• April 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar   May »
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 59,139 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 32 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!



  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

9/11 Museum Controversy

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. There has become another 9/11 controversy again...this time by Muslims and Interfaith dhimmis.]

The problem is in a short film that will be played at the museum, the title of it is “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” and it refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The film speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, from video clips in foreign-accented English translations, and it is narrated by NBC News anchor Brian Williams.

With the museum opening on 21 May, it has shown the film to several groups, including an interfaith advisory group of clergy members. Those on the panel overwhelmingly took strong exception to the film, believing some of the terminology in it casts aspersions on all Muslims, and requested changes. But the museum has declined. In March, the sole imam in the group resigned to make clear that he could not endorse its contents.

“The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director.

“Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

Museum officials are standing by the film, which they say was vetted by several scholars of Islam and of terrorism. A museum spokesman and panel members described the contents of the film, which was not made available to The New York Times for viewing.

“From the very beginning, we had a very heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective, and in no way smear an entire religion when we are talking about a terrorist group,”

Joseph C. Daniels, president and chief executive of the nonprofit foundation that oversees the memorial and museum, said.

But the disagreement has been ricocheting through scholarly circles in recent weeks. At issue is whether it is inflammatory for the museum to use terms like “Islamist” and “jihad” in conjunction with the Sept. 11 attack, without making clear that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. The panel has urged the use of more specific language, such as “Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism” and doing more to explain the meaning of jihad.

The terms “Islamist” and “jihadist” are often used to describe extremist Muslim ideologies. But the problem with using such language in a museum designed to instruct people for generations is that most visitors are “simply going to say Islamist means Muslims, jihadist means Muslims,” said Akbar Ahmed, the chairman of the Islamic studies department at American University in Washington.

“The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did, but when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.”

Dr. Ahmed said.

The group members screened the Qaeda film and grew alarmed at what they felt was an inflammatory tone and use of the words “jihad” and “Islamist” without, they felt, sufficient explanation.

What is sad is that the Interfaith (Chrislamic) group, does not know what jihad means…they only go with what they were told it means, which is that one must fight within himself to fix problems he has that goes against allah, which is known to Muslims as the “greater jihad”, and all Muslims are mandated to perform this, as well as the “lesser jihad” that, according to ALL the Islamic “sacred” text, mandates this. Lesser jihad is the jihad that, according to Shari’a, the Qur’an and Islamic scholars, is HOLY WAR. The interfaith Chrislamic belief, as well as the whitewashed Islamic falsehood is that there is only one jihad and it is only self cleaning.

One item that the documentary does not show nor explain, is that Al-Qaeda was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, the same MB that vowed to take over America internally in 1991, the same MB that told Muslim ummahs (congregations) to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, the same MB that has created a plethora of other terrorist groups, like Hamas and the “Freedom Fighters” of Libya and Syria, and also the same MB that made Egypt a violent country when their MB president Morsi was being kicked out.

Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy was correct when he said that “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site”, because people that do not have enough intelligence to learn about Islam will not know the differences the Muslim Brohood and Muslim Imams/Sheikh /Mullahs do not want unsophisticated visitors to learn about true Islam.

I would like to thank the 911 Memorial Museum (email), attention Joseph Daniels, for his and his staff’s wanting to get the truth out there.

Somali stowaway soap opera continues; CAIR involved now

Originally posted on Refugee Resettlement Watch:

Reports are sprouting up everywhere with conflicting stories about the Mom (is she a liar?), the Dad (did he kidnap the kids and bring them to America?), will the State Department permit the Mom to come to the US to reclaim her kids and to (of course) stay? etc.  And, now the siblings are in the mix talking to reporters too!

Then here comes CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) to defend the family—they say it is all about bullying that is hard on immigrants trying to adjust to America (America bad!) with no mention of the aggrieved Mom back in Ethiopia.  In Islam, Dad has rights to kids, Mom doesn’t.

For background, our first report on the Somali stowaway is here.

CAIR Executive director Zahra Billoo: the boy is struggling to adjust to life in America and needs social services. http://kalwnews.org/audio/2011/02/08/facing-down-islamophobia-interview-zahra-billoo_832857.html

CAIR speaks for the family, from

View original 605 more words


Originally posted on Adina Kutnicki:


EVERY whitewash you hear about the “religion of peace” is nothing short of a monstrous lie. The red/green alliance sanitizes, Allah-washes, a violent political ideology. They both seek nothing less than the destruction of the “Big Satan” (America), the “Little Satan” (Israel) and the entire west. Therein lies their nexus.

Yes, it is a herculean plan, but no one can accuse them of thinking small. Regardless, they are proceeding apace. Islamic adherents are patient, focused, steadfastand will stick to their mission for as long as it takes. And, those who do not survive to realize their life’s goal, well, the next generation is priming to continue with their elder’s jihadi savagery. A parental dream. The kiddies are following in their footsteps!

Most significantly, we (those of us who do NOT agree to bow to Allah) will continue to shine a laser-beam spotlight on Islamic jihad, primarily found within…

View original 1,162 more words

What does the Religion of Peace part 3


Teach About…




part three of what Islamic “sacred” text reveals about violence

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: - “Lest anyone think that cutting off someone’s head while screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228“Embrace Islam… If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.” One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad’s armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.


Additional Notes:

Other than the fact that Muslims haven’t killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam’s most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier “Meccan” verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. This is why Muslim apologists speak of the “risks” of trying to interpret the Quran without their “assistance” – even while claiming that it is a perfect book.

Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni’s bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam’s Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today’s Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion’s most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad’s deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as “same day marriage”).

One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” Elsewhere, he notes: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”

Muhammad’s failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or ‘Apostasy wars’). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad’s own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter – a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others’ throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare…) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran’s verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them – outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam’s holiest book either speaks to Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it’s little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community – even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam’s most respected philosophers, understood that “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force”, many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran’s near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity – preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance – because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the “culture”, claiming that the father was merely following “the religion” and saying that the couple had to “discipline their daughter or lose respect.” (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious “holy pilgrimage” to Mecca by the Saudi king – without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally… and too many others who couldn’t care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

H/T to the Religion of Peace dot com gang…it is very informative!

What does the Religion of Peace part 2


Teach About…




This is part two…



From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177)Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with 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.”

Bukhari (52:256)The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:65)The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause. Muhammad’s words are the basis for offensive Jihad – spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.

Bukhari (52:220)Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’

Abu Dawud (14:2526)The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527)The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33)the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387)Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

Muslim (1:30)“The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Bukhari (52:73)“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords’.”

Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

Muslim (1:149)“Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”

Muslim (20:4645)“…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”

Muslim (20:4696)“the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'”

Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”

Muslim (19:4294)“When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him… He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

Bukhari 1:35 “The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed).”

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 “‘By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.’ And they returned to their former religion.” The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

H/T to the Religion of Peace dot com gang…it is very informative!

What does the Religion of Peace


Teach About…



This will be a few parted series

Recently, I was banned in YouTube for showing that Islamic “sacred” text shows hatred and the mandated action of terror and violence.

I was commenting on the video clip concerning the largest Al Qaeda meeting in Yemen, when someone commented that that wasn’t Islam. I commented that it was according to Islamic text. I was then asked to show the where in their text was it listed. So I listed a number of Qur’anic verses, ahadith volumes, and what “The Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual on Sacred Law” (Shari’a manual).

What the person then commented on was what hate webpage did I get that from.

I stated that I did not get it from any hate page…I got it straight from the their text.

He then reported me to YouTube for hate speech, and they banned me.

I appealed to YouTube about the ban, and let them know that it isn’t a hate crime when one only points out their text, when answering a question, and it was unprofessional of them to just act upon one’s accusations without reviewing the “crime”.

I have not been “re-instated” yet, nor have I received a reply from them…seems YouTube has submitted to allah by being discriminative, bias, politically correct and having a dhimmitude.

So I wanted to bring this up so people can know where a lot of the Qur’anic verses are (there are about 109 or so verses in total in the Qur’an, this blog only shows about 40 or so), as well as in their ahadiths, the Life of Mohammed text (called the Sunnah and listed in text as Ibn Ishaq), as well as what Shari’a labels “lesser jihad {the violent portion of jihad}” as.


Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with non-believers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy – and that of his companions – along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244)

Quran (2:216) Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56)

Quran (3:151) This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Quran (4:74) The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76)

Quran (4:89)

Quran (4:95) This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).

Quran (4:104) Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33)

Quran (8:12) No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15)

Quran (8:39) Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah“, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.

Quran (8:65)

Quran (8:59-60)

Quran (8:57)

Quran (9:5) According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14)

Quran (9:20) The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30)

Quran (9:38-39) This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) See also the verse that follows (9:42) This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88)

Quran (9:111) How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123)

Quran (17:16) Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44)

Quran (25:52) “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is in order to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

Quran (47:35)“Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”

Quran (48:17) Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ in verse 16.

Quran (61:4) Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “battle array” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist. (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

Tomorrow I will put in here the ahadith verses concerning violence

H/T to the Religion of Peace dot com gang…it is very informative!

Democrats & Muslim Lawmakers Push Sharia Legislation Criminalizing Free Speech – Your Attention is Needed Now!

Posted on April 22, 2014 by Pamela Geller


There is very dangerous legislation making its way through both the House of Representatives and Senate that will finish the United States. The sharia bill calls for Islamic blasphemy laws — the criminalization of speech that offends or insults — who, exactly? Well, that is up to the enforcer, is it not?

On Wednesday, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced “The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014″ (S.2219), which seeks “to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes.” Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) introduced a companion bill in the House – H.R. 3878.

Yes, we see, Hakeem. The first amendment protects all speech, not just speech that we like. Or else who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Hakeem? When I was a young girl, the Nazis were given permission to march in a predominately Jewish neighborhood. In those days, Nazi mean something. Morality was still very much in the American DNA. Good and evil was understood — unlike today, where the left has banished such terms. Despite the horror of a Nazi march, they were given permission, and those of us who were repelled by such a monstrous action understood why permission was granted because of the underlying premise — free speech. I didn’t worry that their Nazi ideas would take hold, as long as I could speak and others could speak in the free exchange of ideas. I knew I would win because my ideas were better. Individual rights was the greatest achievement of the enlightened.

Now we are here. Our free speech is threatened by Islamic supremacists and their Democrat lapdogs under the guise of “hate speech.” The old “hate speech” canard. They will package this revolution against freedom in a pretty package — and will use the Max Blumenthal-inspired racist murderer, Glenn Miller. But do not be fooled.

It’s bad enough they have all but blacklisted the voices of freedom from media, political and national discourse. Shouting into the wilderness is not freedom of speech.

What next? Burning books? Perhaps just as long as it’s not the Qur’an. And yet there is more hate speech in the Qur’an than in Mein Kampf.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) is sharia. Start calling your congressmen (click here). Now. Put down everything. Do this. This is the line in the sand. If we lose this, it’s over.

Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Introduce Legislation To Examine and Prevent the Promotion of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech in Media, April 16, 2014

Sen. Markey is author of original provision calling for examination of telecommunications influence on hate crimes

Boston (April 16, 2014) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, introduced legislation to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes. The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes.

In 1992, then-Rep. Markey, through the Telecommunications Authorization Act, directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to examine the role of telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes. Senator Markey’s legislation will provide a comprehensive updated report on the current prevalence of hate crimes and hate speech in telecommunications, as the last report was conducted and submitted to Congress over two decades ago, in December 1993. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3878.

“We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States, which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment,” said Senator Markey. “Over 20 years have passed since I first directed the NTIA to review the role that telecommunications play in encouraging hate crimes. My legislation would require the agency to update this critical report for the 21st century.”

A copy of the legislation can be found HERE.

“The Internet has proven to be a tremendous platform for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. However, at times it has also been used as a place where vulnerable persons or groups can be targeted,” said Rep. Jeffries. “I commend Senator Markey for his longstanding leadership with respect to combating Hate Crimes in America. He understands that in the digital era it is important to comprehensively evaluate the scope of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of First Amendment protection. With the introduction of Senator Markey’s bill, we have taken a substantial step toward addressing this issue.”

“I thank Senator Markey for his career-long commitment to ensuring that we have the data necessary to confront and combat hate speech in the media that targets our most vulnerable communities,” said President & CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition Alex Nogales. “NHMC has long-recognized that an update to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s 1993 report, ‘The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes’, is long overdue and desperately needed given the incredible evolution of our communications systems over the past 21 years as well as the ever-increasing numbers of hate crimes targeting Latinos and others. As the author of the original piece of legislation directing the 1993 report, there is nobody better than Senator Markey to join Congressman Hakeem Jeffries and others in calling on the NTIA to study this pressing issue once again.”

Pamela Geller is the Editor of PamelaGeller.com

Posted 22 Apr 14 by DC Clothesline

Florida: Terror-linked CAIR mad stealth textbook dawah to be slowed

Posted on April 23, 2014 by creeping

via CAIR protests textbook bill; says it’s rooted in anti-Muslim bigotry – BizPac Review.

A bill making its way through the Florida legislature requiring local school districts to review textbooks used in classrooms is now the target of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, known as CAIR.

The group contends that the bill, SB 864: Instructional Materials for K-12 Public Education, introduced by Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, would create an unfunded mandate posing an unnecessary burden on local school districts, according to its statement released Monday, which says:

SB 864 has the potential to jeopardize the entire Sunshine State school system with an unnecessary law for a problem that does not exist by:

•  Imposing a tremendous unfunded mandate on our school districts
•  Depriving school districts of the state’s “economy of scale” in textbook purchasing power
•  Reducing Florida’s influence over textbook content
•  Opening the adoption process to social and political bias
•  Threatening the constitutional requirement for a uniform system of free public schools

However, what is really at stake for the group is its claim that the bill was prompted by anti-Muslim bigotry. Hayes sponsored the bill in response to a history book that residents of Brevard County claimed in July emphasized Islam’s influence on the world while minimizing Christianity and Judaism.

“World History,” published by Prentice-Hall, “has a 36-page chapter on Islam but no chapters on Christianity or Judaism,” Florida Rep. Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne said. “It’s remarkably one-sided.”

The dispute eventually spilled over into Volusia County, where critics said the text “whitewashes” the history of Islam.

The bill is nearing passage in both chambers.

Sounds more like the stealth dawah that got Islamic propaganda into American textbooks in the first place is about to be challenged. Of course, relying on the government to do what parents should be doing anyway is never a good idea.

Do you know what your kids (grandkids) are reading in school?

Posted on 23 Apr 14 by Creeping Sharia

Obama Gives Muslims $20,000,000 to Compete with Americans


The cost of a college education in the United States has skyrocketed over the past 15-20 years, and more and more of our young adults are starting their lives drowning in student loan debt. Instead of helping American citizens, President Obama has decided to send $20M of our tax dollars to Indonesia to help their citizens get Masters degrees.

Worst of all, these Indonesian students will be attending United States’ universities, so they will be graduating with the same credentials as our citizens. They’ll have an advantage because they’ll be willing to work for less salary than their American counterparts, because they don’t have thousands of dollars in student loans to pay back.

In other words, our tax dollars are now working against us, and for Muslim people in Indonesia.

Is this what you would spend our tax dollars on?

Posted on 20 Apr 14 by American Overlook

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. This just in...Obama, because of his "Christian" faith, has decided that his previous actions/laws were against God/Yahweh, and he discriminated against Christians and favored Muslims by acting like their savior/mahdi, that he has stopped all support for the false religion of the end times (according to Revelation), and decided to help Christian churches so they could proselytize. Oh so very sorry, that was a dream that I was going through...looks like the pre-cursor of the anti-Christ is still in his mahdi-wanna-be behavior and attitude]

Great Idea, Ibrahim Hooper!

IPT News
April 18, 2014

ibrihimIn a heated exchange last week, Ibrahim Hooper – national spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – issued a put up or shut up kind of challenge to his organization’s critics.

Hooper was pressed by Fox News host Megyn Kelly about CAIR’s record of failing to condemn terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizballah and other questionable positions. Hooper tried to deflect, blaming “Internet hate sites” for fueling “hate-filled smears against CAIR, which was founded in 1994.

“Please find something that CAIR has done or said in those 20 years that you find either extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever,” Hooper said.

Don’t mind if we do.

We’ve documented CAIR’s dubious record for years, noting in a 2009 report that the group responds to the very kind of specific examples Hooper demands to see by issuing ad hominem attacks against the messenger.

So, in a decidedly-less funny tribute to Late Show host David Letterman’s pending retirement, here are the IPT’s top 10 examples of “extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever” actions by CAIR. Together, they undermine CAIR’s credibility as a mainstream, reliable arbiter in the debate about terrorism, extremism and the treatment of Muslims in America:

You’ll have to provide your own drumroll.

10. Using civil rights instruction to scare the daylights out of Muslims and drive a wedge between the community and the FBI.

CAIR officials say their “Know Your Rights” seminars simply are meant to educate people that they have a right to have counsel present for questioning if the FBI approaches.

That would be fine if that’s all they were. But CAIR’s message is wrapped in paranoia, casting the FBI as an out-of-control monster whose agents will do everything and anything to set up innocent Muslims.

“They will do anything, anything within their power and oftentimes beyond their power to get you to talk,” CAIR-New York board member [CAIR has taken the page down] Lamis Deek said at a 2011 seminar. “They will threaten you. OK? I’ve had one case where they tried to blackmail my client, I mean blackmail, seriously blackmail; that’s illegal. But they’ll do it.”

This came two months after CAIR’s San Francisco chapter posted a flyer online urging Muslims to “Build a Wall of Resistance. Don’t Talk to the FBI.” In response, Hooper tried to minimize the incident as a misinterpretation. The problem wasn’t the flyer and its message. Instead, he told Fox News – surprise! – it was an “attack by the Islamophobic hate machine.”

9. False Accusations of FBI Shootings

It has not happened often, but FBI agents have shot and killed Muslim suspects in separate episodes. In each case, CAIR immediately cast the shooting as unjustified, and demanded independent investigations. In each case, those wishes were granted. But when the reviews reached the opposite conclusion, that the shootings were justified based upon the suspect’s actions, CAIR refused to accept that the suspect may have escalated the situation. This emphasis on blaming law enforcement no matter what should be viewed in the context of CAIR’s campaign against the FBI illustrated in #10 above.

In 2009, agents shot and killed Detroit Imam Luqman Abdullah. Abdullah fired first as agents moved in to arrest him for conspiracy and weapons charges. A Justice Department Civil Rights Division investigation concluded that agents opened fire “only after Imam Abdullah brandished a concealed handgun and shot toward them and that they legitimately feared that Imam Abdullah was in a position to cause death or significant injury to another.”

Even though the report made a point of showing that audio recordings, ballistics and other evidence all corroborated the agents’ accounts, and even though “[a] Glock 9mm handgun was found next to Imam Abdullah after the shooting and it had been fired,” CAIR officials continued to cast the shooting as “an overblown military type raid.” CAIR dismissed the findings, along with similar conclusions from the Dearborn Police Department and Michigan attorney general, as “superficial and incomplete.”

Last month, CAIR again took issue with an independent investigation for failing to agree with their spin. Ibragim Todashev, a friend of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was shot and killed by an FBI agent after hours of questioning in his Florida apartment. Todashev, a “skilled mixed-martial arts fighter,” implicated himself in a triple murder in Massachusetts. Witnesses say he grew anxious and agitated before heaving a coffee table at the FBI agent, hitting him in the head. He grabbed a five-foot-long metal pole over his head “with the end of the pole pointed toward [the FBI agent] as if intended to be used to impale rather than strike,” the investigation found.

CAIR’s Tampa director said the report raised “several concerns and key inconsistencies and … many important unanswered questions.” The failure to bring charges hurts the FBI’s credibility, he wrote on Twitter.

8. Refusing to Condemn Hamas and Hizballah as Terrorist Groups.

CAIR officials are great about condemning “all forms of terrorism and religious extremism.” But try to drill down and ask about specific terrorist groups and CAIR does everything but give a straight answer. They’ll stick with the universal rejection of anyone who engages in political violence as spokesman Corey Saylor did in 2008. Or, they’ll refuse on principle, as Hooper did in 2002 when he told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that “We’re not in the business of condemning.”

That’s consistent with Hooper’s dodge in the weeks after 9/11. Challenged by journalist Jake Tapper, Hooper hedged when it came to Osama bin Laden, saying “If Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name.” Tapper was surprised — “why qualify the response?” he asked.

“Hooper said he resented the question.”

Or, they’ll go to bluster.

In that 2001 interview with Tapper, Hooper rejected the question about Hamas as “word games from the pro-Israel lobby.”

This past November, CAIR-Los Angeles chief Hussam Ayloush reacted angrily to the very question. Simply being asked to condemn Hamas was “not acceptable,” he said, and “proves that you have nothing but bigotry in you.”

The group had no reservations condemning Israel, however, especially after it struck Hamas targets. CAIR condemned the killing [CAIR has taken the page down] of Hamas founder and spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin. The statement didn’t mention his role in Hamas, but cast him as “a 67-year-old quadriplegic and the most prominent Palestinian Islamic figure.”

In 2008, CAIR called reporters to a news conference to condemn Israel’s 2008 “Cast Lead” incursion into Gaza aimed at stopping rampant Hamas rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians. CAIR co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad demanded “that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population.”

He said nothing about the Hamas rocket fire.

For CAIR officials, attacks on Israeli civilians may not be seen as terrorism, but as a form of “resistance.”

7. Lying About it to Megyn Kelly and Fox viewers.

In his appearance on Fox last week, Hooper misled the audience.

“We’ve condemned Hamas, we’ve condemned every Hezbollah, we’ve condemned — we’ve condemned every organization that’s on the list of terrorist designated by the U.S. government,” he said.

6. Standing by Accused Terrorists and Terror Supporters

Our 2008 dossier on CAIR featured an entire section devoted to CAIR’s consistent behavior in casting doubt on terrorist and terror financing prosecutions. In each case, it was more than reminding people that, in our system, a person is innocent until proven guilty. To CAIR, these cases were inherently flawed, driven by politics, and unfair to Muslim Americans.

Among the examples:

• The conspiracy case against 11 Northern Virginia men who trained and planned to travel to wage jihad against American troops in Afghanistan after 9/11 was draconian and an example of “selective prosecution of Muslims since the 9/11 terror attacks.”

• The 2008 conviction of five men tied to the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) “was based more on fear-mongering than on the facts,” CAIR said in a statement [CAIR has taken the page down]. “It is particularly troubling that the government chose to use testimony from an anonymous witness, which deprives the defendants of their full right to confront their accusers. We expect the defendants to appeal this verdict and believe that it will eventually be overturned.”

It wasn’t.

• The 2011 arrest of Mansssor Arbabsiar for plotting to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington, which was tied to elements inside the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’s Quds Force was dismissed by key CAIR leaders as a trumped up entrapment case.

A year later, Arbabsiar pleaded guilty, admitting that “he conspired with officials in the Iranian military who were based in Iran, to cause the assassination of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador while the Ambassador was in the United States.” CAIR said nothing about that.

But that position is consistent for CAIR, which casts virtually all arrests of terror suspects in FBI sting operations as inherently suspect. CAIR-San Francisco representative Zahra Billoo told a local television “that the FBI was looking for a sensational story” rather than stopping a threat when it arrested a man who believed he was about to blow up a packed Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Ore. Walid, the Michigan director mentioned earlier, has said

CAIR officials also have claimed that the war on terrorism had become a war on Islam, a statement considered significant in radicalizing young Muslims. When we wrote about it in 2011, Hooper demanded a correction. CAIR officials, he argued, merely said there was a perception. Their emphasis on this issue, he argued, somehow had nothing to do with accepting or reinforcing that perception.

5. Working to silence/marginalize critics, especially fellow Muslims

This one is fresh from the headlines. CAIR helped pressure Brandeis University last week into withdrawing plans to bestow an honorary degree on author Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She renounced Islam, and is dedicated to combating abuse of women in Muslim societies, especially the incidents of female genital mutilation. It is driven from her personal experiences.

But CAIR likened the original Brandeis plan to honor Hirsi Ali “to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites.”

CAIR has twice failed in attempts to get Zuhdi Jasser, a fellow Muslim who opposes CAIR’s Islamist political agenda, removed from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Most recently, CAIR believed Jasser should be disqualified because they don’t like people who have supported his work financially. Jasser was appointed to a new term a week ago.

CAIR even tried to intimidate Somali Americans who were trying to stem the flow of young men in the Minneapolis area who returned to Somalia to fight with the al-Shabaab terrorist group. It called two men “anti-Muslim” for participating in a seminar which included a discussion about al-Shabaab.

4. Trying to stifle any discussion radical Islam plays in terror attacks and plots.

When Army psychiatrist Nidal Hassan opened fire on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009, CAIR argued that Hassan’s religious motivation should not be part of the ensuing debate. Hassan, however, self-identified as a “Soldier of Allah” on his business card and gave a presentation called, “Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam.” But Hooper went on a radio show to speculate that perhaps Hassan “just snapped … when these things happen and the guy’s name is John Smith nobody says well what about his religious beliefs? But when it is a Muslim sounding name that automatically comes into it.”

CAIR officials downplay religious motivation in other terror plots and say terms like jihad and radical Islam should not be used in discussing terrorist plots and attacks by Muslims. In that vein, CAIR conspired with a political scientist in 2010 to gin up sales of a book which claimed that religious extremism was a minimal factor in suicide bombings.

3. Soliciting dictators for donations.

CAIR directly asked the late-Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to underwrite a program to distribute Qurans. Awad praised Gaddafi as “the world Islamic popular leader.” Law enforcement sources told the IPT that Awad met with officials representing Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in November 2009, months after Bashir was charged with crimes against humanity.

State Department records show that a CAIR delegation sought millions of dollars during trips to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in 2006.

2. Appearing on Iranian and Hamas television to criticize the treatment of Muslims in the United States.

Though the practice has waned, CAIR officials from throughout the country have proven more than happy to appear on Iran’s Press TV and Hamas’s Al-Quds television. The CAIR representatives rarely spoke about the freedom Muslims enjoy in America. Rather, they painted pictures of Muslims being demonized in America and unfairly targeted by law enforcement. The one time Hooper did say something positive, he followed it by saying, “there is also a sense of being under siege from these hate mongers that are constantly trying to demonize our faith.”

When violent, anti-American protests broke out in Muslim countries in 2012, a CAIR official told Press TV that, “People have had enough of what is seen by them, what looks to them like America’s war on Islam.”

And the No. 1 example of CAIR being “extreme, objectionable, intolerant, whatever…”

The Palestine Committee.

Although it is a Muslim advocacy organization, CAIR was born from an original sin. It was part of something called the Palestine Committee, a Muslim Brotherhood umbrella organization created to support Hamas politically and financially. The evidence for this comes not from “Internet hate sites,” as Hooper is fond of saying, but from internal documents seized by the FBI and admitted into evidence in the HLF trial.

Here’s a Palestine Committee meeting agenda listing CAIR among its member organizations. Here’s the committee’s telephone list, including CAIR founders Awad and Ahmad (listed as Omar Yehya). Here’s a federal judge’s opinion that the government produced “ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR …. with Hamas.”

CAIR has never acknowledged this history. They even tried to argue that the Palestine Committee never existed.

It didn’t work.

This evidence is the reason that the FBI cut off relations with CAIR outside of official investigations in 2008.

“[U] ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” an FBI assistant director explained in a 2009 letter. [Emphasis added]

The policy remains in effect, meaning the question has not been resolved.

Yet, in his interview with Kelly, Hooper tried to make relations between CAIR and the FBI seem fine, saying “we have relations, we’re on a daily contact with the FBI on civil rights issues –on a variety of things.”

Rather than acknowledge their record and try to claim things have changed, Hooper and CAIR engage in denial and deflection. Read through this Top 10 again. The examples cited come from the mouths of CAIR officials themselves or from court documents.

CAIR must fear what would happen if the broader public understands that, thus the emphasis on “Internet hate sites.”

Ibrahim Hooper issued a challenge. We thank him for it.

Posted on 18 Apr 14 by Investigative Project on Terrorism


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: