criminal Police Organization, better known as Interpol. Reuters quotes a Malaysian police spokesman as saying that, “This arrest was part of an Interpol operation which the Malaysian police were a part of.” It was apparently mounted in response to a “red notice” (or request for help apprehending an individual) issued by Saudi Arabia. Kashgari was then sent back to Saudi Arabia where he faces almost certain death.
Mr. Kashgari’s crime? He criticized the founder of Islam, Mohammed, on his Twitter account. According to press he reports, he addressed the man Muslims call theProphet directly, writing: “ I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you. There is a lot I don’t understand about you….I will not pray for you.”
The reaction in Saudi Arabia has been characteristically over-the-top when it comes to such alleged “blasphemy” against Islam. Clerics have denounced Kashgari for apostasy, a capital offense under the totalitarian Islamic code known as shariah. And tens of thousands of his countrymen have expressed indignation, with some 13,000 signing an online petition calling for the columnist’s execution.
Interpol is basically, an international coordination mechanism for national police authorities that is supposed, as Jago Russell, the chief executive of the British NGO Fair Trials International told The Guardian, “to respect human rights and free speech” and steer clear of “religious or political cases.” So why, if the Malaysian police are telling the truth, did it apparently violate all such guidelines?
An Interpol spokesman insists that his organization had nothing to do with Hamza Kashgari’s apprehension in Malaysia and involuntary return to Saudi Arabia. What is clear at this point is that the Saudis sought help apprehending the man who fled their not-so-tender mercies. It seems likely that the Saudi red notice to Interpol provided the Malays a pretext for intercepting and extraditing a columnist who dared to exercise free speech.
If Interpol is now being used, in effect, to enforce shariah blasphemy laws, it is not just somebodyelse’s problem. It is ours.
After all, in a December 2009 executive order unveiled on a Friday afternoon in the run-up to the Christmas holidays, President Obama issued Executive Order 13524. It amended an earlier order by President Reagan that conferred on Interpol some – but not all – of the privileges of a foreign diplomatic mission.
Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and one of the finest legal minds and essayists of our time, wrote on the occasion that Obama’s amendments would have the effect of establishing here “an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.” He added that, thanks to the Obama executive order:
“This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.”
It appears, however, that pursuant to President Obama’s directive, “red notices” issued by foreign powers against U.S. citizens could result in their apprehension by or with the help of Interpol, and perhaps lead to their surrender to hostile foreign powers. Whether something similar happened in this instance to a Saudi citizen remains to be clarified. But we need toknow: Could the carte blanche inexplicably given Interpol by Mr. Obama lend itself to such abuse against Americans in a future case?
What makes all this particularly worrying is that the Obama administration is currently helping the Saudis and the multinational lobby they host in Jedda, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in a longstanding campaign to criminalize expression that offends Muslims. The so-called “Istanbul Process” is inexorably translating into legitimization of shariah blasphemy laws – and a threat to those not only in Muslim nations but in Europe, Canada and even the United States, who flout them.
The more the so-called “international community” accedes to clearlyanti-constitutional restrictions on freedom of expression, the more an international police force is empowered to act in extra-constitutional ways, the more certain it becomes that the Constitution of the United States risks becoming a dead letter. Or at least our Constitution will no longer be “the supreme law of the land,” as its Article VI declares. Instead, we will have conceded an equal, if not superior, place to shariah and put at risk all who dare toresist its tyranny.
Congress needs to enact legislation countermanding Executive Order 13524 and servingnotice that America remains the home of those free to speak their minds, and brave enough to resist Interpol’s – or anybody else’s – efforts to keep them from doing so in what amounts to submission to shariah.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
According to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), there is a grave threat to America that must be suppressed at all costs.The threat is that Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin might be allowed to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
This proposition is bizarre on multiple levels.For one, General Boykin, who is a friend and greatly admired colleague of mine, is one of the United States’ most accomplished and decorated military heroes.He served in and led our most elite special forces units for decades, including in many of our most dangerous recent combat operations.He also held a number of senior positions in the intelligence community, including as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
For another, Jerry Boykin is also an ordained minister.And the sorts of events CAIR has lately insisted he must not address include prayer sessions convened by the mayor of Ocean City, Maryland and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
What makes the suppression of General Boykin’s right to express himself – and, for that matter, to enjoy freedom of religion – all the more outrageous is the nature of the organization demanding that he be silenced.Four federal judges have affirmed that CAIR is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and was spawned by one of its American affiliates – the Islamic Association for Palestine.Indeed, we know from wiretapped conversations at the time of its founding that CAIR was established by Muslim Brotherhood operatives as a political arm and fundraising mechanism for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization and the Brotherhood’s franchise in “Palestine.”
Unfortunately, CAIR and its fellow Muslim Brotherhood fronts are not simply trying to muzzle Jerry Boykin.They have gone after a number of other truth-tellers about the doctrine the Brothers seek to insinuate into this country – the totalitarian, supremacist politico-military-legal program the Islamists call shariah.
For example, another colleague, former Congressman Fred Grandy, was removed from his position as one of Washington’s most popular talk radio show hosts when he refused to allow Muslim critics to dictate who could appear on his program and what they could say.
Last fall, Stephen Coughlin – one of the nation’s foremost non-Muslim experts on shariah – was similarly subjected to a CAIR-led effort to deny his ability to speak.In that case, he was denied by the Obama administration the opportunity to provide training to Central Intelligence Agency personnel about what impels our enemies to engage in murderous and stealthy forms of jihad, namely shariah.
More recently, New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has been subjected to a campaign of vilification by CAIR and its friends.His offense?Mr. Kelly gave an interview to the makers of a superb documentary, “The Third Jihad,” and allowed that film to be used in training his officers.
CAIR’s desire to suppress this film is not hard to understand.After all, The Third Jihad brilliantly exposes what it and other Muslim Brotherhood fronts are up to in this country.In the words of the Brotherhood’s own strategic plan, that is “a kind of grand jihad…in destroying and eliminating the Western civilization from within” by our own hands.
The movie’s narrator and central figure is Zuhdi Jasser.Dr. Jasser happens to be one of the most prominent and courageous of American Muslims who oppose political Islam and its use of shariah to justify the subversion and destruction of our Constitution, form of government and society.
Obviously, it is difficult to pillory Zuhdi Jasser the way CAIR et.al. attack such non-Muslims as Messrs. Boykin, Grandy, Coughlin and Kelly, namely as “Islamophobic.”The Brotherhood and its official, multinational counterpart – the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – brandish this term as a means of intimidating, smearing and silencing those who understand what they are about and oppose them effectively.In fact, the more effective the opposition, the more intense are the Islamists’ efforts to silence those mounting it.
Dr. Jasser’s right to free expression is being subjected to a similar kind of suppression.As he put it recently in the New York Post, “One of the chief ways that radical Islamists across the globe silence anti-Islamist Muslims is to publicly push them outside of Islam, to declare them non-Muslims, not part of the community (ummah), and so subject them to takfir (declaring them apostates). That is what the vicious distortions about this film do to my work and the work of so many others within the House of Islam who are trying to publicly take on the American Islamist establishment.”
Of particular concern is the fact that the U.S. government is now effectively encouraging what amounts to free speech for some – and abetting it.Team Obama has begun according Islamophobia the status of a serious problem.Worse yet, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has joined forces with the OIC in trying to find ways to suppress this fictitious problem by treating instances of what should be protected free speech as prosecutable “incitement.”
To paraphrase the famous German pastor, Martin Niemöller, first they are coming for the “Islamophobes” and for Muslims who oppose shariah’s political agenda.How soon will they decide that you have no right to speak freely, either?
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.
From December 12-14, 2011, the State Department hosted a meeting on the "Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance, Discrimination, and Violence on the Basis of Religion or Belief" in Washington, D.C.
These are some of the documents that were distributed at the conference:
One of the most popular attractions in Washington, D.C. is a building that graces Pennsylvania Avenue with an exterior engraved with the First Amendment to the Constitution and its guarantee of, among other liberties, freedom of speech.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have been well advised to hold her three-day meeting last week with the some of the most determined enemies of free expression – increasingly doing business as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – at the Newseum, rather a few blocks away in Foggy Bottom.
After all, at that shrine to our most fundamental civil rights, the delegates would have found an exhibit about freedom of speech which declares: “For better or worse, the First Amendment helps shelter the varied results of free expression even when they are considered by some to be offensive or distasteful.”
Unfortunately, such shelter is precisely what the Organization of Islamic Cooperation wishes to eliminate when it comes to expression about its faith that the OIC’s 57 member nations and other Islamists find “offensive or distasteful.”
Advancing that agenda is the OIC’s purpose in the so-called “Istanbul Process” that it launched with Mrs. Clinton last July in Turkey.As the Hudson Institute’s Nina Shea pointed out in a withering indictment of this diplomatic exercise published last week in the New York Post, “the gathering was folly.”
Ms. Shea provides several reasons for that conclusion.Reduced to their essence, it is folly for America to be legitimating – let alone engaging in – a search for ways to “bridge” the gap between our First Amendment rights, on the one hand, and the Islamists’ belief that anyexpression that “offends” their religion is a capital offense, on the other.To do so is to affront the Constitution and threaten the free and tolerant society it has made possible in this country.
The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UN Human Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam.That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ twelve-year campaign to “prohibit and criminalize” such defamation in accordance with the “blasphemy laws” that are part of the totalitarian doctrine they call shariah.
Then, as more and more of the Free World began awakening to the danger posed by such efforts to compel them to submit to shariah, Team Obama helped engineer a new document at the Human Rights Council.Adopted in March, Resolution 16/18 focused, instead of banning defamation, on getting the world’s nations to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization, anddiscrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”
In Istanbul in July, Mrs. Clinton kicked off her “process” with a passing nod to free speech: “We…understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy.”She went on, however, to declare:“So we are focused on promotinginterfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’tfeel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”
In other words, the Obama administration believes it can silence those whose expressions are, in the words of the Newseum, “considered by some to be offensive or distasteful.”Or, in the words of the OIC, “Islamophobia.”It’s just that, instead of criminalizing such behavior, Team Obama will use “peer pressure and shaming.”
It gets worse. In the course of last week’s three-day, mostly closed-door confab at the State Department called to “implement” Resolution 16/18, the OIC focus seemed to be on how the United States and other non-Muslim, freedom-loving states would prevent “incitement.”Sec. Clinton asserted that we would only be obliged to counter incitementto “imminent violence.”But this is a classic slippery-slope, opening America to prohibitions on “hate speech” at the insistence of people who, irony of ironies, are more routinely engaged in incitement to imminent violence and religious intolerance than anyone else on the planet: the Islamists.
The appearance of U.S. submission to shariah was only exacerbated by the opening comments of the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Thomas Perez.As Ms. Shea put it:
“[[Perez’s] opening keynote address gave a one-sided historical depiction of American bigotry against religiousminorities, including Muslims, without explaining our relatively exemplary achievement of upholding individual freedoms of religion and speech in an overwhelmingly tolerant and pluralistic society.] He told the participants,some representing the world’s most repressive states, that America can learn to protect religious tolerance from them.”
It is particularly troubling that Nina Shea has just been removed as a commissioner of the U.S. Commission onReligious Freedom.That was the upshot of a compromise that saw Senator Dick Durban abandoning his stealthy bid todeny the reauthorization of the Commission, but only if Ms. Shea and nearly all of her colleagues lost their posts.Practically the only exception is Dr. Azizah al-Hibr, a woman who has espoused the creation of shariah courts in the United States.
If you haven’t been to – or, for that matter, been by – the Newseum lately, you might want to make a point of paying it a visit.See it before the diplomats decide that our pesky First Amendment condones “offensive or distasteful” expression that constitutes unacceptable “incitement,” and is no longer applicable.
