Tag Archives: Shariah

Daniel Pipes Discusses Islamism’s War On The West

Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes (DP) sat down with Savvy Street’s Vijay Kolhatar (VK) for an engaging Q&A containing some of Pipes’s key insights into the phenomenon of Islamism. The original post can be found at Savvy Street.

VK: Does Islam’s canon foment terrorism?

DP: I’ve stopped using the word terrorism, finding it meaningless because no two people agree on its definition. So, let me re-ask your question: Does Islam’s canon foment jihadi violence? Yes. Islam is premised on (1) the superiority of Islam, (2) the need to spread its message, and (3) the legitimacy of force to do so. These fundamentals of faith have been apparent from Muhammad’s time to the present, though not everywhere and not at all times.

VK: Is a gay-friendly, women-friendly, Islam possible?

DP: Of course. Every faith evolves. Centuries ago, who could have imagined homosexual and female Christian bishops? Looking at Islam’s present tells us little about its future.

VK: How big is the intrusion of Islamism into the U.N.? What are the consequences of such intrusion?

DP: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has 56 member-states (plus “Palestine”), 47 of which have a majority Muslim population. This is roughly a quarter of the United Nations membership and in the amoral game of give-and-take that lies behind most votes, that bloc can get nearly the entire 193 governments to back it or at least abstain on issues it cares about. Take the vote against moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem: 9 in favor, 128 against, 35 abstentions, and 21 not present. It also permits the forwarding of Islamist initiatives, such as U.N. General Assembly Resolution 16/18 adopted to prevent criticism of Muslims or Islam. This influence led to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres amazingly stating that “One of the things that fuel terrorism is the expression in some parts of the world of Islamophobic feelings and Islamophobic policies and Islamophobic hate speeches.”

VK: How significant is the risk of Sharia law intrusions into Western legal systems?

DP: This process has already begun. For instance, polygamy has made rapid progress as a legitimate life-style option. While laws banning female genital mutilation are on the books, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz has offered his services for a doctor to be tried for conducting FGM surgeries. Fashion houses have taken up hijabs and even jilbabs. Mosques manage to ban alcohol within a wide perimeter. First-cousin marriages proliferate, with attendant genetic problems. Interest-free banks grow.

VK: Do Islamists fund major political parties in the West? What is the impact of such actions?

DP: My organization, the Middle East Forum, has focused on precisely that question in the United States in its Islamist Money in Politics Project. The thousands of entries here, dating back to 1979, reveal many patterns. For example, 90 percent of Islamist donations go to Democratic candidates. Obviously, the goal of these donations is to make Islamism acceptable. The liberal-left being more sympathetic to this goal, it receives the bulk of the donations. And it’s worked. Rare are the liberal-left voices anymore that stand up to Islamism.

VK: How can the West best deal with the threat of jihadi violence?

DP: By addressing the core ideas behind the resort to violence, such as: living by a medieval code, the superiority of Islam and Muslims to other faiths and believers, the validity of force and coercion to spread the faith, and the notion of God giving specific orders.

VK: What’s the best way for the West to avoid seeping Islamization: open debate on Islam’s canon calling for reform, exposing Islamist political donations, encouraging apostasy within Islam, immigration policies designed to uncover Islamists, or all these and more?

DP: I’d stay away from encouraging Muslims to leave Islam, but the other ideas are all good. However, there’s a more fundamental priority, which is to convince the liberal-left that Islamism presents a threat. So long as this huge segment of Western populations largely remains blind to the Islamist threat, the measures you propose have limited utility.

VK: Is there something intrinsic to Islam that the Western mainstream media wishes to hide?

DP: Yes. The mainstream media, and the Establishment in general (what I call the 6Ps – police, politicians, press, priests, professors and prosecutors) pretend that the Sharia, a medieval law code that calls on Muslims to engage in actions deeply at odds with modern ways, does not exist. This leads them to the inane conclusion that living according to the Sharia is in opposition to Islam. The most spectacular instance of this is the absurd debate on the question whether jihad is Islamic, akin to asking whether the pope is Catholic. And in that discussion, the most extravagant statement was by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who said of the Charlie Hebdo attackers, “They’re about as Muslim as I am.”

VK: Are you familiar with the case of Tommy Robinson (U.K.)? Do you have a view on it?

DP: I spent much of a day with Tommy in December 2017 as he took me around his hometown of Luton. He is knowledgeable, draws a distinction between Islam and Islamism, and is a leader. Toffs should get over their class bias against him and the authorities must treat him fairly. I hope the outrageous treatment he suffered on May 25 – being arrested, denied a lawyer, tried, sentenced, and dispatched to prison, all within a few hours – serves as a wake-up call to the British public.

VK: What should be the U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia?

DP: Had you asked me this before 2015, I would have answered, keep a distance, bargain hard, root out the evil influence. Since the coming to power of King Salman and his all-powerful son Muhammad, however, I answer differently: Focus on helping Muhammad’s radical reforms succeed.

VK: What’s your view on the Iran nuclear deal?

DP: A scandalous attempt by the six participating governments to defer the problem of Iranian nuclear weapons for about a decade – to when current office holders will presumably no longer be in charge. It is an obnoxious farce.

VK: Did President Assad gas his own citizens or was that brought about by Islamic militant groups to foster an ousting of Assad?

DP: The Syrian regime has more than once gassed its subject population, full stop. More generally, however repugnant the Islamist groups, the regime has carried out the great majority of killings in Syria, both before and after the civil war began in 2011. It is a monstrosity.

VK: Thank you for your time, and for speaking truth to power. We wish you the best in your endeavors.

 

Shariah vs the U.S. Constitution

Back by popular demand, but together this time!

Spotlight Speakers: Clare Lopez and Chris Gaubatz

 

~  Shariah vs the U.S. Constitution ~

Spotlight on Special Americans speaker series invites you to an event with Ms. Clare Lopez and Mr. Chris Gaubatz on the incompatibility of Islamic Law with the US Constitution.

Clare will have CSP monograph publications for sale, paperbacks for $9-$11. Checks or Cash only.

Chris will have these books available:
‘Muslim Mafia’- $20 and ‘Raising a Jihadi Generation’ – $15
I think Chris takes credit cards.

All guests must RSVP no later than November 14.

I will need to know the names of all guests you plan to bring. We appreciate your understanding to keep this a secure event. This will not be publicized anywhere else, but feel free to share/forward this invitation with your trusted friends.

No press will be admitted!

** Check in at the entrance to the private room. **

When: Friday, November 17, 2017- 6:30 PM
Doors open at 6:15 PM

Where:
Harvest Moon Restaurant and Lounge
7260 Arlington Blvd. Falls Church, VA 22042 (directly across from what used to be Loehman’s Plaza)

6:30-7:15 – All You Can Eat Buffet Dinner, socialize
7:15 PM    –  Program begins
Q&A, book signing

Cost of the event – $20 CASH ONLY with or without dinner – Admission includes the private room,  and if you chose to eat, an all you can eat buffet dinner which includes soft drinks, dessert, tax, tip.

RSVP:  Sevil Kalayci – zak2035@cox.net by November 14, 2017

Shariah vs the U.S. Constitution

Back by popular demand, but together this time!

Spotlight Speakers: Clare Lopez and Chris Gaubatz

 

~  Shariah vs the U.S. Constitution ~

Spotlight on Special Americans speaker series invites you to an event with Ms. Clare Lopez and Mr. Chris Gaubatz on the incompatibility of Islamic Law with the US Constitution.

Clare will have CSP monograph publications for sale, paperbacks for $9-$11. Checks or Cash only.

Chris will have these books available:
‘Muslim Mafia’- $20 and ‘Raising a Jihadi Generation’ – $15
I think Chris takes credit cards.

All guests must RSVP no later than November 14.

I will need to know the names of all guests you plan to bring. We appreciate your understanding to keep this a secure event. This will not be publicized anywhere else, but feel free to share/forward this invitation with your trusted friends.

No press will be admitted!

** Check in at the entrance to the private room. **

When: Friday, November 17, 2017- 6:30 PM
Doors open at 6:15 PM

Where:
Harvest Moon Restaurant and Lounge
7260 Arlington Blvd. Falls Church, VA 22042 (directly across from what used to be Loehman’s Plaza)

6:30-7:15 – All You Can Eat Buffet Dinner, socialize
7:15 PM    –  Program begins
Q&A, book signing

Cost of the event – $20 CASH ONLY with or without dinner – Admission includes the private room,  and if you chose to eat, an all you can eat buffet dinner which includes soft drinks, dessert, tax, tip.

RSVP:  Sevil Kalayci – zak2035@cox.net by November 14, 2017

Gaffney defiant in the face of mainstream media attacks

Extract from Secure Freedom Radio, 20 March 2017:

I want to take a few minutes for what is known in government as a “point of personal privilege.” It’s what you do when someone attacks you and you need to set the record straight.

In my case, reporters for prominent national publications have gone after me as a way of attacking Donald Trump and his senior subordinates. Matthew Rosenberg of the New York Times, Eli Lake of Bloomberg, Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post and most recently Peter Beinart of the Atlantic have largely ignored the substance of lengthy interviews I have given them, in order to vilify me and the work we do at the Center for Security Policy.

In each case, it’s clear these journalists don’t approve of our research and the fact that first Candidate Trump and President Trump have arrived at similar conclusions.

As I told each of these reporters, that research has demonstrated several realities:

  • The authorities of Islam contend that the practice of their faith requires abject adherence to a political, legal and military doctrine they call Sharia.
  • It has a veneer of religiosity to it – by some estimates ten percent is concerned with pietistic practices like how often Muslims are supposed to pray, what they can eat, and the like.
  • But at the end of the day, Sharia is about power, not faith.
  • Sharia has been defined for some 1300 years by a rendering of it known as The Reliance of the Traveler.
  • This massive book makes clear that the faithful Muslim is entitled, for example, to brutalize women and otherwise treat them as property, murder homosexuals and kill Jews, apostates, females accused of adultery and anyone who “defames” Islam.
  • I impressed upon each of these journalists – as I do with audiences I address across the country – thankfully, all Muslims do not practice their faith according to Sharia.
  • That is particularly true in the United States to which many of them came from Sharia-compliant countries to escape its horrors.
  • They neither want to live under Sharia nor impose it on others.
  • That said, there is no getting around the fact that Sharia is a supremacist ideology that commands its adherents, not only to practice it unquestioningly themselves, but to compel everyone else – Muslim and non-Muslim, alike – to submit to it worldwide.
  • Sharia dictates that the faithful must engage in jihad in one form or another – violent jihad, demographic jihad, financial jihad or the subversive, stealthy kind the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”
  • To the extent that Muslims conform to Sharia as the authorities of Islam and Reliance of the Traveler demand, they must reject such American principles and values as democratic self-governance, man-made laws, the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, respect for human rights, etc.
  • Instead, it is their duty to supplant those principles and values with Sharia.
  • For example, according to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam adopted by 56 Muslim nations in 1990, Muslims can enjoy freedoms only to the extent allowed by Sharia.

These are statements of fact.

  • Recounting them is not “Islamophobia,” hate-mongering, racism or bigotry.
  • Rather, it is essential to an accurate understanding of the threat Sharia poses to this country and to Western civilization more generally.
  • And such an understanding is essential if we are to defend our constitutional republic from those who believe it’s Allah’s will for them to destroy it through whatever means is practicable.
  • Yet, Messrs. Rosenberg, Lake, Jaffe and Beinart promote in their respective publications and to varying degrees the false meme that pointing out such facts is evidence of hostility to all It’s said to reflect a desire to deny those in this country their constitutionally protected freedoms and keep those outside our borders from coming in.
  • They are not alone in promoting this phony narrative, of course.
  • According to documents from George Soros’ foundation released last fall by Wikileaks, “marginalizing” me and others who speak such truths has been a project for his philanthropy.
  • And Muslim Brotherhood fronts like the Council on American Islamic Relations, which was founded by Hamas in 1993, the leftist Center for American Progress and the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center have been among those determined to silence national security professionals and others who are effective in challenging Sharia-supremacism in this country and elsewhere.

Let’s be clear, by falsely accusing me and my colleagues of such views, these journalists are not just discounting the salience of our warnings. They are helping Soros and his minions suppress our freedom of expression and reinforcing what amounts to hate-mongering against us.

More importantly, to the extent that such reporters are promoting the fraudulent meme that Donald Trump and his subordinates are being unduly influenced by me or others – and are, therefore, also Islamophobes, racists, etc. – they are seeking to suppress them, too.

Indeed, that’s the transparent object of the exercise. Reporters and media outlets are making common cause with what’s been called the “Red-Green axis” for the purpose of neutralizing – if not actually removing from office – the President and his most principled and capable subordinates, such as Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Kellyanne Conway, Sebastian Gorka and Steven Miller.

Time won’t permit at this juncture a point-by-point rebuttal of the various, spurious charges made against me and others by the aforementioned reporters and their ilk.

Let me take a moment, though, to address a new one leveled by Peter Beinart in his hit piece in The Atlantic concerning the so-called “denationalization” of Muslims in this country.

I had never heard this term before and certainly have never used it myself. Neither have I ever advocated what it evidently describes – seeking to strip all American Muslims of either their nationality or their rights and shutting down all mosques in this country.

Here’s what I do believe: The Sharia-supremacist infrastructure built here over the past fifty years by the Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts –in the form of mosques, Islamic societies, cultural centers and organizations targeting our government, media, churches and synagogues, schools, businesses, etc. – is an incubator for jihad. We continue to ignore it and the stated purposes of those Brotherhood operatives and their Shiite counterparts at our extreme peril.

The first order of business must be to be clear about the threat posed to our Constitution and freedoms by Sharia-supremacism. In his August 15th speech in Youngstown, Ohio, Candidate Donald Trump made clear that he gets that.

Second, we must stop importing more Sharia-supremacists. That is a purpose President Trump’s immigration pause could helpfully advance.

Third, the Trump administration must officially designate the Muslim Brotherhood as the terrorist organization it is. That would create a basis for countering those mosques and front groups it owns and/or operates in this country.

Finally, if the foregoing steps are taken, we have an opportunity to encourage the Muslim-American community to eschew the Sharia-supremacists and their efforts to promote the real denationalization agenda – namely, the Brotherhood’s practice of demanding non-assimilation in and hostility toward the United States, its culture and laws.

These are the sorts of recommendations warranted by the facts, appropriate to the challenges of our time and necessary to protect Western civilization. I am proud to espouse them and refuse to be intimidated or silenced by the relentless vilification to which I am subjected.

I am gratified that people who have arrived at a similar understanding of the facts are now in a position to ensure that those facts receive the necessary policy analysis and debate – instead of being officially suppressed in the name of “political correctness,” “multiculturalism” and “diversity sensitivity.” Whatever we call such behavior, our Sharia-adherent enemies regard it as evidence of our submission, which only emboldens them to secure that condition irreversibly through ever-more-aggressive acts of jihad.

The time has come for action in countering the jihad. Despite all the vilification, intimidation and coercive pressure aimed at silencing those of us at the Center for Security Policy, we will continue to speak the truth about Sharia-supremacism and help those in power act decisively to defeat it.

Linda Sarsour, Women’s March Organizer and Fake Feminist

Linda Sarsour is a principal organizer for Woman’s March on Washington following President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Her rise to liberal stardom following the march has occurred in spite of her support for anti-feminist views and outrageous attacks on anti-Sharia women leaders.

Sarsour, who serves as the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York (AAANY) and who was honored by former-President Obama’s White House as a “champion of change,” seems as if she makes it a point to attach herself to every social justice cause known to man and tie it to Palestine. For example, in November, she attached herself to the cause of blocking Dakota Access Pipeline and made sure to bring her Palestinian flag.

This shameless promotion could also be seen at the Women’s March as well. When addressing the crowd, she made sure to inject some Palestinian solidarity into the cause, stating “you can count on [her], your Palestinian Muslim sister to keep her voice loud.” She also made sure to note that she was her “Palestinian grandmother’s who lives in occupied territory wildest dream.”

However, her biggest splash that weekend was when the level of her hypocrisy towards the cause espoused by the Woman’s March was pointed out to the public.

Specifically, a tweet of Sarsour’s dismissing the misogynistic views of Saudi Arabia simply because the country has a paid maternity leave program, has been making the rounds on social media.

Linda-Sarsour-Tweet-Saudi-Maternity-Leave-2016Sarsour dismisses the fact that women in Saudi Arabia are treated as second-class citizens who are unable to drive, interact with men, and dress as they please as inconsequential.

In addition to her dismissal of Saudi subjugation of women, she has attacked a documentary calling attention to the plight of women in the Islamic world. Sarsour has been a vocal critic of the executive producer of the film, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch Parliamentarian, ex-Muslim, and vocal critic of Islam who was also the victim of female genital mutilation.

In 2011, Sarsour took to twitter and vulgarly berated Hirsi Ali; and ACT for America founder, Brigitte Gabriel, and said, “I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.” This is especially in vulgar considering the suffering Hirsi Ali has endured. Shortly after the tweet was uncovered, instead of owning up to the vulgar tweet and apologizing, she tried to delete it before it was seen by too many people.

sarsour-ayaan-hirsi-ali-tweet-2011

Sarsour also has a long history of criticizing Israel in ways that cross the line into anti-Semitism and terrorist sympathizing.

She supports the discriminatory and terror-tied BDS Movement and has claimed that “nothing is creepier” than Zionism.

She called for solidarity with Muhammad Allan, a member of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad who has a history of recruiting suicide bombers.

After her hypocrisy towards Woman’s issue’s was exposed, she defended herself by describing attacks on her as fascist, claiming “Fascism is here” and that “[w]e cannot allow them to criminalize our leaders and movements using baseless claims… Remember, we are and can be the true #NeverAgain generation.”

She describes those supporting her as her “Love Army.” To them, legitimate criticisms of both her views and her associations ring hollow.

Groups that sponsored the march – including the official twitter account of Woman’s March, Human Rights Watch, Black Lives Matter, Amnesty International, and the Southern Poverty Law Center – have launched a full scale defense of Sarsour. The hashtag #IMarchWithLinda trended on Twitter.

Cable news personality Sally Kohn issued several tweets defending Sarsour, including calls for people to donate to the AAANY. I don’t think Kohn is aware that the AAANY used to receive financial support from Qatar Foundation International, an organization closely linked to the Qatari government. Additionally, because of her ties to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, the AAANY was able to secure $500,000 in funding for the AAANY.

Sarsour also received several celebrity endorsements from, among others, Susan Sarandon, Mark Ruffalo, and Russell Simmons.

Hey, if Mark Ruffalo likes her she must be good, right?

While personal attestations are nice, they are not proof that someone’s even a good person. Even terrible people can find someone who thinks they’re nice.

Those supporting her do not care that she promotes terrorists; they don’t care that she vulgarly called for a victim of female genital mutilation to have her genitalia removed; and they are not concerned that she downplays misogyny in Saudi Arabia. As far as they’re concerned, she helped set up a March so therefore she’s the bees knees.

Sarsour is seen as a rising star in leftist circles and the Democratic Party.   The left needs to take the blinders off and take a long, hard look at the people they’re propping up as role models.

Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight

mosques_in_america

Communities that face new mosque construction in residential neighborhoods confront a series of vexing questions. These include:  What overarching state and federal laws apply?  What is the role that local zoning planners must play? What oversight opportunity may exist for local residents? And how might communities take a constructive approach to investigating and holding accountable potential venues for Islamist radicalization?photoshop-ccscreensnapz006

In response to these and other pressing local concerns, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to announce the publication of a practical primer for assessing mosque land use applications.  Entitled Mosques in America: A Guide to Accountable Permit Hearings and Continuing Citizen Oversight, this new book provides much-needed insights into the local planning process and the federal law that governs religious land use applications.

Written by constitutional law attorney Karen Lugo, Mosques in America describes how citizens can work through and complement legal land use regulatory procedures.  It profiles two exemplary case studies that demonstrate the contrasting approaches taken recently by Bloomington, Minnesota.  These examples – one involving an Islamic organization and the other an evangelical Christian congregation – provide insights into the local planning process, as well as the policy priorities that may guide local procedures.  The city’s disparate handling of these similar applications demonstrates the potential for strikingly unequal treatment that religious facilities may experience as in this case, the Christian one was subjected to intensive scrutiny and ultimately rejected, while officials gave the other, Islamic one a series of passes – even after it began violating agreements post-approval.

A particularly important contribution is the guide’s illumination of the vague and confusing standards presented in the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (RLUIPA) that have contributed to inconsistent results. Ms. Lugo concludes that, under the Obama Justice Department, a growing number of recent interventions in Islamic cases are tipping the scales:

RLUIPA was passed to put religious organizations on equal footing with each other and with secular assembly uses.  It is not intended to be an affirmative- action mechanism.

Federal law under the RLUIPA provides strong protections for religious practices including the siting of a worship and gathering site. On the other hand, those residing in surrounding neighborhoods deserve realistic predictions, including those concerning attendance levels and expected frequency and hours of events.

Ms. Lugo’s guide also offers helpful information to citizens about the land use application hearing process – a procedure that is supposed to afford communities with quasi-judicial hearings, forums meant to provide the careful attention to facts required to achieve accurate findings.

Particularly important is the valuable guidance provided in Mosques in America about how the public can constructively engage with mosques and mosque leadership outside of “city hall” proceedings.  She commends in this connection the efforts of reformist Muslims and suggests as a metric for assessing potential radicalization in accountable dialogues with mosque leadership the standard set by the constitutionally aligned “Declaration of the Muslim Reform Movement.”  It explicitly embraces separation of mosque and state, equal rights for women, free speech, and freedom of religion (including the choice to have no religious affiliation or to forsake a religion).

On the occasion of the publication of Mosques in America, Frank J. Gaffney, the President of the Center for Security Policy, observed:

Karen Lugo is one of the foremost experts in the United States on matters involving religious land use applications.  She has monitored citizen efforts across the country as they hold accountable both local officials and applicants who navigate the complex legal and political terrain associated with religious land use applications in America.  Her new guide will enable vastly larger numbers of citizens and communities to benefit from her counsel.

HAMAS dba CAIR Using 2016 Muslim GOTV Campaign to Fund Jihad

The Center for Security Policy reported in its September 2015 publication Star Spangled Shariah that the Muslim Brotherhood was actively setting its sights on the 2016 election cycle and preparing for a ‘get out the vote’ operation to mobilize its base. The United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first U.S. political party openly associated with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, is aggressively pursuing many of its operational objectives behind a screen of feigned ‘patriotism’. Since the inception of the USCMO in March 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood-led organization more than once has relied upon a less-than-transparent modus operandi that obscure its true agenda, activities, and intentions for the U.S. political process from the general public and even members of Congress.

The Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States includes the subversive infiltration of every sphere of American society and recruitment of assistance in the subversive process from unwitting American themselves. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that the successful execution of its plan for societal destruction from within depends on what it calls the ‘settlement process:’ ‘In order for Islam and its Movement’ to become ‘a part of the homeland’ in which it lives, ‘stable’ in its land, ‘rooted’ in the spirits and minds and people, ‘enabled’ in the life of its society, and firmly established within organizations through which the Islamic structure is to be built, the Movement must work to obtain ‘the keys’ and tools of this of this ‘Civilization Jihadist’ project that is the responsibility of its vanguard, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The USCMO and its Secretary General Oussama Jammal relied upon the expertise of veteran Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leader Sabri Samirah, banned and deported from the United States for a decade until his (apparently temporary) 2014 return. Samirah worked as chairman of the Islamic Association of Palestine, the progenitor to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). It will be recalled that the IAP was established in 1981 by HAMAS operative Mousa Abu Marzook. Samirah has functioned effectively as a catalyst for the next steps of Civilization Jihad described in the 1991 document ‘An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for North America’ by working closely with USCMO leadership to ‘get out the vote’ to influence key elections before his return to Jordan in October 2015.

Today, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS doing-business-as CAIR. In the fall of 2016, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad unveiled the first-ever Muslim Brotherhood ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign. As noted on the CAIR website, donations to support the ‘Muslims GOTV’ campaign are both tax deductible and zakat eligible. As explained in Islamic Law (shariah), however, ‘zakat’ is not merely ‘charity,’ but rather an obligatory tax on all Muslims and Muslim firms. According to shariah, all zakat proceeds collected anywhere on earth must be distributed among a legally-fixed set of recipients, at least one-eighth of which is always jihad.

In essence, therefore, HAMAS dba CAIR and the USCMO are not only running an influence operation under cover of ‘citizen activism’ during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but using proceeds dishonestly acquired under the cloak of star spangled shariah to support enemies of the United States and the Free World.

 

1 2 4

Jihadis in Suits Assail National Security Forum

There they go again.

In response to a top-level national security panel presentation organized by Rabbi Jonathan Hausman at the Ahavath Torah Congregation tonight in Stoughton, Massachusetts, HAMAS-doing-business-as-CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the notorious jihad incubator at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) have joined forces to mount a last-ditch intimidation campaign.

On Wednesday, 2 November 2016, the Ahavath Torah Congregation is scheduled to host an event featuring Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Family Research Council Executive Vice President Lieutenant General (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, and The United West Founder Tom Trento. In response, ISBCC Executive Director Yusuf Vali has coopted nearly 100 interfaith leaders who represent the Christian and Jewish communities in the Boston area in an attempt to pressure the leadership board of Rabbi Hausman’s synagogue to cancel the program, which is dedicated to highlighting the national security threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood’s global Islamic Movement.

So, by whom exactly have these interfaith collaborators allowed themselves to be conned into this latest Brotherhood-led assault on free speech? It may be recalled that during the 2016 general election cycle, the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), formed in 2014, described on its website the group’s efforts to “promote peace and harmony in society.” And yet, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS dba CAIR. While CAIR tries to present itself as a civil rights organization, it has here joined forces with the ISBCC, jihad command and control center for the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

As noted by Robert Spencer in March 2016, the ISBCC has long been a haven for jihadists.

  • The Boston Marathon individual jihadis, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
  • Pakistani neuroscientist and jihadi, Aafia Siddiqui, who is serving an 86-year sentence for trying to kill American soldiers in July 2008
  • Tarek Mehanna, U.S. citizen pharmacist and jihadi, who is serving seventeen years for providing material support to al-Qaeda
  • Ahmad Abousamra, who before he was killed in a June 2015 airstrike in Iraq, was considered a key architect of the Islamic State’s social media presence
  • The Islamic Society of Boston’s founder, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, was once a major player in Washington and the nation’s most prominent “moderate” Muslim. Now he is serving a twenty-three year sentence for charges including fundraising for al-Qaeda.

That HAMAS dba CAIR is working alongside the ISBCC is not a coincidence. CAIR under the leadership of Executive Director Nihad Awad has not only condemned publicly and repeatedly the counterterrorism efforts of the local law enforcement community and United States government, but has an extensive record of defending jihadis and jihadi organizations. As former FBI Assistant Director Steven Pomeranz stated, “By masquerading as a mainstream public affairs organization, CAIR has taken the lead in trying to mislead the public about the terrorist underpinnings of militant Islamic movements, in particular, HAMAS.” In December 2015, USCMO member, CAIR’s Awad, openly declared the Muslim Brotherhood’s allegiance with the far-left racist and revolutionary movement, Black Lives Matter.

In early October 2016, USCMO leader CAIR (CAIR-Chicago) unsuccessfully led a campaign with a series of partners including Black Lives Matter – Chicago, Arab American Action Network, and the Center for New Community to cancel the Illinois Tactical Officers Association (ITOA)’s five day Tactical Training Conference (9 -13 October 2016) for law enforcement officers and emergency medical technicians. CAIR also mounted pressure in a botched attempt to terminate the contractual relationships between ITOA and the Cook County, IL Department of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (DHSEM), in addition to other government agencies.

Next, it was CAIR-Oklahoma Executive Director Adam Soltani’s turn to strike out on 25 October 2016, when he took aim at a national security briefing on ‘the ideological roots, nature and magnitude of the jihad threat’ provided to the Oklahoma State Legislature. Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett, a combat veteran Marine in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, called for an Oklahoma State Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee’s Interim Study on “Radical Islam, Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Radicalization Process.” During the hearings Bennet sponsored, former FBI agent John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz of Understanding the Threat provided a clear explanation about shariah as the doctrinal Islamic basis for jihad and set forth a succinct evidentiary legal framework about the subversive Brotherhood network in this country. Frank Gaffney, President and Founder of the Center for Security Policy, and Gen. Jerry Boykin also spoke at the hearing, with Gaffney explaining how zakat, the obligatory annual Muslim tax, according to Islamic Law is required to fund jihad.

Clearly, the facts of the accelerating worldwide jihad are becoming all-too obvious to all—and the only rear-guard action the MB’s U.S.-based jihadis in suits seem able to muster at this point is against the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee for free speech. Civilization Jihad and Star spangled shariah in action.

Center Monograph Warns Of ‘Gateway’ Group For Violent Jihadists: Tablighi Jama’at

gatewaytojihad

Fifteen years after 9/11, one reality should be self-evident: No matter how many jihadists are killed as a result of U.S. and allied kinetic actions, our Islamic supremacist enemies’ ranks seem to be continuously replenished by an inexhaustible pipeline. While it is undeniable that most jihadis are nurtured in Muslim communities, families, madrassas, and mosques, the final indoctrination that propels an Islamic terrorist on the pathway to mayhem often takes place among Muslim scholars especially dedicated to the teaching and training of those showing the most promise in devotion to the faith.

Preeminent among such incubators of indoctrination is a global Islamic missionary and revival movement known as Tablighi Jama’at (TJ). Founded in the 20th Century on the Asian subcontinent, TJ claims more than 70 million followers in 80 countries around the world. The group strictly enforces a no-violence policy among its missionary membership.

Those imbued with Tablighi Jama’at’s adherence to the jihadist doctrine of Sharia, however, are ripe for recruitment by groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State, that – in light of Mohammed’s example and the teachings of Islam’s sacred texts – have no such compunction against the use of terrifying force. Indeed, TJ-affiliated members, students, teachers and mosques have been at least loosely-connected to a number of U.S. terror attacks, including in San Bernardino, California in 2015 and Orlando, Florida in 2016.

In this video, the Center’s Vice President for Research and Analysis, Clare Lopez, who serves as the editor-in-chief of the “Terror Jihad” collection and its companion, the “Civilization Jihad Readers Series,” introduces the Center’s new monograph

If the terrorist pipeline to which Tablighi Jama’at contributes is ever to be severed, it is imperative that U.S. policy-makers and the American people understand the contribution this ostensibly “non-violent” missionary group makes at the intersection of Islamic indoctrination and jihadist terror. To that end, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the second monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series,” Tablighi Jama’at: Gateway to Jihad, by Ilana Freedman.

This publication, like Freedman’s first in the series, Jihad! The Threat of ISIS in America, brings to bear her rigorous scholarship and solid analysis to help explain how it is that indoctrination in the Islamic canon can and does all too often lead to an absolute conviction of Islamic supremacism, and thence to violence.

In unveiling this new product, the Center’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, observed:

For far too long, the West has given a pass to Tablighi Jama’ati missionaries, on the theory that – like the Muslim Brotherhood – their ostensibly non-violent practice of Islamic supremacism poses no threat to our civilization and security. Ilana Freedman powerfully debunks this theory, exposing the dangers associated with it and making the case for treating TJ as the toxic enabler of jihad that it is, both elsewhere and here.

 Tablighi Jama’at: Gateway to Jihad is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback It can also be viewed and downloaded for free in PDF format below:

photoshop-ccscreensnapz002

Free Speech Champions Fight Back Against OSCE ‘Islamophobia’ Industry

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry’s all-out assault on free speech was on full display at the recent annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. The Center’s VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez and Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin attended the 26-27 September 2016 session, along with Debra Anderson, ACT! For America Chapter leader in Minnesota, Dave Petteys, ACT! Chapter leader from Colorado and key European colleagues Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf from Austria, Henrik Clausen from Denmark, and Alain Wagner from France.

dsc09236

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a 57-member regional security organization with representatives from North America, Europe and Asia. It describes itself as a ‘forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues’ whose approach encompasses ‘politico-military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions’. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is an office within the OSCE that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.

Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.

Of course, the campaign to shut down free speech when it’s about Islam is very much in line with the top agenda item of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is to achieve the criminalization of criticism of Islam in national legal codes. Gagging criticism of Islam is also what the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 tries to do. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hard to make that happen in the U.S. and around the world when she promoted the Istanbul Process. The idea is to use existing laws against ‘incitement to violence,’ but in a novel way that applies a so-called ‘test of consequences.’ That is, if someone, somewhere, sometime decides what somebody said somewhere, sometime is offensive and then launches a ‘Day of Rage,’ or goes on a lawless rampage destroying property, injuring or killing people, guess whose fault that would be? Under the ‘test of consequences’ speech code, that would be the speaker.

dsc09250

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Notably, though, the Islamophobia crowd seemed to be very much on the defensive at this OSCE meeting. Their crouch-and-whine posture most likely had to do with the accelerating numbers of horrific Islamic terror attacks, whose trail of carnage and destruction is splashed across screens around the world for all to see. Along with those visuals comes increasing awareness on the part of more and more ordinary people that when they yell ‘Allahu Akbar,’ it doesn’t mean ‘Hail to the Redskins’: it means they are committing that attack in the name of Allah and Islam.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry has neither the ability nor actual wish to stop jihad but it sure does wish so many were not putting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and Islamic terror together and then speaking out about it. The only recourse left to them is trying desperately to shut down free speech—including places like the U.S. where free speech is Constitutionally-protected. As CSP Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin puts it:

This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

In other words, what they’re trying to do is enforce shariah’s law on slander – on us, on everyone, whether Muslim or not.

That effort at the Warsaw OSCE meeting went at it by various means: there was a great deal of emphasis on equating Islamophobia with ‘racism’ (but a new kind – not based on skin color), ‘bigotry,’ and violation of ‘human rights.’ Pouty complaints were heard about ‘feeling discriminated against,’ ‘marginalized,’ and the object of ‘hard looks’ because of wearing a hijab. When legal eagle Steve Coughlin and Danish defender Henrik Clausen demanded a specific legal definition of the term ‘Islamophobia,’ they were assailed for…you guessed it, ‘Islamophobia’! Needless to say, there was no legal definition forthcoming (because ‘everybody knows what it means’).

‘Islamophobia’ hysteria reached peak during the OSCE’s second day plenary session, where the Turkish General Secretary of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), Bashy Qurayshi, came unglued with a plaintive wail that ‘Islamophobes’ who’d been permitted to infiltrate the OSCE were “lying, ranting and attempting to spread hatred at this conference.” He even threw in a reference to such ‘Islamophobes’ as ‘Nazis,’ at which point senior representatives at the OSCE head table actually broke into applause.

By way of counterpoint, however, it must be added that many delegates from Civil Society organizations throughout the OSCE membership area—including atheists, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—firmly pressed the case for free speech. We know that they took encouragement from our presence and outspokenness, even as we did from theirs.

The ‘Islamophobia’ crown went home from Warsaw in the sure knowledge that their attempts to silence free speech about Islam have stirred a gathering force of liberty’s champions who will not be silenced.

For more coverage of this year’s OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, including photos and video, please see Gates of Vienna at https://gatesofvienna.net/

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy