Posts

Islamic Supremacist Organization complains that ROTC exercise featuring jihadis ‘promotes an image of Muslims as dangerous’

This ridiculous article in UCLA’s student newspaper, The Daily Bruin, reveals the mindset of those who believe that “Islamophobia” is a bigger threat than jihad terror. Does the U.S. face a jihad threat today? Obviously it does. Do many of these jihadis wear traditional Islamic garb and scream “Allahu akbar” when attacking? Once again, that is patently obvious. But a ROTC exercise that features the enemies of U.S. soldiers wearing Islamic garb and screaming “Allahu akbar” is “Islamophobic” and somehow endeavors to “marginalize 3.5 million Americans.”

The article’s author, Omar Said, even claims that “the university cannot expect these students on campus to feel safe or comfortable knowing that all it takes for them to be labeled an enemy combatant is to say an often used phrase or wear an outfit common in their country.”

Really? And when exactly did ROTC or anyone else claim that everyone who wears traditional Islamic garb or says “Allahu akbar” is an “enemy combatant”? Never. Said’s article is of a piece with successful efforts by Islamic advocacy groups in the U.S. to get all mention of Islam and jihad removed from counter-terror training: because not all Muslims are jihad terrorists, it is somehow wrong for the U.S. military to prepare to counter those who are. The end result will be that the U.S. is ignorant and unprepared in the face of the advancing jihad. Is that what Omar Said wants?

“Omar Said: Use of stereotyped Muslim attire in ROTC training perpetuates Islamophobia,” by Omar Said, Daily Bruin, May 10, 2018:

It takes a lot of work to marginalize 3.5 million Americans at once.

But the ROTC did just that when it stereotyped Muslims to portray enemy combatants.

During a training held by UCLA’s and California State University, Fresno’s Army ROTCs in early April, students acting as enemy soldiers in combat simulations wore clothing commonly worn by civilians in Arab countries. The clothing included kufiyyas and iqals, which are better known as the flowing scarves Arab men traditionally wear on their heads.

At one point in the training, Maj. Tyrone Vargas, the executive officer of the battalion and a UCLA assistant adjunct professor of military science, held a rocket-propelled grenade above his head and said “Allahu akbar” in the presence of cadets. Vargas later told The Bruin that this had been a way to teach cadets how they would need to decide whether people approach them as combatants or in celebration.

“Allahu akbar,” which means “God is greater,” is a large part of daily Muslim worship and life, including the formal prayer done five times a day. Imam Omar Suleiman, an adjunct professor of Islamic studies at Southern Methodist University, wrote in a CNN article that the phrase is used to indicate gratitude “when God bestows something upon you that you would have been incapable of attaining were it not for divine benevolence.” Notwithstanding, “Allahu akbar” has become a common element in Islamophobic jokes and stereotypes about terrorists.

ROTC’s cavalier attitude about Islamic ideas is damaging to Muslim Americans, and to the Muslim and Southwest Asian and North African students studying at UCLA. The university cannot expect these students on campus to feel safe or comfortable knowing that all it takes for them to be labeled an enemy combatant is to say an often used phrase or wear an outfit common in their country.

Training future military combatants is one thing; perpetuating discriminatory stereotypes is another. ROTC can certainly try to make amends for its actions during the spring cadet training, but the fact remains that it has only played into the continuing narrative of Islamophobia in the United States.

“This training negligently promotes an image of Muslims as dangerous,” said Marwa Rifahie, a civil rights attorney for the Los Angeles chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations, in a statement released by CAIR-LA….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured image is of UCLA’s ROTC taking part in a training session for cadets. (Liz Ketcham/Daily Bruin)

A Rebuttal to CAIR’s Dawud Walid & His Article ‘Take A Stand Against Anti-Muslim Fearmongering’

This article includes 27 questions and a point-by-point rebuttal to an editorial written by Dawud Walid, Executive Director of CAIR-MI, entitled Take A Stand Against Anti-Muslim Fearmongering, which was published on April 14, 2018, in Volume 34, Issue 1679(13) of the Arab American News.

Background of CAIR

Before addressing the comments you made in your editorial, Mr. Walid, as Executive Director of CAIR-Michigan, it should be fair and reasonable to ask you about the background of the organization you represent.

As proven in extensive Federal District Court records (affidavits, documents and testimony), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded in 1994 as a “nonprofit, grassroots civil rights and advocacy organization” by several individuals with direct ties to Hamas (aka the Islamic Resistance Movement), a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization since October 08, 1997. In 2014 CAIR was designated as a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates.

The close affiliations between CAIR and Hamas were further proven during the Holy Land Foundation trial (still the largest counter terrorism trial in American history), which concluded on November 24, 2008 with the convictions of five individuals on 108 counts of providing at least $12 million in material support to Hamas in Palestine.

Despite nearly ten years of legal efforts and PR by CAIR to deny these irrefutable facts, it remains true to this very day that the goals of CAIR remain inextricably entwined with the goals of Hamas, which is still part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “intellectual school,” while supposedly operating as “an independent Palestinian organization.”

Note: For additional background on CAIR, see here and here.

Question 1: What is your position regarding these proven connections between CAIR and Hamas?

Rebuttal of Take A Stand Against Anti-Muslim Fearmongering

Note: In this rebuttal, each portion of Mr. Walid’s editorial is italicized, while specific words or phrases that I address are highlighted in bold font.

Michigan remains the stomping grounds for some politicians to score cheap political points and for right-wing activists to attract more followers at the expense of Muslims. While some of the names of these purveyors of anti-Muslim bigotry have changed over the years, much of their rhetoric remains the same. One of the centerpieces of their fearmongering is to frame Muslims as a fifth column who seek to undermine the American way of life by imposing sharia upon everyone. This false frame needs to be more aggressively challenged by our community.

In order to discuss what influence Islamic Sacred Law (sharia شَرِيعَةٍ) may have here in America, we must start by acknowledging [1] what the Quran says about sharia, [2] what sharia says about itself, and [3] what prominent Islamic scholars here in America say about sharia.

The Quran

Two verses from the Quran that specifically refer to sharia include Quran 5.48 and Quran 45.18. Translations of these two verses found in the seven common English versions of the Quran describe sharia in several synonymous ways.

In verse 5:48, sharia is translated as a Divine Law, a Law (several times), and a Right Way, while in verse 45:18, sharia is translated as a Clear Road, a Code of Conduct, a Course in the Affair[of Religion], an Open Way of the Command, an Ordained Way, a Plain Way, and the Right Way of Religion.

Umdat As-Salik

Next, here are three examples of what Islamic scholars of Fiqh (فقه‎ the human understanding of sharia) universally acknowledge about sharia, taken directly from Umdat As-Salikaka the Reliance of the Traveller and Tools for the Worshipper (see here for a review of Reliance):

T3.09: Never explain a verse of Holy Koran by your own opinion, but check as to how it has been understood by the scholars of Sacred Law and men of wisdom who came before you. If you comprehend something else by it and what you have understood contradicts the Sacred Lawforsake your wretched opinion and fling it against the wall.

T3.10: Beware lest you ever say anything that does not conform to the Sacred Law. Know that the highest stage of the perfected ones (Rijal) is the Sacred Law of Muhammad.

V2.01: Allah Most High sent Muhammad, the Qurayshite unlettered prophet, to deliver His inspired message to the entire world, Arabs and non-Arabs, jinn and mankind, superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet’s Sacred Law, except for the provisions of them that the new revelation explicitly reconfirmed.

Islamic Scholars – Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)

Question 2: At this point, we should also ask: If the Muslim community in America is not a fifth column who seek to undermine the American way of life by imposing sharia upon everyone, then what is the purpose of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) بأمريكا الشريعة فقهاء مجمع (Majama Fuqaha Al-Sharia B’Amrikiya, the Group of Sharia Scholars in America)?

Question 3: If AMJA is not seeking to undermine the American way of life, then please explain the purpose of this AMJA Fatwa, dated March 14, 2012Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America Cautions Muslims Against Participating in American Legal System; Urges Them to “Hate It in Their Hearts.”

For several other examples of AMJA Fatwas that are obviously seek[ing] to undermine the American way of life by imposing sharia upon everyone, see here, and below for Appendix I – AMJA Fatwas.

Question 4: Do you agree, or disagree, with this July 2007 Fatwa by AMJA scholar Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah?

“Our belief is that Islam is the final divine religion, supersedes all other divine religions, and that all other religions are abrogated by the prophet-hood of Mohammad. In another words; no one has the right to stay on his/her Christianity or Judaism after the prophecy of Mohammad. Based on the above, if any one from the people of scriptures [People of the Book] has received the message of Islam clearly, yet, insisted on his belief, then he is – from an Islamic perspective – a disbeliever.

***

Earlier this year at a 11th Congressional District GOP debate in Novi, candidates were posed the preposterous question of whether they agree or not that the American Constitution supersedes sharia. Fayrouz Saad, an Arab American Muslim, is running for the Democratic nomination in that same district.

Note: See the entire debate here.

In fact, Article 6 of the Constitution specifically prohibits any of form of law other than the Constitution itself, as stated here:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…

Question 5: Why is asking whether the American Constitution supersedes sharia such a preposterous question?

Further, on April 7, 2018, you wrote on Facebook that: Islam is deen [دِينِ Complete Way of Life] not a “religion,” and we will be judged by Allah on what political stances we advance and how we vote. I know that every political stance of every single Muslim isn’t based on deen just as every single Muslim doesn’t make income according to deen. That doesn’t justify Muslim activists or those getting into politics justifying Haram [حَرَام‎ Forbidden]. Sorry, but this is a fact too.

Question 6: If Islam is actually a Deen, but “not a religion,” then what are the authorized sharia statutes for determining what is Haram, versus what is Halal [حلال Permissible] in the American political process?

***

Last week, State Senator Patrick Colbeck from the Seventh District, who is running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, was part of three events entitled See Something, Say Something, which centered around scaring Michiganians about the bogus proposition that Muslims are seeking to overthrow American law.

The event in which Colbeck participated also featured charlatan ex-terrorist Kamal Saleem aka Khodor Shami, a man whose story has been debunked by mainstream journalists. Later this month, the right-wing group Unite America First has a scheduled protest in Dearborn against what they state as the threat of sharia taking over.

Michigan Muslims are fortunate to have well-wishers and supporters such as State Senator David Knezek of Dearborn Heights, who challenges such fearmongering. Such challenges against hateby politicians, clergy and social justice coalition partners are indeed welcomed.

Question 7: Why do you describe public campaign events such as “See Something, Say Something,” which included discussions of sharia and the Explanatory Memorandum, with derogatory, inflammatory terms such as “right wing,” “bogus,” “charlatan,” “fearmongering” and “hate”?

Less than five years ago, a satirical “joke” article asserting that Muslims residents of Dearborn, Michigan had voted to adapt sharia prompted such a backlash of angry calls that city officials had to issue a statement denying it, insisting that “the article is false; Dearborn is not under sharia law and has never at any time even considered such an action.”

However, it looks like we’ve come a long way in the last few years. Earlier this month, while publicly accusing Mr. Colbeck of trying to “score cheap political points,” you also stated that Muslims in Michigan “need to better explain what sharia really is, [and to] not be apologetic.”

April 19, 2018 Twitter exchange between Dawud Walid, CAIR-MI Executive Director, and Patrick Colbeck, Republican primary candidate for Governor of Michigan.

Question 8: Mr. Walid, rather than slinging ad hominem stones at Mr. Colbeck, wouldn’t it be more productive to clearly and simply explain to non-Muslims here in America [1] what sharia really is, and [2] how Muslims in Michigan can unapologetically promote sharia…without violating Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution?

Question 9: As Executive Director of CAIR-MI, who else is more qualified to explain sharia than you, Mr. Walid? However, if you fail to honestly explain the true nature of sharia to the American public, then you have no right to publicly criticize non-Muslims for drawing their own conclusions, or to belittle them for being alarmed about what sharia really is.

***

The Muslim community, however, has the primary responsibility to defend itself and its interests. No group of people can reasonably expect those outside of themselves, no matter how well-meaning, to be as passionate and committed to defending themselves and their interests.

As Islam’s sacred text and the Prophet Muhammad’s example have influenced cultures of Muslims, being Muslim is a faith identity, not just a cultural or socio-political identity. American Muslims recognize the authority of the U.S. Constitution, including the Supremacy Clause that no law can take the place of American law.

It has been a strategic misstep of the Muslim community to have allowed others to consistently and incorrectly define sharia to the public without explaining what the objectives of sharia truly are.

According to an April 30, 2013 poll by the Pew Research Center,

“most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God, rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God. Muslims also tend to believe sharia has only one, true understanding, but this opinion is far from universal; in some countries, substantial minorities of Muslims believe sharia should be open to multiple interpretations. Religious commitment is closely linked to views about sharia: Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to say sharia is the revealed word of God, to say that it has only one interpretation, and to support the implementation of Islamic law in their country.”

In addition, a July 17, 2015 analysis by this author of 21 different surveys conducted over a 10-year period revealed that the level of support among American Muslims to make shariah the law of the land (51%) are similar to the level of support for sharia by Muslims in the rest of the world (64%). In other words, support for sharia by Muslims in America is not significantly different than support for sharia by Muslims in the rest of the Islamic world.

Question 10: Would you please explain to non-Muslims in America [1] exactly how others [have] consistently and incorrectly define[d] sharia to the public, and [2] how they have done this without explaining what the objectives of sharia truly are?

***

Instead the rare responses to anti-Muslim critics regarding this issue have been defensive in nature, which has allowed the framework of sharia to be hijacked in the minds of the broader society no differently than extremist Muslims have hijacked the term jihad (struggle) in the view of the public.

Question 11: How can the responses of the Muslim community to anti-Muslim critics of sharia be anything but defensive in nature, when sharia is legally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution?

Question 12: What does the term framework of sharia actually mean, and where will this sharia framework be built?

Question 13: How has this sharia framework been hijacked in the minds of the broader society?

Question 14: What is your definition of broader society (is it mainstream America?), and why would non-Muslims in this broader society want to replace the U.S. Constitution with sharia?

Regarding whether extremist Muslims have hijacked the term Jihad, let’s look again at the what sources have to say about this uniquely Islamic word.

Starting with the Quran, the trilateral root for Jihad (Jim-Ha-Dal د ه ج Strive Hard) occurs 41 times, in five derived forms.

However, as in verse 66:9, which reads “Oh Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination,” it is obvious that Jihad is much more than a peaceful ‘inner struggle,’ and that the true meaning of Jihad has not been hijacked in the view of the public.

Meanwhile, citing section O9.0 of Umdat As-Salik, let’s do a quick review of what the definitive (mainstream) manual on sharia has to say about Jihad:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word Mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser Jihad. As for the greater Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (Nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad, “We have returned from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad.”

The scriptural basis for Jihad, prior to scholarly consensus, is such Quranic verses as:

1 “Fighting is prescribed for you” (2:216)

2 “Slay them wherever you find them” (4:89)

3 “Fight the idolaters utterly” (9:36)

O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying, “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in Jihad has himself performed Jihad”).

O9.9: The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax [جزية‎ Jizya]; the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim).

Question 15: In light of these citations from the Quran and Umdat As-Salik (we haven’t even looked at the numerous references to Jihad in the Hadith), would you please defend your premise that extremist Muslims have hijacked the term jihad (struggle) in the view of the public?

Question 16: As with the broader society mentioned above, what is your definition of the public? Are you referring to the general public here in America?

***

Sharia is a sacred term mentioned in the Qur’an and is a concept that has been elucidated by Islamic scholars for centuries. As the original linguistical meaning of sharia in Arabic means a path leading to water, sharia is a path towards faithfulness with-in Islam. As there is no fixed universally applied codex called sharia, that does not mean an absence of it either.

According to the Understanding Islam website, the Holy Qur’an, Tradition and Ijtihad (اجتهاد‎Consensus in Judgment) are the:

“three main sources of Islamic law which govern and regulate all aspects of a Muslim’s public and private life. These laws relate to religious worship, prohibitions, and all contracts and obligations that arise in social life such as inheritance, marriage, divorce, punishments, conduct of war [including Jihad] and the administration of the state.”

We read that Ijtihad, or the exercise of judgment, is a valid source of Islamic laws in areas where the Holy Qur’an and the Traditions are not explicit. But the exercise of this independent judgment can only be left in the hands of proper scholars of the Holy Qur’an and the Tradition. The vast majority of Muslims give this right of independent reasoning to only four ancient Muslim theologians and jurists who lived in the first three centuries of Islam. These four Fuqaha [Jurists, as in the title of AMJA above] are: [1] Imam Abu Hanifa of Kufa, [2] Imam Malik bin Anas of Medinah, [3] Imam Muhammad al-Shafi of Medinah and [4] Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal of Baghdad.

Question 17: It is universally acknowledged within the global Islamic community that there are four major schools of Fiqh, and that these four schools are followed by Muslim students in Madrassas(Academies) all around the world. In light of this, can you please defend your statement that there is no fixed universally applied codex called sharia?

***

As there are Jewish religious codes and Catholic Canon, which guides Jews and Catholics on how to pray and fast and regulation of who can marry whom as well as what dietary restrictions are upon adherents and more, Muslims have regulations in which different schools of thought factor in religious textual evidence and societal norms as to how to live the faith as a way of life. This by no means equates to Muslims seeking to violate civil laws of the land nor seeking to legally impose upon others to follow Islamic traditions.

Question 18: When you say that Muslims have regulations, would you agree that these regulations are actually codified in sharia, and that the religious textual evidence and societal norms are actually the Quran and Traditions (as discussed above)?

Question 19: In light of the small sample of AMJA Fatwas provided in Appendix I below, can you honestly assert that following sharia by no means equates to Muslims seeking to violate civil laws of the land?

Question 20: According to Quran 5:47 “Whosoever judges not according to what Allah has sent down, they are defiantly disobedient,” while verse 6:57 says, “The rule is to none but Allah.” And, according to Islamic Fiqh and Tradition, sharia is permanent for all people all the time, nor does it change with time and conditions. No-one can change this; it is a law that is valid for all time and for all places.

In light of all of these warnings and admonitions, can you deny that, given the first opportunity, the Muslim community (even here in America) would not seek to legally impose upon others to follow Islamic traditions?

***

So yes, there has been the implementation of sharia in Michigan for the past century. This practice has been protected under the First Amendment, just as Jewish people have been free to keep kosher, to Catholics continuing their opposition to abortion based upon their Canon.

Now we come to the heart of the matter, the culminating purpose of Mr. Walid’s editorial, which is to normalize the implementation of sharia here in America, while marginalizing anyone who has the courage to express concern about the obvious dark side(s) of sharia (as seen so plainly in Muslim countries where sharia is the official law of the land).

Since 9/11, the implementation of sharia has been debated with increasing frequency and intensity in AmericaAustralia & New ZealandCanada, several countries in Europe, the United Kingdom, and South America.

For example, according to a June 30, 2017 article entitled Sharia in America,

Islamic courts are becoming common in North America. Muslims are building religious communities in America, and religious courts are part of the structure of many of these communities. These so-called sharia tribunals do what courts everywhere do: They provide a means for hearing and resolving disputes between members of their communities.

On April 19, 2018, the Maine House voted 77-70 to kill legislation banning Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in their state. For those who insist that FGM is not part of sharia, please read the following passage from section E4.3 of Umdat As-Salik, entitled Circumcision Is Obligatory:

Circumcision is obligatory (for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Bazr) of the clitoris (not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but Sunna[سنة Allowed by Mohammed], while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband).

Question 21: Do you support Islamic sharia courts here in America?

Question 22: Do you support the sharia-endorsed Islamic practice of FGM?

Question 23: If you don’t support FGM, aren’t you violating sharia law?

***

What no group in America is free to do is to have a judicial system that can reward and punish citizens parallel to or above American courts.

In fact, all of the following practices are either authorized by sharia, or endorsed by Islamic Tradition, but are considered serious crimes here in America: Apostasy from Islam, Blasphemy of Islam or Mohamed, Child Marriage (Pedophilia), Extreme Punishment (Hudud حدود), Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), Honor Violence, Human Trafficking, Mass Murder (Sanctified Warfare), No-Fault Rape, Polygamy and Wife Beating.

Question 24: Are you willing to condemn these sharia-sanctioned Islamic practices, which are obviously part of a judicial system that can reward and punish [Muslim and non-Muslim] citizens parallel to or above American courts?

***

Those like Colbeck, who propagate such misinformation, are repeating the same scare tactics that Anglo protestants used against Irish Catholics 90 years ago. In these trying times in which racism and xenophobia are on the rise, Muslims in America would be better served to actually learn in depth the normative teachings of Islam and then convey them in simple terms to the public. Something more robust is needed than simply taking stances that too frequently sound apologetic and at times misrepresents the faith’s beliefs and virtues. That has not gotten American Muslims far. In fact, the community has lost ground.

Question 25: Earlier, you said there is no fixed universally applied codex called sharia. If this is true, then how can you show non-Muslims in America the normative teachings of Islam?

The first “purpose-built” mosque in America was built in Detroit in 1921, and by 1970 an estimated 100 mosques had been built across the country. This number increased to about 1,210 in the year 2000, to more than 2,100 in 2011, and to an estimated 3,200 by 2015. It is also worth noting that more than 80% of these mosques were built after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Question 26: In light of this information (compiled by Muslim researchers), please explain how the Islamic community has lost ground in America?

***

Perhaps if we invested more time and resources in proactively explaining our faith, the likes of President Trump and Colbeck would get less traction when attempting to appeal to the public.

Question 27: It appears that you are placing blame on President Trump and [Patrick] Colbeck for the vast disconnect between Islamic sharia and the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. As the Executive Director of CAIR-MI, would you agree that some honest and transparent answers to the questions I have included in this rebuttal would be a good way to start proactively explaining our faith?

***

Appendix I – AMJA Fatwas

In April of 2006, AMJA Shariah scholar Dr. Katem Al-Haj authorized capital punishment for Muslim apostates in America, stating that “as for the Shariah ruling [for apostasy], it is the punishment of killing for the man…as the prophet said: “Whoever a Muslim changes his/her religion, kill him/her,” and his saying “A Muslim`s blood, who testifies that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not made permissible except by three reasons: the life for the life; the married adulterer and the that who abandons his/her religion.”

In June of 2006, Dr. Al-Hajj issued a fatwa reiterating the Shariah-endorsed punishment [Al-Hadd] of stoning for committing adultery: “All praise be to Allah, and may his peace and blessings be on the last and best prophet and messenger, Muhammad. Since you are ashamed and you have repented sincerely, Allah is all forgiving, so don`t lose hope in his mercy and forgiveness. The act you have committed – as you appear to know – is an offensive sin, and it is a form of fornication, as the Prophet indicated…Yet, it is not the absolute Zina [sexual sin] punishable by Al-Hadd (which is stoning in the case of a married man).”

In July of 2007, AMJA scholar Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah issued a fatwa sanctioning animosity and hostility (derived from Quran 5.51) toward non-Muslim “Disbelievers” [Kufar]: “Our belief is that Islam is the final divine religion, supersedes all other divine religions, and that all other religions are abrogated by the prophet-hood of Mohammad. In another words; no one has the right to stay on his/her Christianity or Judaism after the prophecy of Mohammad. Based on the above, if any one from the people of scriptures has received the message of Islam clearly, yet, insisted on his belief, then he is – from an Islamic perspective – a disbeliever. Meanwhile, we believe that hellfire is granted for the disbelievers, which include anyone did not believe in the prophet-hood of the messenger that he/she lived during his/her life.”

In November of 2007, Dr. Al-Hajj posted a 23-page fatwa forbidding Muslims in America to work for the FBI, the military, or for U.S. security (and law enforcement) services, because such work could possibly involve “spying on Muslims,” and because Muslim minorities in non-Islamic countries are “subject to man-made laws, which Islamic law [Shariah] does not recognize, either fully or in part…”

This AMJA-authorized prohibition against involvement with law enforcement was on full display in 2011, when CAIR published a poster admonishing Muslims in America to “Build a Wall of Resistance” and “Don’t Talk to the FBI.” The same precedent was expressed again in 2016, when CAIR called on Muslims to openly defy Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers when questioned on travel from Islamic controlled countries by saying, “None of your Damn Business,” and to “agitate Customs Agents by saying Islamic prayers “very loudly” when questioned”

In January of 2009, AMJA Secretary-General Dr. Salah Al-Sawy issued a fatwa on the penalty for blaspheming the prophet Muhammad: “[F]or those scholars who say that repentance of a person who insults Allah or His Messenger shall not accepted, [they] mean that repentance does not lift up the set punishment for cursing and insulting the Prophet, i.e., execution. Because the Prophet is the one who was actually wronged and insulted and he is no longer alive, therefore, he is not alive to practice his right to forgive him [the blasphemer] for what he did. Also, no Muslim is ever is entitled or authorized to forgive on the Prophet’s behalf.”

In January of 2009, Dr. Al-Qudah issued a fatwa on the death penalty for apostasy, stating that “Under the authority of the Muslim state, the People of the Book have the right to stay on their belief without being compelled to embrace Islam. But if one of them has embraced Islam, it would not be acceptable from him to go back to his original religion. The same rule applies to those who are born into Muslim families. According to the Islamic Law, they cannot commit apostasy. Implementing the punishment of killing the apostate is the sole and the exclusive responsibility of the Muslim state (were there any nowadays). Nobody else has the right to implement it.”

Three months later, in April of 2009, Dr. Al-Qudah issued another fatwa on Shariah-endorsed death sentences for apostates, stating that “The fact that there is no compulsion in religion does not negate the other fact that someone who has embrace Islam cannot change his mind afterward and embrace polytheism.”

Washington Post publishes article by Muslim who ‘served 13 years in federal prison for terrorism-related charges’

At least they admit it. The bio tag for this Washington Post article (thanks to Darcy) reads: “Ismail Royer is an American convert to Islam and a research and program associate at the Religious Freedom Institute, a D.C. nonprofit organization. He served 13 years in federal prison for terrorism-related charges. Since his release, he has worked in the nonprofit sector developing strategies to promote religious liberty and undermine extremist ideology.”

Which “extremist ideology”? Why not “…to promote religious liberty and undermine the jihad ideology”? Probably because what is meant by “extremist ideology” is “right-wing extremism,” a label often attached to resistance to jihad terror.

Interestingly, the Washington Post bio for Royer doesn’t note that before his incarceration, he worked for Hamas-linked CAIR.

Meanwhile, the title of this piece is “Muslims like me don’t have theological beef with evangelicals. It’s the prejudice against us that’s the problem.” Note that Royer is taking that ever-familiar stance we see again and again, on a drearily regular basis, from Muslim spokesmen: victimhood. Poor, poor Muslims are victimized by everyone else in 1000 ways — as the jihad body count rises ever higher. One would think that any man would be embarrassed to make his living as a professional whiner, but Islamic spokesmen seem to have a never-ending supply of chutzpah and no capacity for embarrassment at all.

And “Muslims like me”? What kind of Muslim is like Ismail Royer? Let’s review what the Post blandly reports as “13 years in federal prison for terrorism-related charges.” From the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

According to a biography posted on IslamOnline.net, Royer began working as a CAIR communication specialist in 1997. According to media reports, he continued to work for CAIR at least through the beginning of October 2001.

When police stopped Royer for a traffic violation in September 2001, they found in his automobile an AK-47-style rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition. He was indicted in June 2003, with 10 others, on a variety of charges stemming from participation in the ongoing jihad in Kashmir. Specifically, the indictment charged that Royer engaged in propaganda work for Lashkar-e-Taiba and “fired at Indian positions in Kashmir.”

Lashkar-e-Taiba was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization on December 26, 2001. Thus, while news reports indicated he still worked for CAIR, according to a federal indictment, Royer purchased an AK-47 assault rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition, distributed newsletters for a group later designated as a foreign terrorist organization, and fired at Indian targets in Kashmir.

Again, Awad has minimized CAIR’s ties to Royer, noting Royer was also “a former employee of Starbucks Coffee.”

In January 2007, in response to Senator Boxer’s withdrawal of the award to Elkarra, Awad claimed that “CAIR had no knowledge of Royer’s travels and activities before he joined CAIR.”

Additional charges listed in a superseding indictment against Royer and his 10 co-conspirators included conspiracy to levy war against the United States and conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda.

On January 16, 2004, Royer pleaded guilty to weapons and explosives charges and agreed to cooperate fully with the government.

He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Royer got out early, of course, and now proclaims that he has rejected his previous “extremism.” And so the Washington Post publishes him as if he were a legitimate spokesmen for Muslims in the United States. This is all part of the normalization of Islamic supremacism, of a piece with politicians appearing at Hamas-linked CAIR events (as we have seen recently in Ohio and Illinois).

The Washington Post is trying to condition the public into thinking that someone who used to work for Hamas-linked CAIR and served time in prison for jihad plotting is a perfectly reasonable fellow, while the real “extremists” are the foes of jihad terror. Can you imagine the Washington Post publishing an article by me or anyone else who is defamed by the hard-Left smear machine the Southern Poverty Law Center as an “anti-Muslim extremist”? They wouldn’t be caught dead. But a Muslim who worked for Hamas-linked CAIR and did propaganda work for a jihad terror work? Now, that’s someone who is perfectly within the bounds of reasonable discourse.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

REPORT: HAMAS Is Here In The United States of America [Video]

HAMAS has long been known as a Middle East terror organization that declares in its foundational Covenant that the obliteration of Israel is its raison d’etre and regularly fires missiles and digs tunnels across the border from Gaza to make that happen. But until now, its extensive networked presence here in the United States has been less well-understood, largely because of HAMAS’ success in disguising its operations through an array of front groups.

To cut through the web of HAMAS deceit, veteran Middle East analyst and author Ilana Freedman brings another volume in the Center for Security Policy Press’ Civilization Jihad Reader series, HAMAS, CAIR & the Muslim Brotherhood. As she explains in her highly readable yet fact-rich style, the Muslim Brotherhood (of which HAMAS is the Palestinian franchise) sought to expand into this country soon after World War II. But it really established a solid foothold with the founding in 1993 of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) by the top HAMAS operatives in the United States at the time.

As Freedman explains in her in-depth treatment of the 2008 Holy Land Foundation/HAMAS terror funding trial, while CAIR may be the most directly tied of the HAMAS branches inside the U.S., hundreds of other Brotherhood front groups all share the same objective, as spelled out in the Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum. That objective is “destroying…Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands [meaning those of the infidels]….” Unlike in the Middle East, where HAMAS’ Gaza operation confronts Israel kinetically and constantly, inside the U.S., the preferred method thus far has been “civilization jihad” – the stealthy, subversive use of infiltration, subversion and deception to pursue the destruction of the pillars of American society “from within.” By posing as “moderate” Islamic alternatives to the vicious violence of the likes of al Qaeda, the Islamic State or Taliban, the U.S. Brotherhood front groups have enjoyed remarkable success in advancing this agenda.

That is largely because Americans are all-too-often are unprepared to recognize deceit when it is employed in a sustained, disciplined fashion by skilled professionals. Consequently, as documented in a number of CSP Press’ other Civilization Jihad Reader Series offerings, key U.S. constituencies – notably, in academia, the courts and legal system, faith communities, government at all levels, local law enforcement and society in general – have failed to recognize that they are under assault by Brotherhood-associated individuals and groups. This is all the more shocking given that the latter’s loyalty to the triumph of Islam’s supremacist Sharia doctrine and to jihad to establish its dominance worldwide is of a piece with the ambitions of other jihadist groups.

Ilana Freedman cuts through such confusion, cognitive dissonance and willful blindness to exposes one group after another that represent themselves as not-for-profit organizations, Muslim advocacy representatives, or legitimate businesses for the jihadist front group they really are. For example, in addition to CAIR, she highlights the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and many more tied to the Muslim Brotherhood by the Department of Justice in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Of particular importance is Freedman’s examination of how the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood has evolved with its formation in 2014 of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). Her analysis of the USCMO’s known links not only to jihadist fronts but to groups like Black Lives Matter and the Saul Alinsky-type anarchists that cluster under the name “Antifa” is especially timely as we see these apparently disparate groups form connections in a common drive to destroy America’s constitutional Republic. In addition, Freedman connects all these dots to national level donors and funders who enable such subversive operations to function.

In the following video, Center for Security Policy 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, HAMAS, CAIR & the Muslim Brotherhood.

Upon the publication of Ilana Freedman’s new monograph, Center’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, observed:

The damage to U.S. national security wrought by the subversive operations of HAMAS and other Muslim Brotherhood groups is less immediately visible than acts of violent terrorism. But in the long-term, it is these civilization jihadists’ relentless corrosion of the pillars of America’s society that poses the most grave threat to our Republic.

The Center is pleased to present the latest addition to our Civilization Jihad Reader series, HAMAS, CAIR & the Muslim Brotherhood as an important contribution to exposing and countering this insidious peril inside our country.

HAMAS, CAIR & the Muslim Brotherhood is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback. It can also be viewed and downloaded for free in PDF format below:

CAIR Shows That Islamism and Civil Rights Don’t Mix

In a Middle East Form column titled Once Again, CAIR Shows That Islamism and Civil Rights Don’t Mix Gregg Roman and Sam Westrop write:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been claiming for years to be not merely the nation’s preeminent Muslim civil rights group, but a defender of the civil rights of all Americans.

In addition to denouncing alleged acts of “Islamophobia,” representatives of the organization have been quick to condemn acts of antisemitism, police shootings of African Americans, anti-LGBTQ violence, and so forth, while expressing solidarity with every “progressive” cause under the sun.

But peer beneath CAIR’s carefully-crafted press releases and publicity stunts and it’s clear that the group’s reactionary Islamist roots are as strong as ever.

Last week came a striking demonstration that CAIR’s support for workers’ rights is just a ruse. The group had been seeking for some time to block the Service Employees International Union from organizing the staff at its national office, claiming that it is a religious organization and therefore exempt from the National Labor Relations Act. The National Labor Relations Board rejected that argument in an April 7 ruling.

Beneath its carefully-crafted press releases, CAIR’s reactionary Islamist roots are as strong as ever.

Contrast this with the high-profile appearance just weeks earlier of a CAIR representative alongside auto workers in Marietta, GA, protesting the anti-union policies of a Nissan plant.

The same hypocrisy was on display in the wake of the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, FL, last year by a radical Islamist, when CAIR leaders across the country condemned anti-LGBTQ bigotry. The media fawned over a statement from the head of CAIR’s Florida chapter, Hassan Shibly, declaring his “overwhelming love and support and unity” for the LGBTQ community.

But CAIR, with it’s strong connections to the Sunni Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, whose hatred of homosexuals is quite explicit, has a long history of promoting homophobia.

Indeed, Shibly himself decried homosexuality as “evil” and a “quick way to earn God’s wrath” in a 2009 Facebook essay on gay marriage. While CAIR officials have avoided such statements since Orlando, the organization continues to host radical Islamist speakers notorious for gay-bashing at its events.

Siraj Wahhaj

Siraj Wahhaj, a frequent speaker at CAIR events and a former member of its advisory board, preaches hate and distrust of homosexuals. See MEF’s recent profile.

For example, the radical cleric Siraj Wahhaj, a former member of CAIR’s advisory board, remains one of the organization’s most frequent speakers. Wahhaj has preachedthat homosexuality is “a disease of this [American] society” and reminded his congregants, “[You know what the punishment is, if a man is found with another man? The Prophet Mohammad said the one who does it and the one to whom it is done to, kill them both.”

Although CAIR officials nowadays speak of women’s rights, the mainstay of the organization’s “civil rights” work is funding lawsuits under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other statutes to ostensibly protect the “right” of Muslim women to wear face-concealing religious garb in any and all circumstances, from police booking photos and airline security checkpoints to any number of jobs and professions that require dress codes.

“To be shown without a headscarf, it’s almost like being shown naked,” CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told the Washington Post last year.

CAIR claims it works to protect the rights of women, but it’s really about protecting the “right” of men to oppress women. Islamists want to create a social environment in which no American Muslim woman will ever have legitimate cause to take off her hijab without the permission of her husband or male relatives.

Islamic extremists prosper in the West because they’ve learned to exploit its rhetoric and democratic processes.

Again, CAIR’s choice of speakers at its events reveals the duplicity of the Islamist organization’s message. One cleric promoted by CAIR, Abdul Nasir Jangda, has justified the possession of female sex slaves, and advocated marital rape as a “divinely given right.”

The mainstream media rarely challenges CAIR representatives who appear on TV claiming to support lofty ideals that conflict squarely with the extremism they preach within the Muslim-American community.

Deceit lies at the heart of lawful Islamism. Extremists that prosper in the West do so because they have learned to exploit its rhetoric and democratic processes. But it cannot be long before that hypocrisy is laid bare – perhaps it will be the next time a CAIR official expresses solidarity with a labor union.

ABOUT GREGG ROMAN

Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum. Sam Westrop is director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fresno shooting rampage – 3 people killed, suspect yelled ‘Allahu Akbar,’ made posts against white people

Muslim pleads guilty to mosque arson in another fake ‘hate crime’

At the time the fire was set, it garnered much attention as a “hate crime”:

“The Houston chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on authorities to investigate a possible bias motive in the case, citing what it called a ‘recent spike in hate incidents targeting mosques nationwide.’”

But it turns out to have been yet another fake hate crime. Islamic supremacist groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims.

Hamas-linked CAIR, [is a] designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. Most notably, in February, a New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

huston-muslim-fake-hate-crime

Muslim Gary Nathaniel Moore

“Houston man pleads guilty in mosque fire on Christmas Day,” by Brian Rogers, Houston Chronicle, December 9, 2016 (thanks to Mike):

A Houston man was sentenced Friday to four years in prison after pleading guilty to starting a fire at a mosque on Christmas Day.

Gary Nathaniel Moore, 38 of Houston, was arrested last year in connection with a fire at 2 p.m. on Dec. 25 at a storefront mosque in the 1200 block of Wilcrest.

Moore told investigators at the scene that he had attended the mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week, according to court records.

Moore pleaded guilty to arson and using a fire as a deadly weapon, an enhancement which means he will have to serve at least half of the prison time before being eligible for parole….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslim singer’s family gets death threats from Muslims for photo of their Christmas tree

Germany: “Almost three quarters of all Algerian immigrants have popped up as suspects” in sex assault cases

VIDEO: Exposing the cynical and deceptive ‘Islamophobin’ propaganda campaign

As the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) distributes its “Islamophobin” gum at the Republican National Convention, I expose the dishonesty and propagandistic manipulativeness of the entire “Islamophobin” campaign.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Britain’s first Muslim mayor is kicked out after being found guilty of blackmailing voters

Germany: Muslim bomber carried powerful explosives, authorities say no evidence of “extremism”

Germany: At least 1 dead, 11 injured in suicide bombing at wine bar

Hamas Manual Calls for Hiding Bombs in Civilian Homes

Germany: Muslim migrant who stabbed non-Muslims urged Muslims to murder apostates; authorities search for motive

Islamic Supremacist Organization Met With Congress 325 Times in 2016

CAIR also says it enjoyed $3 million worth of free advertising through media appearances this year alone, resulting in 50 million views of its work.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group identified by the Justice Department as a Muslim Brotherhood entity and designated as terrorists by the United Arab Emirates, boasts of having 325 meetings with members of Congress or their staff over the last year.

The group says it also enjoyed $3 million worth free advertising through media appearances this year alone, resulting in 50 million views of its work.

A 2007 court filing by federal prosecutors notes how two of CAIR’s founders were wiretapped at a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993, where they participated in a robust discussion of how to use deception to influence American public opinion in a direction favorable to the Islamist cause. It states:

From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists … the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.

Cair-Nihad-Awad-Ibrahim-Hooper-HP_35

CAIR founder and executive director Nihad Awad (right) with Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director and spokesperson.

CAIR’s fundraising video boasts that there were 14,000 mentions of CAIR on radio or television this year alone, and that it has a database of 1.6 million media contacts to use. The organization said it has 65 trained spokespeople, 29 offices and 35 full-time lawyers.

The White House’s director of community partnerships said in 2012 that there had been “hundreds” of meetings between U.S. government agencies and CAIR. However, CAIR was curiously left out of President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism Summit in 2015, even though other Islamists were invited.

After participants were made known, CAIR attacked President Obama’s event as Islamophobic.

CAIR’s power can give the impression that it is the leader of the Muslim-American community, but it is, in reality, the manifestation of a well-funded and well-organized Brotherhood network that has been building up its presence in the U.S. since the 1960s. CAIR was born out of this network in 1994 and has prospered with plentiful foreign financing.

A 2011 Gallup poll found that CAIR is most popular Muslim-American organization but only about 12% of Muslim-Americans say CAIR is the organization that most represents them, despite its strong name recognition, media presence and infrastructure.

CAIR’s boasts are a reminder of its power to intimidate, pressure and influence. However, since close to 90 percent of the Muslim-American community says CAIR does not represent them, there is a leadership gap that can be filled by a non-Islamist Muslim group whose values and record more closely reflect those of the Muslim-American community.

Muslims who are against Islamism have a steep hill to climb in competing with CAIR and its allies, but we must remember that they have low name identification and are attacked and excluded by their Islamist competitors who have had much more time and resources to develop.

If CAIR can accomplish all this, then imagine what a genuinely moderate organization could accomplish with time and resources.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Hope for Law to Designate Brotherhood as Terrorists in US

FBI Joins Fight Against FGM

Florida Man Charged With Attempting to Bomb Synagogue

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting

Orlando Shooter Played the Islamophobia Card

Whenever Islamists are scrutinized, the first card they play is to shout “Islamophobia.” Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was no exception.

Whenever Islamists are scrutinized, the first card they play is to shout “Islamophobia.” Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was no exception. When he startled his coworkers by expressing his sympathy for terrorist groups, he explained that he didn’t really mean it — Islamophobia made him do it.

FBI Director James Comey’s official remarks included the following:

 “We first became aware of him in May of 2013. He was working as a contract security guard at a local court house. He made some statements that were inflammatory and contradictory that concerned his coworkers about terrorism. First, he claimed family connections to al Qaeda. He also said that he was a member of Hezbollah, which is a Shia terrorist organization that is bitter enemy of the so called Islamic State, ISIL. He said he hoped that law enforcement would raid his apartment and assault his wife and child so that he could martyr himself…

“…We then interviewed him twice. He admitted making the statements that his co-workers reported, but explained that he did it in anger because he thought his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim.”

A coworker of Mateen’s at G4S Security says he complained to their boss about his incessant talk about killing people, racism, homophobia and stalking via text message. The colleague says he left his job because the boss was afraid to fire Mateen because he was a Muslim (the company’s screening procedures and employment of two other murderers is now under the microscope). The FBI Director’s statement above substantiates the coworker’s testimony.

False or exaggerated claims of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim persecution have been used since at least the 1980s. The Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group used it in the 80s as well as later when their terrorist training compound was raided in Colorado in 1992.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a prominent Islamist cleric in New York listed as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in the case claimed that the U.S. government was framing Muslims using “agent provocateurs” in mosques.

After 9/11, every single Muslim Brotherhood-linked group in America locked arms and played the Islamophobia card when one of their comrades was investigated by the authorities, such as during Operation Green Quest in 2002 or the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas.

One such entity, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), jumps to portray terrorism suspects as victims at practically every opportunity, painting the Muslim-American community as essentially under siege by Islamophobes and U.S. government agencies hell-bent on oppressing Muslims and stripping them of civil liberties.

The “Islamophobia” slander works because it exploits genuine anti-Muslim sentiment to form a shield around anyone threatened by a discussing of Islamist extremism. It’s so over-the-top that some Muslim activists are complaining about the abuse of the term.

The success of the slanderous tactic has birthed a double-headed phenomenon of “Islamophobia-phobia.”

One aspect causes people to refrain from reporting suspicious behavior for fear of being called a bigot. The other is a fixation on stopping anti-Muslim prejudice that leads one to reflexively attack anyone discussing Islamism and bend over backwards to downplay, excuse or deny any connection between Islam and negativity.

Case in point: 41% of Americans view the Orlando attack more as an incident of domestic gun violence than Islamic terrorism.

Islamists and their allies in the “P.C. police” are trying to create a world where Islamist extremism doesn’t exist; where there’s only false accusations of extremism by Islamophobes and real extremism provoked by Islamophobes.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Good Does Hurling Insults at Someone Accomplish?

CAIR: Supporters of Gun Control Bill Are Anti-Muslim

GOP Leaders Stall Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Act

Number of Refugees Arrested for Terror Higher than Reported

GOP Leaders Stall Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Act

Eighty members of Congress, including two Democrats, now support the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, with one more congressman and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee signing up since the last update. There’s only one problem: The Republican leadership is stalling it, even though the House version passed the Judiciary Committee.

The two new cosponsors are Senator David Perdue (R-GA) and Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA). The former is especially significant because he is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where it is held up. A list of cosponsors and opponents is available at the bottom of this article.

Terrorism expert Patrick Poole writes that the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker (R-TN), has not even held hearings on the bill, much less arranged for it to be voted on. Corker is reportedly being vetted as a potential running mate for Donald Trump.

The story is even more discouraging in the House, where support for the bill was proven when it passed the Judiciary Committee. Yet, Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy have not given any public indication that he’ll have the House vote on it.

“There really is no good reason why GOP leadership should continue blocking these bills from coming to the floor. Our closest allies, namely Egypt, Israel and Jordan, are taking action against the Muslim Brotherhood. As the Brotherhood rank-and-file in Egypt escalate terror attacks, and Brotherhood militias openly ally with Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and other affiliates across the Middle East become more militant, we should not be giving them aid and refuge while our allies actively fight them,” Poole told Clarion Project.

Four organizations representing persecuted Christians are also pushing for the bill. A prominent Kurdish Muslim activist is alsosupporting the bill.

You can make a difference in less than one minute. Ask your representative to take a stand by using our easy online form.

Numerous congressional staff members have told us about how much of an impact our readers are having on Capitol Hill—many arehearing you, but the voices must be persistent and louder.

Even if the act does not pass, this is a unique opportunity to find out which members of Congress pay attention to this issue, and where they stand on the Muslim Brotherhood and its U.S.-based affiliates. The legislation outlines the evidence linking the Brotherhood and Hamas to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), theIslamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

See where your representatives stand—or if they have even taken a stand—by looking at the chart below:

 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Members Without a Stated Position on S2230

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ranking Member

Christopher Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker (R-TN); Chairman

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Edward Markey (D-WA)

Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

James Risch (R-ID)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

Senators in Support of the Act

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Original introducer of legislation

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Jerry Moran (R-KS)

James Inhofe (R-OK)

David Perdue (R-GA)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Representatives in Support of HR3892 (Cosponsors and/or Voted Yay)

Mike Bishop (R-MI) Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Ken Buck (R-CO) Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH) Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Curt Clawson (R-FL) Doug Collins (R-GA)
Charlie W. Dent (R-PA) Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJerlais (R-TN) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX) J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ) Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Kay Granger (R-TX) Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Darrell Issa (R-CA) Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH) David P. Joyce (R-OH)
Steve King (R-IA) Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Tom Marino (R-PA) John L. Mica (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS) Colin C. Peterson (D-MN)
Ted Poe (R-TX) Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Bill Posey (R-FL) John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Rouzer (R-NC) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lamar Smith (R-TX) Steve Stivers (R-OH)
David A. Trott (R-MI) Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Randy Weber (R-TX) Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
James B. Renacci (R-OH) Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Peter J. Roskam (R-IL) Tim Huelskamp (R-KS
Charlie J. Fleischmann (R-TN) Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Dave Brat (R-VA) Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX) Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Gene Green (D-TX) Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA) Doug Lamborn (R-C)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) Austin Scott (R-GA)
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Robert J. Dold (R-IL) Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Tom Marino (R-PA)

 

Representatives Opposed to the Act

Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)

Click here to easily contact your representatives with just a few clicks! Please let us know if you receive a position statement.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Paul Ryan Under Pressure to Outflank Democrats, Not Just Scold Them

Number of Refugees Arrested for Terror Higher than Reported

CAIR to Stand Trial for Massive Fraud

Orlando Shooter Played the Islamophobia Card

New Islamophobia Report: Authors Linked to Hamas

EDITORS NOTE: Readers who wish to join the campaign to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization should contact their members of Congress. The featured image is of House Speaker Paul Ryan has not given any public indication that he’ll have the House vote on the bill. (Photo: Video screenshot)