Thursday, 30 April 2015

Senior female ISIS agent unmasked and traced to Seattle

Screen-Shot-2015-04-30-at-2.53.09-PM-800x406
Channel 4 News, April 28, 2015:

She’s one of the final people that would-be jihadis might speak to before crossing the border to join the Islamic State group in Syria. The woman that the world’s media claim is Dutch or British and in the group’s de facto capital of Raqqa, with considerable online and offline influence.

Flick through the group’s new online “travel guidebook” and her contact details are listed, alongside 17 other agents and middlemen. Recruits are told to get in touch with these people when they make it to Turkey and want a contact in ISIS to help them cross the border.

This is the mysterious but influential woman until now known only as

Her Twitter account was recently accessed from Seattle, though friends say she has moved away, and her exact location remains unclear.

“I’m actually lost for words”, one school friend who wished to stay anonymous told Channel 4 News. “The Rawdah you are referring to is a childhood friend.” She said that the

ISIS cheerleaderThose doing the radicalising deliberately hide who they are. But they are altering lives one by one, in the US, in Europe and in the Middle East. They are generating support for the Islamic State group with such success, leaving intelligence agencies and families scrambling to cope.

The Brookings Institute says that social media is used “to spread and legitimise IS’s ideology, activities, and objectives, and to recruit and acquire international support”.

The intelligence community says that the way ISIS uses social media and online presentations has also been a game changer for recruitment. And the FBI last week declared that the US has a terror recruiting problem, with 25 people detained this year, a surge compared to last year.

The

While Twitter has moved aggressively in recent months to shut down ISIS-linked accounts, Umm Waqqas shared multiple ISIS documents on emigration months before her account was finally suspended earlier this month.

Bring two flashlights. Expect to be robbed. And don’t take taxis that will rip you off.

This is advice offered within

the ISIS travel guide linked to by Umm Waqqas

; a practical guide to making ‘Hijrah’ (emigrating) to join the Islamic State group. She is herself referenced within its pages as a key ISIS contact – someone who can help you join the Islamic State group.

So it’s no surprise that she is regularly sent requests for help on Twitter from people eager to sign up. Not only does she share guides written by others, she also posts her personal advice on how to emigrate successfully; she states the importance of having someone to vouch for you, for instance.

She also uploaded screenshots of four pages of the official ISIS magazine, which explain the importance of Muslims joining the Caliphate, accompanied by the word “enjoy”.

The pages give advice to those considering emigrating to the Islamic State, on how to accomplish it and the spiritual justification for doing so. She says there are “swarms of families flocking to [Islamic State].”

NJ Islamic Center to host Muslim Brotherhood Shari’ah event

3506095By Cultural Jihad, April 30. 2015:

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) has a history of being associated with Islamic radicals promoting terror …

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) advises that on May 2, 22015, the Islamic Center of Passaic County (Paterson, New Jersey) will host “Understanding Shari’ah: Sacred Principles for Human Development” in collaboration with the Fiqh Council of North America.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch notes the following about the council:

The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) is an organization comprised of Islamic scholars associated with the Global Muslim Brotherhood. As FCNA itself acknowledges, the organization grew out of the activities of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and later became affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), itself an outgrowth of MSA. FCNA maintains a relationship with other similar bodies in the Global Muslim Brotherhood including the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) as well as the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Saudi Arabia.Two individuals known to have been ECFR members, Jamal Badawi and Solah Soltan, are also known to have been associated with the FCNA.

Most of scheduled speakers for the May 2nd event are from U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organizations:

  • Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi (ISNA, NAIT)
  • Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah (ICNA)
  • Dr. Ihsan Bagby (ISNA)
  • Br. Azhar Azeez (President of ISNA)
  • Sh. Mohammad Qatanani (HAMAS)
  • Dr. Zainab Alwani (IIIT and daughter of MB leader Taha Al-Alwani)
  • Sh. Yasir Fahmy
  • Prof. Ebrahim Moosa

ISNA – Islamic Society of North America
ICNA – Islamic Circle of North America
NAIT – North American Islamic Trust
IIIT – International Institute of Islamic Thought

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) has a history of being associated with Islamic radicals promoting terror.  A 2013 Clarion Project reports:

The Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) was founded by Mohammad El-Mezain, who was convicted in 2008 for fundraising for Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation. It is led today by Imam Mohammad Qatanani, whose deportation is sought by the Department of Homeland Security.

Muhammad al-Hanooti was an imam at ICPC from 1990 to 1995.  He was president of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a pro-Hamas organization and Muslim Brotherhood front organization, from 1984 to 1986.

… [FULL ARTICLE]

In January 2014, the ICPC hosted Syrian Sheik Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi as part of an 11-city tour across America and co-sponsored by the Syrian American Council (SAC).   The Sheik al-Nabulsi supports suicide bombings and has labeled all Jews as combatants.

In 2014 we  reported on the lobbying efforts of SAC on Capitol Hill and its ties to the MB.

Shia Militia Leader Explodes Over Possibility of U.S. Support for Kurdish Forces

Peshmerga fighters walk in the Tal al-Ward district, 20 miles southwest of Kirkuk, Iraq, in March.

Peshmerga fighters walk in the Tal al-Ward district, 20 miles southwest of Kirkuk, Iraq, in March.

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, April 30, 2015:

Shia leader Moqtada Al-Sadr, head of the Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM), issued a stark denunciation of the U.S. Defense Bill currently in front of the U.S. House of Representatives this week, threatening to fight U.S. interests both in Iraq and overseas, in the event that the bill passed.

Al Sadr opposes the bill, because it would authorize the direct transfer of military aid to Kurdish Peshmerga and Sunni tribal forces in order to fight the Islamic State, outside of the direct control of the central government in Baghdad.

“The U.S. House of Representatives intends to pass a draft law on Iraq making each sect independent from the other, and this will be the beginning of Iraq’s division,” Sadr said in a statement. If the U.S. passes such law, “then we will be obliged to lift the freeze on the military wing which is tasked with (fighting) the American side, to start hit the U.S. interests in Iraq and even abroad possibly,” Sadr warned.

Al Sadr’s JAM was one of the primary Shia militia forces used by Iran during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and responsible the deaths of numerous American fighting men and women. Iraq has primarily leaned on the use of Shia militias, operating under the rubric of the Popular Moblization Forces, but many of the 30,000+ militia fighters operate under direct command and control from the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The Baghdad government, which is heavily supported by Iran, has also vocally opposed the measure:

We will reject the arming of the Peshmerga directly by the US,” Iraq’s Defense Minister Khalid Al-Obeidi, told Rudaw on Thursday.

Kurdish forces have repeatedly complained that aid designated for use by their forces has repeatedly been redirected by the Baghdad government to Shia militias, some of whom are responsible for sectarian war crimes. Kurdish forces have also expressed concernover the entry of Shia forces into areas viewed by the Kurds as traditionally Kurdish, such as Kirkuk.

Supporters of the Peshmerga took to twitter to complain about the double standard:

Garmiyani tweet

In the United States, the Obama Administration finds itself on the same side of the argument as Moqtada Al-Sadr, opposing the bill to permit arms for Kurdish forces. As State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf confirmed yesterday:

QUESTION: Yes. Do you have any comment about this draft resolution at the Armed Services Committee that calls for the recognition of the Sunni fighters and the Kurdish Peshmerga forces as a country, and so they can be – directly receive aid and weapons from the U.S., not through the central government?

MS HARF: I saw that. I saw that. And to be very clear: The policy of this Administration is clear and consistent in support of a unified Iraq, and that we’ve always said a unified Iraq is stronger, and it’s important to the stability of the region as well. Our military assistance and equipment deliveries, our policy remains the same there as well, that all arms transfers must be coordinated via the sovereign central government of Iraq. We believe this policy is the most effective way to support the coalition’s efforts.

So we look forward to working with congress on language that we could support on this important issue, but the draft bill, as you noted, in the House – this is very early in the process here for the NDAA – as currently written on this issue, of course, does not reflect Administration policy.

By opposing the direct arming of Sunni and Kurdish forces (and the Kurdish forces in particular), the administration is continuing a policy arc in the region that continues to serve the interests of the Iranians because it creates a dynamic where the only viable players are either Sunni jihadists (whether Islamic State, or in the case of Syria, Al Qaeda-linked groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra), or Iranian-backed forces, such as Assad and the Shia militias operating in Iraq, who are no less committed enemies of the United States.  Bringing supplies directly to Kurdish forces will give the United States a third option to positively affect the outcome of events in Iraq without requiring the modus vivendi with the Iranians.

Islam and the Omaha Tri-Faith Initiative

Currently underway in the Heartland of America is an experiment in interfaith dialogue and coexistence: the Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska. The goal of the Tri-Faith Initiative is to have a synagogue, a mosque, and a church located on a common piece of land, each with its own separate building; the Tri-Faith hopes to later add a fourth building as a shared Tri-Faith Center. The location for this venture is 35 acres in the Sterling Ridge development in Omaha.

The original institutional members of the Tri-Faith Initiative were Temple Israel, the American Institute of Islamic Studies and Culture (AIISC), and the Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska. In 2014 the Episcopal Diocese asked Countryside Community Church to takes its place as the Christian partner in the Tri-Faith. On April 12, 2015, Countryside voted in favor of relocating its church to the Tri-Faith grounds and becoming the Christian partner.

The Tri-Faith’s Memorandum of Understanding states, “In working together, our vision is to build bridges of respect, trust and acceptance…” Unfortunately, Islamic doctrine prohibits Muslims from respecting, trusting, or accepting Jews and Christians (unless of course the latter pay the jizyah).

So I decided to contact three non-Muslims who are heavily involved in the Tri-Faith Initiative: Rabbi Aryeh Azriel of Temple Israel; Reverend Eric Elnes of Countryside Community Church; and Susie Buffett, daughter of multi-billionaire Warren Buffet, a member of Countryside Community Church, and Chairperson of the Sherwood Foundation.

I sent each of them the following e-mail:

In light of your extensive involvement with the Tri-Faith Initiative, I am interested in your view on the following matter.

The Vision Statement of the Tri-Faith Initiative talks about building “bridges of Respect, Trust and Acceptance” between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.  This is a commendable idea, but how can such bridges be built when Islamic doctrine prohibits it?  Please consider:

The Koran says the following about Jews and Christians:

  1. Allah is angry with the Jews, and the Christians are misguided because they believe that Jesus is the son of God (1:7).
  1. Muslims are commanded not to make friends with Jews and Christians (e.g. 5:51), although Muslims can pretend to be friends if the situation so dictates (3:28).
  1. Jews are among the worst enemies of Islam (5:82).
  1. Muslims are commanded to fight Jews and Christians until the Jews and Christians pay protection money with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (9:29).
  1. Allah curses the Jews and the Christians (9:30).
  1. Jews and Christians are among the worst of creatures and “will abide in the fire of Hell” (98:6).

Muhammad spoke for Allah (4:80), Muslims are commanded to obey Muhammad (59:7), and he is considered the timeless standard by which Muslims should conduct themselves (33:21). Consider that Muhammad said:

  1. Jews and Christians are each worth only half of a Muslim (Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2644).
  1. Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it(Sahih Muslim, No. 2167).
  1. The Hour will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim!  There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him(Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 2926).
  1. The Jews were grave robbers (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 3452).
  1. Jews and Christians will take the place of Muslims in Hell (Sahih Muslim, No. 2767R1).
  1. I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims(Sahih Muslim, No. 1767).

If the Koran truly consists of the commands of Allah, and if Muhammad truly spoke for Allah and is to be obeyed, how can Islam be a partner in building “bridges of Respect, Trust and Acceptance” with Jews and Christians?

Unfortunately, after sending the e-mail twice to each of the three, and after waiting a number of weeks, I have still not received replies from Azriel, Elnes, or Buffett.

Non-Muslims and Islamic Doctrine

Why would the non-Muslim portion of the Tri-Faith Initiative appear to deny or simply ignore the Islamic doctrine that undermines the idea of this venture? Due to the silence of Azriel, Elnes and Buffett, we do not know.

However, we do know that there are many millions of dollars involved in the Tri-Faith Initiative.

In December 2011, the Episcopal Diocese purchased 6.35 acres of land in the Sterling Ridge development for almost $1.3 million. At that same time the Tri-Faith Initiative organization itself purchased 3.6 acres in an adjoining lot for almost $800,000.00.

In December 2011, Rabbi Azriel and the congregation of Temple Israel purchased 13.54 acres of land in that development for almost $3 million; this was to be the site of their new synagogue. In August 2013, the congregation moved into their new synagogue. It is 58,500 square feet in size (a third larger than the previous synagogue), and features stone from a Jerusalem quarry and artwork done by an international group of artists.

With the successful vote on April 12, 2015, Countryside Community Church can now move forward. Countryside’s new church will be an estimated 71,100 square feet in size; the existing church is only 58,000 square feet. The cost, including the land, is estimated to be about $25 million. Reverend Elnes stated that there was already $16.1 million in financial commitments, mostly from among the 1,500 congregation members.

Susie Buffett’s Sherwood Foundation is extensively involved. She was quoted as saying that she would provide an unspecified amount of financial support for the new Countryside church. In fact, according to available IRS records (Form 990’s), in 2011-2013 the Sherwood Foundation had contributed $191,000.00 to Countryside church. These records also showed that during that same time period the Sherwood Foundation had contributed $1,305,000.00 to the Muslim partner, the AIISC. This was almost 79% of the total amount of contributions received by AIISC during that time period. And during the years 2012-2013, the Sherwood Foundation contributed $270,000.00 to the Tri-Faith Initiative itself.

Millions of dollars have been spent, and many more millions will be spent, by non-Muslims to see the Tri-Faith Initiative a success. With so much money involved, non-Muslims could tend to view the Islamic doctrine that undermines the very goals of the Tri-Faith Initiative as a minor annoyance to be denied or ignored.

Muslims and Islamic Doctrine

We have commands of Allah in the Koran and teachings from Muhammad that prohibit the idea of the Tri-Faith Initiative. Non-Muslims can deny or ignore them. But what about the Muslims in AIISC (now known as the American Muslim Institute)? They are committed to the Tri-Faith Initiative. After all, in December 2011, AIISC spent a little over $800,000 to buy 3.85 acres in the Sterling Ridge development. So let’s consider some additional, relevant Islamic doctrine.

Muhammad said that anyone denying a verse of the Koran could be killed:

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever denies a Verse of the Qur’an, it is permissible to strike his neck (i.e. execute him)…”

Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2539

In Chapter 59, Verse 7, the Koran specifically commands Muslims to obey Muhammad:

…And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And fear Allah; verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.

And Muslims are not only expected to know the Koran, but they are also expected to act on its commands. In the following authoritative hadith, Muhammad talks about the penalty for knowing the Koran, but not acting on it. He tells us what he saw when the angels Gabriel and Michael had taken him to visit the “Sacred Land”:

…we went on till we came to a man lying in a prone position, and another man standing at his head carrying a stone or a piece of rock, and crushing the head of the lying man with that stone. Whenever he struck him, the stone rolled away. The man went to pick it up and by the time he returned to him, the crushed head returned to its normal state and the man came back and struck him again (and so on).

When Muhammad asked about this man, the angels replied:

The one whose head you saw being crushed is the one whom Allah had given the knowledge of the Qur’an (i.e. knowing it by heart), but he used to sleep at night (i.e., he did not recite it then) and did not use to act upon it (i.e., upon its orders etc.) by day; and so this punishment will go on till the Day of Resurrection.

Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 1386

It is blasphemy for a Muslim to deny a verse of the Koran or a teaching of Muhammad. But it is also blasphemy, and potentially head-crushing, for a Muslim not to act on a command from Allah or a teaching of Muhammad. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see if the larger Muslim community in Nebraska decides to support the Tri-Faith Initiative, or follow the commands of Allah and the teachings of Muhammad.

***

Don’t miss Mark Christian on The Glazov Gang discuss Confronting the Muslim Brotherhood in the American Heartland:

Britain’s Labour Party Vows to Ban Islamophobia

The leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has vowed, if he becomes the next prime minister in general elections on May 7, to outlaw “Islamophobia.”

The move — which one observer has called “utterly frightening” because of its implications for free speech in Britain — is part of an effort by Miliband to pander to Muslim voters in a race that he has described as “the tightest general election for a generation.”

With the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour running neck and neck in the polls just days before voters cast their ballots, British Muslims — who voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the 2010 general election — could indeed determine who will be the next prime minister.

In an interview with The Muslim News, Miliband said:

“We are going to make it [Islamophobia] an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.

“We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”

Miliband appears to be trying to reopen a long-running debate in Britain over so-called religious hatred. Between 2001 and 2005, the then-Labour government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, made two attempts (here and here) to amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, to extend existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred.

Those efforts ran into opposition from critics who said the measures were too far-reaching and threatened the freedom of speech. At the time, critics argued that the scope of the Labour government’s definition of “religious hatred” was so draconian that it would have made any criticism of Islam a crime.

In January 2006, the House of Lords approved the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, after amending the text so that the law would be limited to banning only “threatening” words and not those that are merely abusive or insulting. Lawmakers also said that the offense would require the intention — not just the possibility — of stirring up religious hatred. They added that proselytizing, discussion, criticism, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offense.

Miliband’s renewed promise to make “Islamophobia” (a term he has not defined) an “aggravated crime” may signal an attempt to turn the 2006 Act — which already stipulates a maximum penalty of seven years in prison for stirring up religious hatred — into a full-blown Muslim blasphemy law.

According to British commentator Leo McKinstry, “Miliband’s proposal goes against the entire tradition of Western democracy, which holds that people should be punished only for their deeds, not their opinions.” In an opinion article, he added:

“In Miliband’s Britain, it will become impossible to criticise any aspect of Islamic culture, whether it be the spread of the burka or the establishment of Sharia courts or the construction of colossal new mosques. We already live in a society where Mohammed is now the most popular boy’s name and where a child born in Birmingham is more likely to be a Muslim than a Christian. If he wins, Miliband will ensure that the accelerating Islamification of our country will go unchallenged.”

McKinstry says Miliband is currying favor with Britain’s three million-strong Muslim community to “prop up Labour’s urban vote.”

Muslims are emerging as a key voting bloc in British politics and are already poised to determine the outcome of local elections in many parts of the country, according to a report by the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella group.

The report shows that Britain’s Muslim population is overwhelmingly young and will exert increasing political influence as time goes on. The median age of the Muslim population in Britain is 25 years, compared to the overall population’s median age of 40 years.

An extrapolation of the available data indicates that one million British Muslims aged 18 and above will be eligible to vote in this year’s election. According to one study, Muslims could determine the outcome of up to 25% of the 573 Parliamentary seats in England and Wales.

Others say that although Britain’s Muslim community is growing, it is also ethnically diverse and unlikely to vote as a single group. One analyst has argued that the potential for Muslim influence in this year’s election “will remain unrealized because the Muslim vote is not organized in any meaningful way on a national level.”

A study produced by Theos, a London-based religious think tank, found that although Muslims consistently vote Labour, they do so based on class and economic considerations, not out of religious motives.

Indeed, a poll conducted by the BBC on April 17 found that nearly one-quarter of “Asian” voters still do not know which party they will support at the general election. Some of those interviewed by the BBC said that economic issues would determine whom they vote for.

In any event, Muslim influence in the 2015 vote will be largely determined by Muslim voter turnout, which has been notoriously low in past elections: Only 47% of British Muslims were estimated to have voted in 2010.

Since then, several grassroots campaigns have been established to encourage British Muslims to go to the polls in 2015, including Get Out & Vote, Muslim Vote and Operation Black Vote. Another group, YouElect, states:

“A staggering 53% of British Muslims did not vote in the 2010 General Election, such a high figure of Muslim non-voters indicates that many Muslims feel ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the political process.

“With the rise of Islamophobic rhetoric in politics and an ever increasing amount of anti-terror legislation which specifically targets Muslims, it is now more important than ever that Muslims use the vote to send a message to politicians that their attitudes and policies must change.

“YouElect wants to get the message across that there is something you can do about the issues you care about. We have launched a new campaign using the hashtag #SortItOut, which calls on Muslims to use the political process to address the issues that concern them most.

“With 100,000 new young Muslims eligible to vote this year and 26 parliamentary constituencies with a Muslim population of over 20%, the Muslim community has a very real opportunity to make an impact on British politics.”

Not all Muslims agree. The British-born Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary is actively discouraging Muslims from voting. In a stream of Twitter messages using the #StayMuslimDontVote hashtag, Choudary has argued that voting is a “sin” against Islam because Allah is “the only legislator.” He has also said that Muslims who vote or run for public office are “apostates.”

 

Despite several grassroots campaigns to encourage British Muslims to vote in greater numbers, some prominent Islamists in the UK claim that voting is a “sin.”

Other British Islamists are following Choudary’s lead. Bright yellow posters claiming that democracy “violates the right of Allah” have been spotted in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, and Leicester, as part of a grassroots campaign called #DontVote4ManMadeLaw.

One such poster stated:

“Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.

“Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

The Mullahs and the Real Iran

2013-635099275337871955-787American Thinker, By Manda Zand Ervin, April 30, 2015:

In an article in New York Times April 26th issue titled; “Iran Won’t Give up on its Revolution“, three of the Washington Institute senior fellow experts on Iran have wrongly connected the history of Iran to an anti-Iranian Moslem Shia establishment without any facts or documentation. Here are the historical facts that these gentlemen have ignored:

The article says: “Although the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is often cited as the beginning of this imperial worldview, Iran’s hegemonic aspirations actually date back to the Safavid Dynasty of the 16th century.”

It looks as if these gentlemen are trying to give a historical legitimacy to the power-grabbing Islamic regime in Iran while trying to more isolate and discredit the Iranian people.

Here are the historical facts; the Safavid dynasty was not Iranian, it was a Turkish tribe from Lebanon who conquered Iran in 1499. Until then, Iran had no national religion dating back to the human rights proclamation of the Cyrus the Great and freedom of the Jews from Babylonian slavery, in 539 BCE. The Safavids were Shia, and upon their occupation they imported a group of Shia clerics, olima, from Lebanon — hence the connection of Iranian Shia establishment with the Hizb’allah — including the infamous Mohammad Baghir Madjlesi, the author of the rule of Jurisprudents, meaning the god-given rule of clerics, that Khomeini adopted 300 years later and implemented in Iran again in 1979.

The imported Shiite establishment overrode the Iranian culture and civilization of human rights, equal rights of women, freedom of worship and respect for all, dismissing it as pagan and enforcing a new culture of Islamic Sharia laws written by Madjlesi.

In response to this next statement: “In the ensuing centuries, Iran extended its control over Afghanistan, the “Persian” Gulf, Iraq and the southern Caucasus.”

It is also true that the Persian Gulf has been Persian since the first Millennium BCE, and also during the same time span, Iran lost territories to the Ottomans and Afghan Khans. From 1501 to 1925 Iran was conquered by the Safavid Turks and then Qajar Tartars and dominated by Russian and British imperialists for almost a hundred years.

The Shia establishment never considered themselves Iranian, as they are rooted in Lebanon and have kept the ties by intermarriage. In 1979, when the American reporter on the plane to Iran asked Ayatollah Khomeini about his feelings going back to Iran after all these years, Khomeini responded with one word, hichi, nothing.  He repeatedly said that Iran is not important, it is only a source and a base to establish his Islamic foundation to spread in the region and the world.

The Iranian people have never considered the Shia clergy as one of their own either, for the reason that mullahs have enforced their ideology by denigrating Iranian history and culture. There is no love lost between the two parts of Iran; the regime on one side and the people of Iran on the opposite side.

Marguerite Del Giudice traveled to Iran in 2008 and spent some time listening to the people “privately”. In her long article for National Geographic’s August 2008 issue she reveals the hidden feelings of the Iranian people in a few sentence such as: “An irony is that the Islamic revolution — at times referred to as the “second Arab invasion” — appears to have strengthened the very ties to antiquity that it tries so hard to sever. On page 62 she writes; “The first thing people said when I asked what they wanted the world to know about them was, “We are not Arabs” (followed closely by, “We are not Terrorists”).”

There is no connection between the Islamic Republic of the Shia clergy and Iranian history or culture. These two are in opposition. The only fact is that Khamanei and his gang want to guarantee their rule by having the Bomb. He wants to continue the Khomeinist doctrine that has nothing to do with Iran and Iranian history, civilization or culture.

The Shia establishment has always denied Iranians’ history and have even declared that Cyrus the Great was made up by the Jews and that he never existed.

Connecting the Islamist movement that has taken over Iran to Iran’s ancient history and culture is an insult to an already devastated and silenced people who cannot exonerate themselves. It is discrimination against the people of Iran to farther isolate them from the international community by making them partners in the crimes that Khamenei and his gang are committing (inlcuing this week’s seizure of the M/V Maersk Tigris in the Gulf of Hormuz). And please don’t call the Shia establishment Iran, they are not Iran, they are the Shia clergies in Iran.

Don’t Believe the Hype about Zaytuna College

zaytunaAmerican Thinker, By Stephen Schwartz, April 29, 2015:

The accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) of tiny Zaytuna College, an Islamist project with seventeen professors and fifty students in Berkeley, California that has been called “America’s first Muslim liberal arts college,” has been lauded — and misrepresented — in the mainstream press. A Religion News Service article reprinted in the Washington Post and elsewhere, including the Christian Century, described Zaytuna as “A college that requires the study of both Wordsworth and the Quran for graduation… now the first fully accredited Islamic university in America.”

Yet WASC approved only one program: a B.A. in Islamic law and theology. Moreover, it stated that, “The phrase ‘fully accredited’ is to be avoided, since no partial accreditation is possible.” This distortion may be blamed on sloppy reporting, since such a degree program would not a university make, even in a Muslim country. As disclosed by Zaytuna itself in a March 8 statement, WACS accreditation provided Zaytuna with a vague status as “an American Muslim college [that] has now joined the nation’s community of accredited institutions of higher education.”  No mention appears of “full” accreditation or pretentions to being a university. According to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), accreditation is optional for private schools in California.

It appears that Zaytuna originally intended to accept federal and state funds (for which accreditation is necessary), since a list of frequently asked questions on its website declares, “Until Zaytuna College achieves accreditation, students will not be eligible for any state and federal grants or loans.” Yet today Zaytuna (along with such colleges as Hillsdale and Christendom) “does not participate in state or federal grant or loan programs,” a standing that exempts it from federal regulations regarding, among other matters, the sex and race of the student body.

The college’s founder, Hamza Yusuf Hanson, a convert to Islam who was born Mark Hanson and raised Greek Orthodox, carries the honorific title Shaykh, which denotes respectability within the Muslim community but does not imply the attainment of educational or religious credentials. Two days before the atrocities of September 11, 2001, Yusuf declared in Los Angeles that America stood “condemned” and “unfortunately has a great, great tribulation coming to it.”

Hanson’s partners in the Zaytuna venture include two more well-known Islamists: Hatem Bazian, a senior lecturer in the University of Berkeley, California’s departments of Near Eastern and ethnic studies notorious for his vitriolic anti-Israel rhetoric, and the American imam Zaid Shakir. Bazian is also director of Berkeley’s “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project” — an ideological rather than scholarly effort — and Shakir has discounted the atrocities of the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) by comparing them with the depredations of Mexican drug cartels.

While Bazian’s teaching responsibilities at Zaytuna are not specified in the college catalogue, Shakir is “chair of Zaytuna’s Student Affairs Committee, which looks after student residential life and co-curricular activities.” Both are members of the college’s board of trustees.

The college operates from two buildings on Berkeley’s “Holy Hill” within in a cluster of religious seminaries around the UC Berkeley Graduate Theological Union (GTU). This setting was predictable, since, according to its website, Zaytuna was launched in 1996 as an Islamic seminary in the nearby suburb of Hayward, California.  Hanson, Shakir, and Bazian changed their project to that of a “Muslim liberal arts college” in 2009.

The Zaytuna website avers that all students who have not passed one year of classical Arabic with a C or better must pass its Arabic intensive language placement test. There are seventeen faculty members, although its website does not identify the courses they teach.

As for Wordsworth, the online catalogue states that students must take a freshman seminar that assigns works from both the Western and Islamic traditions, including poetry, but mentions no authors by name. All of Zaytuna’s requirements for graduation are Islamic in nature except for courses in formal logic, rhetoric, mathematics, material logic, the history of science, astronomy, economics, U.S. history, and constitutional law. A required senior thesis may be submitted in either English or Arabic.

Zaytuna’s financing is opaque. Since it is not required by California to report on its funding, there is no means at present to determine how it is supported. Its website states that 12,000 people have contributed to its support, but does not disclose the total assets it has reached.

Annual fees are $15,000 for tuition and $9,000 for on-campus housing, both very low among contemporary private colleges. All student financial aid resources at Zaytuna “are funded by Zaytuna’s community of supporters, and most financial aid awards come from zakat (alms).”

Despite the hyperbole, Zaytuna has not been accredited as a “Muslim liberal arts college,” but as a facility offering only one baccalaureate degree.  It could be seen as a hope for American Muslim parents who want their children to receive an Islamic education, but it will not substitute for the broad and diverse intellectual challenge associated traditionally with the liberal arts in colleges and universities, even in Muslim countries.  Rather, it is a personal religious school headed by Hamza Yusuf Hanson. No one should be fooled by this absurd masquerade.

Stephen Schwartz is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. He wrote this article for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Lawsuit Alleges Sexism, Anti-Semitism by Al Jazeera America Official

A man works at a desk in the Al Jazeera America broadcast center in New York on Aug. 20, 2013. Reuters

A man works at a desk in the Al Jazeera America broadcast center in New York on Aug. 20, 2013. Reuters

by IPT News  •  Apr 29, 2015

A senior Al Jazeera America manager is facing serious allegations of sexist and anti-Semitic discrimination after an employee filed suit Tuesday for wrongful termination.

Matthew Luke is seeking $15 million in damages from the Qatar-owned network. The complaint filed in New York state court accuses Osman Mahmud of sexist discrimination, such as removing female employees from projects and excluding women from emails and meetings related to their assignments. Mahmud also allegedly made anti-American and anti-Semitic comments, such as “whoever supports Israel should die a fiery death in hell.”

According to the lawsuit, Luke was fired 10 days after filing a report regarding Mahmud’s behavior to Al Jazeera’s HR department.

Mahmud denied the allegations in an interview with the Washington Post.

Among the other claims, Mahmud ordered a senior news official to replace a photographer, an Israeli national, with a Palestinian who was less qualified.

When the official complained, she was reassigned to a less prestigious position and replaced by a male colleague. The lawsuit describes Al Jazeera America’s chief executive as believing a correspondent’s reporting was too pro-Israel, even though Al Jazeera is notorious for its highly critical stance against the Jewish state.

The network’s Arabic and English outlets have been plagued by reports that its biases trump its stated objective of providing objective journalism. Nearly two dozen staffers resigned in protest of the network’s sympathetic coverage toward the Muslim Brotherhood after the 2013 ouster of Mohamed Morsi as Egypt’s president.

In January, in the immediate aftermath of the massacre of cartoonists, other staffers and police at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, internal Al Jazeerah emails obtained by the National Review show executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr urging staff members to emphasize the magazine’s “racist caricatures” in their coverage.

He suggested they question if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,'” and whether the spontaneous “I Am Charlie” signs held posted and displayed by outraged French citizens was an “alienating slogan.”

“Was this really an attack on ‘Free speech’?” one Khadr email said. “Who is attacking free speech here exactly? Does an attack by 2-3 guys on a controversial magazine equate to a civilizational attack on European values..? Really?”

The “Je Suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) signs were counter-productive, he claimed. “You don’t actually stick it to the terrorists by insulting the majority of Muslims by reproducing more cartoons – you actually entrench the very animosity and divisions these guys seek to sow.”

That sentiment was echoed by Qatar-based reporter Mohamed Vall Salem, who wrote, “what Charlie Hebdo did was not free speech it was an abuse of free speech in my opinion, go back to the cartoons and have a look at them!

“It’ snot [sic] about what the drawing said, it was about how they said it. I condemn those heinous killings, but I’M NOT CHARLIE.”

The Lessons of Armenia Should Not Be Lost

Illustration on remembrance of the Turkish genocide against Armenians 100 years ago by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

Illustration on remembrance of the Turkish genocide against Armenians 100 years ago by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

What happened a hundred years ago is germane to the Middle East today.

FDD, By Clifford D. May, 29th April 2015 – The Washington Times:

Displayed outside the Turkish embassy in Washington last week was a large banner reading: “Armenian Genocide is an Imperialist Lie.” That claim might be amusing were the subject not so dreadful. The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in 1915 was carried out by the Ottoman Empire.  It was therefore, by definition, an imperialist crime, one regarded by most experts as the first genocide of the 20th century. The notion that some other empire (which one?) has fabricated a slander against Turkey is ludicrous. Those who came up with that slogan must assume they are addressing a clueless audience.

One place to find clues is Efraim Karsh’s “Islamic Imperialism: A History,” published in 2006 by Yale University Press. Dr. Karsh notes that in the last quarter of the 19th century, a weakening Ottoman Empire (which was also an Islamic caliphate) was being “forced to give up most of its European colonies.” At about the same time, the empire’s Armenian population — Christians, whose rights were limited by their Muslim rulers — began to undergo a “nationalist awakening.”  Uprisings followed. “In a brutal campaign of repression in 1895-96, in which nearly 200,000 people perished and thousands more fled to Europe and America, Armenian resistance was crushed and the dwindling population cowered into submission.”

A few years later, however, nationalist aspirations resurfaced. Under European pressure, the Ottomans accepted a proposal for limited Armenian autonomy, “a far cry from the Armenians’ aspirations for a unified independent state” but a significant gain nonetheless. When the Ottoman Empire entered World War I, most of its Armenian subjects took pains to demonstrate their loyalty.  But a minority became revolutionaries, offering assistance to the Russians, confirming “the Ottoman stereotype of the Armenians as a troublesome people.”

In reaction, Armenians were “uprooted from their homes and relocated to concentration camps in the most inhospitable corners of Ottoman Asia. The Armenians’ towns and villages would then be populated by Muslim refugees, their property seized by the authorities or plundered by their Muslim neighbors.”

Armenians were ordered to give up their weapons. Those “who could not produce arms were brutally tortured; those who produced them for surrender … were imprisoned for treachery and similarly tortured; those found to have hidden their arms were given even harsher treatment.”

By 1915, with the Armenian population disarmed, “the genocidal spree entered its main stage: mass deportations and massacres.” At times, “the Turks attempted to preserve an appearance of a deportation policy, though most deportees were summarily executed after hitting the road.” Ottoman authorities sent others “out to sea, ostensibly to be deported, only to be thrown overboard shortly afterward.”

There were many Armenian towns in which all the men were exterminated, leaving the women to be raped. In addition, “thousands of young Armenian women and girls were sold” in newly established “slave markets.” Estimates of the total number of Armenians murdered over a period of more than two years range from 850,000 to 1.5 million.

In the early 1920s, in the aftermath of World War I, the defeated Ottoman Empire and Islamic caliphate were dissolved. The Republic of Turkey rose from its ashes. A strong argument can be made that it bears no responsibility for the crimes committed by the imperialist state it replaced.

On the other hand, modern Turkey continues to occupy Armenian lands. Mt. Ararat, where, according to legend, Noah’s ark came to rest after the great flood, is Armenia’s holiest site and a symbol of the nation. It can be seen from Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, among the world’s oldest continually inhabited cities. But Mr. Ararat rises from territory now claimed by Turkey.

Ironically – one also might say hypocritically — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan rails at Israel for its “occupation” of Gaza, and the West Bank. Those territories were under Ottoman rule for centuries. They fell to the British following the Ottoman collapse. In 1948, Egypt seized Gaza, and Jordan seized Judea and Samaria, which it renamed “the West Bank.” In a defensive war in 1967, Israelis took control of both. Since then, they have repeatedly offered to help Palestinians establish their own state on these lands in exchange for peace. Palestinian leaders have declined. And Gaza, from which Israelis withdrew ten years ago, is ruled by Hamas, a terrorist group openly committed to exterminating Israel.

Today, a jihad – one that includes persecution, enslavement and slaughter — is again being waged against Christians throughout much of the Middle East and in Africa as well. Many of those carrying out these crimes consider themselves warriors of a new caliphate. The mainstream media has mostly avoided discussing the Armenian genocide as preface and precedent. But the media also has been reluctant to report on the very real possibility that we are now witnessing the final, historic eradication of ancient Christian communities from what we have come to call the Islamic world.

Another poster displayed at the Turkish embassy calls for “reconciliation” with Armenia. Surely, such a process must begin with truth-telling. What President Erdogan declared last week instead: “The Armenian claims on the 1915 events… are all baseless and groundless.”

Final point: In 1939, a generation after the Armenian genocide and a week before invading Poland, Hitler gave a speech to his commanders. He told them that his “war aim” was not merely territorial. Nazi Germany also sought “the physical destruction of the enemy.” He recognized that “weak Western European civilization” would not approve. But, he added, it will forget: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” That’s just one of several  reasons we should continue to do so.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times. Follow him on Twitter @CliffordDMay

Wednesday, 29 April 2015

Terrorism in Africa: The Imminent Threat to the United States

Ansar al Sharia recruits receive training at a camp near Benghazi.

Ansar al Sharia recruits receive training at a camp near Benghazi.

Long War Journal, April 29, 2015:

Editor’s note: Below is Thomas Joscelyn’s testimony to the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence on the threat posed by jihadist groups in Africa. 

In preparing today’s testimony, I reviewed the history of al Qaeda’s plotting against the West. A number of facts demonstrate that al Qaeda’s presence in Africa has been tied to these efforts. For instance, declassified documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound show that he ordered al Qaeda’s branches in Africa to select candidates capable of striking inside the U.S. Bin Laden also ordered al Qaeda’s African branches to coordinate their work with his “external operations” team, which was responsible for plotting attacks against Western interests. Some of al Qaeda’s most senior leaders, including those who have overseen al Qaeda’s planned attacks in the West, have come from Africa. Senior al Qaeda leaders embedded in Shabaab have also trained operatives to attack in Europe. I discuss this evidence in detail in the final section of my written testimony.

Complex tribal, ethnic, and religious dynamics mean that any summary of the situation in Africa will be necessarily incomplete.  However, I will attempt to distill some themes that are important for understanding the rising jihadist threat in the continent. While there are important differences between ISIS and al Qaeda, and the two are at odds with one another in a variety of ways, they are both inherently anti-American and anti-Western. Thus, they constitute a threat to our interests everywhere their jihadists fight.

Since the beginning of the year, the ISIS branch in Libya has repeatedly attacked foreign interests. The group has bombed and/or assaulted with small arms the Algerian, Moroccan, Iranian, South Korean and Spanish embassies in Tripoli. Fortunately, these attacks have caused only a few casualties, as foreign governments pulled most of their diplomatic personnel out of Libya months ago. But these incidents show the organization’s followers are deeply hostile to any foreign presence.

Other ISIS attacks on foreigners in Libya have been more lethal and at least two Americans have been killed by ISIS’ so-called “provinces.” In January, the group’s fighters launched a complex assault on the Corinthia Hotel in Tripoli. Ten people, including David Berry, a former U.S. Marine serving as a security contractor, were killed. In August 2014, jihadists from the ISIS province in the Sinai killed William Henderson, an American petroleum worker.

Some of ISIS’ most gruesome acts in North Africa have come with pointed threats against the West. In February, the jihadists beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts. The propaganda video showing the murders was entitled, “A Message Signed with Blood to the Nation of the Cross.” ISIS explicitly threatened Italy in the video and also made it clear that they would target Christians simply for adhering to a different faith. Earlier this month, ISIS’ branch followed up by killing a large group of Ethiopian Christians.

In March, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis. More than 20 people were killed in the assault, which targeted foreign tourists. Citizens of Britain, France, Colombia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, and Spain were among the victims. Although ISIS was quick to lay claim to the museum slayings, the reality is more complicated. The Tunisian government has blamed the Uqba ibn Nafi Brigade, which is part of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), an official branch of al Qaeda. Based on publicly-available information, it appears that the attackers may have joined ISIS, but the operation itself was planned by the AQIM brigade’s leadership.

Al Qaeda’s international network continues to launch high-profile attacks across the continent. Some of these operations directly target foreigners. Earlier this month, Shabaab, al Qaeda’s official branch in Somalia, killed more than 140 people at the Garissa University College in Kenya. The gunmen reportedly separated out non-Muslims for killing, letting many Muslims go. This shows that the organization, like other parts of al Qaeda, is very concerned about the impact of its violence in the Muslim-majority world. In this respect and others, the Garissa attack was similar to Shabaab’s siege of the Westgate shopping mall in September 2013. More than 60 people were killed, with Shabaab’s gunmen singling out non-Muslims. Shabaab’s attacks in Kenya and other neighboring countries are part of what the UN has identified as the group’s “regional” strategy. Shabaab has undoubtedly suffered setbacks since the height of its power in East Africa, but it still operates a prolific insurgency inside Somalia, while also seeking to expand its capabilities in the surrounding countries. In fact, America’s counterterrorism efforts in East Africa seem to be principally aimed at the part of Shabaab tasked with exporting terrorism throughout the region.

As we’ve seen over the past several years, al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Africa will attack American and Western interests when the opportunity presents itself.  The September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Mission and Annex in Benghazi and the raid on the U.S. Embassy in Tunis three days later were carried out by al Qaeda-linked groups. The Ansar al Sharia organizations in Libya and Tunisia, both of which are tied to AQIM, were involved in these assaults on America’s diplomatic presence in North Africa. In early 2013, terrorists commanded by Mokhtar Belmokhtar killed dozens of foreign workers during the siege of the In Amenas gas facility in Algeria. Belmokhtar, who is openly loyal to Ayman al Zawahiri, claimed responsibility for operation on behalf of al Qaeda.

There is no doubt, therefore, that both ISIS and al Qaeda pose a threat to Western interests in Africa. Below, I explore current trends within both organizations, highlighting some ways these international networks may threaten Americans both home and abroad. But first, I briefly look at the different strategies ISIS and al Qaeda are employing to build up their networks.

Read more

***

Witnesses

Dr. J. Peter Pham
Director
Africa Center
Atlantic Council
Witness Statement [PDF]
Witness Truth in Testimony [PDF]

Mr. Thomas Joscelyn
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Witness Statement [PDF]
Witness Truth in Testimony [PDF]

Dr. Daniel Byman
Research Director
Center for Middle East Policy
Center for Security Studies
Brookings Institution
Witness Statement [PDF]
Witness Truth in Testimony [PDF]

Minneapolis men facing ISIL-linked terrorism charges belie stereotypes

Described as good students, hard workers, all had plenty of connections to community.

Clockwise, Hanad Mustafe Musse, 19, Guled Omar, 20, Zacharia Yusuf Adurahman, 19, and Adnan Abdihamid Farah, 19. They are four of six Minnesota men of Somali descent that have been charged in a criminal complaint with traveling or attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIL. Photo: Sherburne County Sheriff's Office

Clockwise, Hanad Mustafe Musse, 19, Guled Omar, 20, Zacharia Yusuf Adurahman, 19, and Adnan Abdihamid Farah, 19. They are four of six Minnesota men of Somali descent that have been charged in a criminal complaint with traveling or attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIL. Photo: Sherburne County Sheriff’s Office

Star Tribune, April 29, 2015:

Some of the young men got a head start on racking up college credits in high school. Some juggled college and jobs that helped them chip in for family budgets. Some worshiped NBA stars and caught college-night games at Target Center.

In some ways, the six Minneapolis men facing federal charges over an alleged attempt to join overseas militants don’t seem to fit a stereotypical profile of the radical recruit: the adrift high school dropout with tenuous links to the mainstream community.

Defense attorneys and supporters have argued that the men are unlikely candidates to join the violent fight waged by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL. In the Somali-American community, where some leaders have long sounded alarms about high dropout rates and youth joblessness, the charges against a once promising group of young men have brought consternation.

“I was shocked,” said Ahmed Nur, a student at Minneapolis Community and Technical College, which five of the men attended at some point. “These guys, they are a good group of people. You’d never think they would do something like that.”

Still others caution that school success and community connections don’t always translate to a robust sense of belonging in a wider society that can be less-than-accepting of young Somali men. And some experts say radical groups like ISIL are increasingly tailoring their propaganda to a diverse audience in the West: from the disaffected and the underprivileged to the college-educated and the driven. As a result, the idea of the typical recruit is becoming more of a myth than ever.

The six men, ages 19 to 21, are facing federal charges that could put them in prison for more than a decade. Last week, a Minneapolis federal judge decided that Adnan Farah, Guled Omar, Hanad Musse and Zacharia Abdurahman will remain in detention pending trial. Two other men, Farah’s brother, Mohamed, and Abdirahman Daud, were arrested in San Diego, allegedly on their way to the Middle East via Mexico.

A good student

The accounts of defense attorneys and friends offer glimpses of young people with much going for them.

Abdurahman was pursuing a degree in computer support and network administration. In court last week, his defense attorney described him as a 19-year-old who held down several jobs, took on a yearlong technology internship at Hennepin County Medical Center and scraped together money to send to relatives living in Kenya. His client recently proposed to a young woman, and the two plan to marry after they finish community college.

The attorney representing Musse, 19, handed out copies of his client’s 12th-grade report card to the judge and an FBI agent testifying about the case.

“He’s a good student, isn’t he?” the attorney asked the agent.

Omar, whom the FBI singled out at a news conference as particularly committed to the group’s alleged plot, juggled a pre-nursing major and a job as a security guard that helped him support his single mother and younger siblings.

On the MCTC campus, his friend Nur said Omar, 20, split his time among classes, work and home, with the occasional pickup basketball game. Conversations revolved around schoolwork and sports, said Nur, who landed a job as a security guard at a company where Omar worked, with his help. With some of the other men facing charges, Omar played basketball at the downtown YMCA, loved Timberwolves rookie Andrew Wiggins and often tried to catch Wednesday $5-admission College Night games at Target Center.

Prosecutors, however, paint a picture of young men determined to leave behind those lives. They say most men had made previous attempts to travel overseas, attempts that were thwarted by federal agents or their families. They still wanted to try again. At least one had maintained a Facebook account sprinkled with images of extremist leaders and propaganda. Another drained his student loan account before attempting to leave the country.

In a conversation recorded by the FBI’s informant, Daud acknowledged that he might end up in jail, and didn’t care.

“I’m through with America,” Mohamed Farah, 21, agreed. “Burn my ID.”

Ahmed Samatar, a Somali-born Macalester College professor who studies global politics and Somali issues, says young people on the margins of Western society might seem like a prime audience for the messaging of groups like ISIL. But for the children of immigrant families, graduating from high school and enrolling in community college are often just the first steps in finding their way in the mainstream community; they can belie a “deeper alienation.”

“Even in that group, there can be a sense of an inner vacuum or a lack of sense of direction that might not be visible from the outside,” Samatar said. “American society is a very complex, fast-paced society to navigate. Even after 41 years, I am still adjusting.”

Minneapolis Council Member Abdi Warsame, the Twin Cities’ highest-ranking Somali-American official, said many young people born to parents who fled Somalia don’t have a deep understanding of their past. They don’t have memories of struggle in Somalia or see the U.S. as a place of refuge.

Even young people who grow up speaking English and enjoying American sports, food and movies don’t necessarily feel accepted.

“I know people are saying: ‘These people had jobs,’ ” Warsame said of the six men. But, he adds, “They were not brilliant academics. They were not high-achievers. They were just average, inner-city youth who didn’t feel a place in mainstream society.”

In court, Abdurahman’s attorney noted his client — like many Somalis — is frequently called names and harassed on the street. Back at South High School, some of the men were caught in racially charged tensions with fellow students that culminated in a 2013 cafeteria fight involving some 200 teens.

A new study focused on terrorist recruitment in the Twin Cities found that many members of Minneapolis’ Somali community said their names and traditional dress prompt frequent police stops and extra scrutiny at the airport and other public places. The University of Southern California researchers, part of a center that focuses on terrorism and homeland security, say that sense of isolation provides an opening for terrorist groups, which sell messages of community and unification under a shared cause.

In any case, said William Braniff, executive director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, ISIL has put an innovative spin on radical propaganda to target a more diverse Western audience than ever. In the group’s messaging, individual fighters do the talking, not the self-styled Islamic scholars Al-Qaida favored. These fighters — with voices ranging from conversational to cerebral to defiant — are churning out “very personal, very intimate, very tailored propaganda” via social media, Braniff said.

For the disaffected, the recruitment touts a chance to be a part of a “grand adventure” that would lend a sense of self and purpose. For those integrated into Western society, the messages might play on a sense of guilt as they highlight the plight of impoverished Muslims in countries with oppressive regimes, Braniff said. “Meanwhile, you’re sipping a cappuccino and wearing your Adidas,” he added. “How can you stand to live in such luxury?”

Community leaders say that programs steering young people to graduation, college and jobs remain the best antidote to recruitment. In 2014, about half of students of Somali and other African descent graduated on time from Minneapolis Public Schools, compared with more than 70 percent of white students.

“Those vulnerabilities are still there,” said Samatar.

He added that it’s important his community doesn’t just look to state and local institutions alone, but also engages in some internal soul-searching: “The family, the mosques, the community centers — that’s where the real battle begins.”

The Pro-Terrorist Front Groups On American Campuses

sfj-350x350Frontpage, by David Horowitz, April 29, 2015:

Americans are shocked when a news report reveals that an American has turned up in Syria fighting for the terrorists. If the jihadist is then identified as a Somali immigrant who settled in Minnesota but never assimilated to the American way of life, there is a sigh of relief, perhaps accompanied by concern that so many immigrants are currently coming from regions plagued by religious hatreds and terrorist wars. The concern is real but the relief is a false one, based on a misunderstanding of the many dimensions of the “grand jihad” being waged by terrorist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood.

This week I traveled to the Midwest to speak at Ohio State, home of the Buckeyes, to an audience of 130 students. My subject was the campus war being waged against Israel by two student fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood – the Muslim Students Association and the Committee for Justice in Palestine. These groups are not themselves terrorists. But they are carrying out a propaganda war crafted by terrorists that is designed to help Hamas “obliterate” the Jewish state by portraying it as a criminal occupier of Palestinian land.

More than half the students attending were members of the two organizations and supporters of the Hamas terror campaign. I attempted to refute the lies they were spreading at Ohio State (Israel is an occupier of Palestinian land; Israel is an apartheid state). Their Jewish targets, I explained, were just the canaries in the mine. Already there were far more Christians slaughtered by the soldiers of Mohammed, and Muslims too. But those numbers I said will be dwarfed should the day come when the Islamic Republic of Iran drops a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv.

The Muslim Students Association, which is a presence on more than a hundred campuses, is supported by college funds and accorded campus privileges. It is a recruitment organization for the Muslim Brotherhood. Many members of the MSA, as I also said, are innocent of the true agendas organization. Those with political potential are selected for training seminars taught by Brotherhood leaders. Nine former presidents of MSA have gone on to high-level careers with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The most famous is Anwar al-Awlaki, formerly the head of al-Qaeda in the Yemen, killed in a U.S. drone strike. Before that, Awlaki was the president of the Muslim Students Association at Colorado State.

The centerpiece of the pro-terrorist propaganda campaigns conducted by these groups on American campuses is a Hamas-created 4-panel map. The map purports to show that a Muslim state called Palestine (colored in green) existed in 1946 and was then infiltrated by Jews (represented by the color white) until a point is reached at which Palestine is completely occupied. The map, like the other Hamas propaganda points placed by the students on their “Apartheid Walls” is a lie. There was no Palestinian state in 1946. There was no self-identified “Palestinian” cause until 1964 when the Arabs dropped their stated goal to “push the Jews into the sea,” and formed the “Palestine Liberation Organization” to protest Jewish occupation of their alleged homeland.

The sixty or so student supporters of these Hamas agendas remained civil during my talk. No doubt the presence of eight armed police the university assigned had something to do with that. When I finished, about 20 of them lined up at the microphone. From the moment the first one began to speak it was clear that this was going to be an orchestrated protest. Instead of asking questions they read speeches off their cell phones. Because the speeches had been written before I spoke they were not responses to anything I actually said, but more Hamas propaganda: “You said that all Muslims are terrorists.” In fact I had said exactly the opposite – that most Muslims were law-abiding people who only wanted peace and that many Muslims were in fact being slaughtered and oppressed by Islamic terrorists including the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank.

However, my words fell on deaf ears, as they had all evening. Not only the comments but the cheers for the pro-Hamas speakers made this abundantly clear. These were thoroughly indoctrinated young Americans, committed to a genocidal cause. Among them was an elected member of the student government at Ohio State, who volunteered that he had prepared a proposal in behalf of the Committee for Justice in Palestine requesting student funds to finance its pro-terrorist propaganda campaign.

This worries me even more than the Somali volunteer from Minnesota.

[To learn about the Freedom Center’s ‘Jew Hatred on Campus’ Campaign,’click here.]

Outlawing ‘Islamophobia’ Would Be Folly, Mr. Miliband

pic_giant_042815_SM_Ed-MilibandNational Review, by CHARLES C. W. COOKE April 28, 2015:

A few years back, when the American response to the horrors of September 11 reached its muscular zenith, dissenters from the cause liked to issue a pithy cri de coeur. “You can fight a nation or a person,” they would say with palpable indignation, “but you can’t declare war on an abstract noun.” The “War on Terror,” they would conclude, is little more than a marketing exercise for a preexisting disposition.

At the root of this objection was the fear that governments that cannot easily define what they are fighting will eventually come to be at war with everyone and everything. What, after all, constitutes “terror” — an inherently subjective term? How, pray, can we know when it has been truly vanquished? And which borders — physical, philosophical, and political — must we respect in the course of combat? These, I’d venture, were fair questions. “The essence of tyranny is not iron law,” Christopher Hitchens observed. “It is capricious law.” Now, as in the time of King John, free people should demand some ground rules.

This debate came rushing back to mind this week after it was revealed that a would-be prime minister of Great Britain, the Labour party’s Edward Miliband, had promised London’s Muslim Times that he would seek to outlaw and to punish “Islamophobia” if he were elected to high office. “Although Islamophobia already falls under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006#….#” The Independent recorded on Saturday, “Mr Miliband’s proposal would allow authorities to hand down tougher sentences for similar crimes.” Evidently, those sentences would be harsh. At present, Britons who violate the Racial and Religious Hatred Act are at risk of “up to seven years imprisonment” — not, you will note, because they have actually hurt anybody, but rather because they have uttered strings of opinion-laden words that the incumbent government happens to disfavor. This, alas, is apparently not good enough for the Labour party. Under a Miliband administration, The Independent confirmed, Britons who caustically knocked Islam would be guilty of an “aggravated crime.” “We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police,” Miliband submitted, “to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.”

The presumption that the state has a role to play in the policing of the human soul is an utterly terrifying one, running contrary as it does to all the beautiful suppositions that served as scaffolding to the Enlightenment. If Ed Miliband believes that his fellow countrymen are intolerant rubes, he of course has every right to lobby them to change direction. That he has promised to marshal the police in disapprobation is something altogether different.

The presumption that the state has a role to play in the policing of the human soul is an utterly terrifying one.

Why? Well, because underpinning the notion of free and untrammeled debate is the humble acknowledgement that the state cannot — and should not — decide what is true and what is false. Naturally, governments may have strong opinions on a corporate level. Individually their members may, too. But, whatever they might come to believe, those governments may not contrive to ossify or establish as legally impregnable a sole definition of reality. This, I’m afraid, is what Miliband is effectively proposing. Seemingly, he has contrived a two-step process for censorship: First, submit that criticism of Islam is beyond the pale (that’s the “phobia” stuff, for phobias are irrational, remember); second, because that criticism therefore has no value, move to prohibit it.

In attempting to discern a limiting principle, critics will likely pretend that this approach constitutes a radical departure from British norms and should therefore be resisted on principle. Much as I might like to pretend that this were the case, it represents no such thing. Despite its proud history as a cradle of individual liberty, Britain today boasts some of the most capricious, the most vague, and the most far-reaching censorship laws in the developed world. As of 2015, the execrable Public Order Act of 1986 had been used to harass two-bit singers, radical members of themedia, drunken students, preaching pastors, proselytizing Muslims, leafleting atheists, ignorant soccer fans, and pretty much anybody else who stepped out line. During this year’s election, moreover, aspiring members of parliament used it to shut down criticism from their potential constituents. Can we really be so surprised that the appalling Ed Miliband has jumped on the appalling British Milibandwagon?

Pushing back against Milband’s proposal, a few critics have noted acidly that the elite class’s obsessive focus on “Islamophobia” is peculiar given that the most frequent victims of racially motivated crimes in the United Kingdom are in fact Jewish. Well intentioned as that critique is, however, I’d venture that it represents entirely the wrong way of looking at the question. No matter what the numbers say, nobody who lives in a free country should be immune from harsh and even hateful oppobrium — not Christians, not Muslims, not atheists, not blacks, not whites, not anybody. Frankly, it is not the role of the British authorities to police the verbal output of the people they serve, until and unless that output is explicitly and deliberately brigaded to an illegal action. If they are to be at liberty, men may freely exhibit irrationality, fear, animadversion, disdain, acrimony, bitterness, revulsion, and pique — and they may do so without their emotions or their expressions being compared by the law to battery. If Ed Miliband hopes to make physical assaults even more illegal, he has my blessing. Until then, he must stay the hell away, lest he spur a recrudescence of precisely the sort of illiberalism he purportedly intends to banish.

Writing yesterday in The Spectator, Douglas Murray struck a great blow for common sense when he noted that if Miliband were to get his unlovely way, almost everybody could find himself in the crosshairs:

If Ed Miliband were to become Prime Minister and were to decide to make what people call “Islamophobia” illegal then I’m very happy to test the law straight away. Indeed I will immediately put on a gathering of academics, writers, Quranic-scholars and philosophers — Muslim and non-Muslim — to discuss Islam. It is possible that some of those gathered may disagree with the foundational claims of Islam. I, for instance, may repeat my belief — not being a Muslim — that it is highly unlikely that the Quran was “dictated” by God. This is not only my belief. It is also the belief of Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christians (some Anglican priests excepted), atheists and ex-Muslims, to name only a few minority groups.

Murray’s point strikes at the beating heart of the matter. In Britain, in Australia, in France, and beyond, limitations on free expression are typically justified with mawkish appeals to “multiculturalism,” to “diversity,” and to the maintenance of the allegedly exquisite feelings of the supposedly out-of-touch. And yet, as Murray subtly implies, this is rather to put arse over elbow, for rather than creating an intractable problem, freedom of speech actually is at its most useful when the culture it serves is lacking in homogeneity. Were all Britons to adopt an ovine pose and to agree that the Church of England is the correct religion and that its central claims are unquestionably true, there would be little need at all for the protections of free expression. While reasonable in and of itself, “Oh, I like the Queen, too!” is clearly not the sort of opinion that requires the passage of strictures guarding against the intrusion of the state. When a country hosts a broad array of opinions, however — and when it is home to people whose deep-seated beliefs directly contradict the deep-seated beliefs of others — a legal framework that can accommodate sharp and pronounced dissension is absolutely vital.

In Britain at present, almost all speech that is critical of Islam is reflexively deemed to be “Islamophobic” — this, regardless of intent, regardless of context, regardless of caveat or commonition. In consequence, if the British government were indeed to crack down more robustly in this area, it would not really be defending the “rights” of a minority group against the pitchfork-wielding mob, but effectively privileging one clique over another. How, one wonders, would it decide what was beyond the pale and what was legitimate? How would it conclude whether the Islamic religion or Mr. Douglas Murray were the victim? How would it distinguish between the imprecations of the imam and the critiques of the atheist? Might it not be possible, perhaps, that this is little more than a recipe for the sort of whimsy of which there is too much in British life; and, further, that this is the sort of thinking that has led to situation in which, a few days before a close general election, one of the men who would instruct the bayonets has ended up tendering special legal protections to a crucial, and increasingly cunning, electoral bloc . . . ?

Islamization of Canadian schools: Hamilton school board wastes your money to buy Hijabs for Muslims

The Supreme Court ruled it’s illegal to say a Christian prayer in the city council of Saguenay, Quebec. Meanwhile, the Hamilton-Wentworth School Board will raise $10,000 public funds to buy Hijabs for soccer teams.

This is the Islamization of Canada’s schools.

Remember how in Toronto a cafeteria is turned into a mosque where gender-segregation takes place with boys in front, girls in the middle and menstruating girls in the far back.

After Iran Seizes Ship, Senate Republicans Must Act on Nuclear deal

4027956444CSP, by Fred Fleitz, April 29, 2015:

Yesterday, Iranian forces seized a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship, the Maersk Tigris, while it was traversing the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian forces boarded the ship after firing warning shots across its bridge and diverted it to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. Iranian officials have not explained why the ship was seized.

The Pentagon revealed yesterday that Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy vessels surrounded a U.S.-flagged cargo ship, the Maersk Kensington, last Friday as it was transiting the Strait of Hormuz. No shots were fired, the Iranian vessels broke off contact, and the cargo ship proceeded without further incident.

Both actions by Iranian forces violated international agreements allowing for innocent passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite these serious Iranian provocations, the Obama administration is pushing ahead with a nuclear agreement with Iran that will lift crippling trade sanctions.

These are the latest belligerent incidents by the Iranian government since the nuclear talks began in January 2014. Other incidents include:

  • Iran has precipitated a civil war in Yemen by arming the Shiite Houthi rebels.
  • Iran continues to hold four American citizens prisoner, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian who was charged last week with espionage and other serious crimes.
  • Iranian leaders remain dedicated to the destruction of the United States and Israel. Last November, Supreme leader Khamenei released a nine-point plan to destroy the state of Israel. On March 21, the day after President Obama’s Persian New Year message to the Iranian people, Khamenei said “death to America.”
  • In February, Iranian naval units destroyed a mock U.S. aircraft carrier as part of a military exercise.
  • The Times of Israel reported this week that Iran is spending $35 billion a year to prop up Syrian President Assad.
  • Iran continues to support the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups. The Jerusalem Post reported this week that Hezbollah has constructed an airstrip in Lebanon for Iranian-made drones.

And now Iran is seizing and harassing ships on the high seas, including an U.S.-flagged ship.

If the Iranian government is behaving this way before it gets a nuclear deal and sanctions relief, how will it behave after it gets a deal that the Center for Security Policy and many other experts believe will be extremely weak and will do nothing to stop Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons?

It has been clear since Barack Obama became president that he is so desperate for a legacy nuclear agreement with Iran that his administration will give Iran anything it wants and overlook any Iranian bad behavior to get a nuclear deal.

The American people have had enough. They are counting on Congress to impose adult supervision on the Obama administration’s foolhardy nuclear diplomacy with Iran. This means Senate Republicans must pass amendments to toughen the Corker-Cardin bill, a piece of legislation recently approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that supposedly would give Congress a chance to reject a nuclear deal with Iran. This bill has been strongly criticized as turning the Constitution on its head since instead of requiring a nuclear agreement be submitted to the Senate for ratification as a treaty (which would require a 2/3 vote), this bill would require a vote of disapproval get veto-proof and filibuster-proof majorities. (To learn more, see this article by Andrew McCarthy.)

The best option to amend the Corker-Cardin bill would be to require the president submit it as a treaty. Unfortunately, 11 Republican senators voted with their Democratic counterparts yesterday to reject such an amendment submitted by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).

But the fight to toughen the Corker-Cardin bill is far from over. Almost two dozen amendments to the bill have been submitted by Republican senators, most of which require a nuclear agreement with Iran be linked to an improvement in its behavior. Given Iran’s recent actions against ships in the Strait of Hormuz, passage of such amendments is vital.

Democratic senators and some Republicans oppose any amendments to the Corker-Cardin bill because they want a “clean” bill and are worried that amendments will draw a presidential veto.

What these legislators and the president are really worried about is having to take a public stand against amendments mandating that a nuclear deal be linked to the release of U.S. citizens being held by Iran, Tehran’s support for terrorism, its meddling in Yemen, Iranian threats to destroy Israel, harassing and seizing ships, etc.

It is crucial to force votes on these amendments which will put members of Congress and the president on the record on how they are prepared to support a nuclear agreement with Iran that ignores its increasingly threatening behavior.

It probably is not possible to stop President Obama from concluding a foolhardy nuclear agreement with Iran. However, the amendments to the Corker-Cardin bill clarify how dangerous this deal is and will identify members of Congress who helped facilitate it.

***