The U.S. State Department removed the sections covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on Human Rights that it released on May 24, three months past the statutory deadline Congress set for the release of these reports.
The new human rights reports–purged of the sections that discuss the status of religious freedom in each of the countries covered–are also the human rights reports that include the period that covered the Arab Spring and its aftermath.
Thus, the reports do not provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist forces played an instrumental role.
For the first time ever, the State Department simply eliminated the section of religious freedom in its reports covering 2011 and instead referred the public to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report – a full two years behind the times – or to the annual report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which was released last September and covers events in 2010 but not 2011.
Leonard Leo, who recently completed a term as chairman of the USCIRF, says that removing the sections on religious freedom from the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights’ is a bad idea.
Since 1998, when Congress created USCIRF, the State Department has been required to issue a separate yearly report specifically on International Religious Freedom.
But a section reporting on religious freedom has also always been included in the State Department’s legally required annual country-by-country reports on human rights–that is, until now.
And this is the first year the State Department would have needed to report on the effect the Arab Spring has had on religious freedom in the Middle East–had its reports, as always before, included a section on religious freedom.
“The commission that I served on has some real concerns about that bifurcation, because the human rights reports receive a lot of attention, and to have pulled religious freedom out of it means that fewer people will obtain information about what’s going on with that particular freedom or right. So you don’t have the whole picture because they split it up now,” Leo told CNSNews.com.
Former U.S. diplomat Thomas Farr says it’s possible that the move to totally separate religious freedom from the human rights reports could simply be a bureaucratic maneuver.
ANNAPOLIS — An Ellicott City teen has been indicted on charges that he conspired to provide material support to terrorists.
Mohammad Hassan Khalid, a Pakistani immigrant who recently turned 18, was arrested July 6 and could face 15 years in prison if convicted.
He is accused of conspiring with Ali Charaf Damache, an Algerian man residing in Ireland, and Colleen R. LaRose, an American Muslim convert from Pennsylvania who called herself “Jihad Jane” and pleaded guilty in February to multiple terrorism-related charges.
The indictment alleges that the conspirators were involved in recruiting and supporting terrorists in the United States, Europe and South Asia. Khalid’s lawyer, Jeffrey M. Lindy, said he’s very disappointed by the accusations.
“He’s just turned 18 and the government is accusing him of committing the crime when he was 15,” he said. “This is the American dream basically turned into a nightmare.”
Lindy said Khalid was an honors student at his high school and was offered a full scholarship to Johns Hopkins University this fall, which he lost after his arrest in July. Officials at Johns Hopkins could not be reached late Thursday.
Khalid is currently in custody in Pennsylvania.
The indictment accuses Khalid, Damache, and others of coordinating a violent jihad organization consisting of many men and women from the United States and Europe who were divided into multiple teams, including recruitment and finance. Some members of the organization would travel to South Asia for explosives training and return to Europe.
The indictment also accuses them of using the Internet to recruit members to wage violent jihad and to solicit funds online for terrorists. They recruited members who could travel freely in Europe.
“This investigation highlights the diverse threat environment we face today,” said FBI Assistant Director Mark Giuliano, in a statement. “As revealed in this case, individuals used the Internet to further radicalization and to contribute to the radicalization of others.”
Khalid sometimes used the online username “Abdul Ba’aree ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Hassan Al-Afghani Al-Junoobi W’at Emiratee” in his communications with Damache and LaRose.
On Monday, September 12, 2011, the 10th Circuit Court held a hearing on the constitutionality challenge to the Oklahoma state constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly in November of 2010, to prevent courts in Oklahoma from using international law or shariah law in their decisions. Dubbed the “Save Our State” amendment and referred to officially as State Question 755 (SQ 755), the initiative stated:
The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.
This well-meaning amendment seemed reasonable at first glance and was hailed in conservative circles as a step in the right direction to preserve American sovereignty and prevent the incorporation of shariah law into American courts and institutions. The bill’s supporters wanted, rightly, to prevent the European mistake of allowing parallel shariah court systems, which have denied legal rights to Muslim citizens and prevented full integration into Western society. And 70% of the Oklahoma electorate supported the bill’s principles of preventing “foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.”
But first glances can be deceiving. In fact, the reality is very different.
Unfortunately, SQ 755 has had the opposite of its intended effect. It has proven to be a boon to its opponents, and a distraction from the more carefully drafted bills designed to prevent both the entry of unconstitutional foreign laws such as shariah in American jurisprudence and the use of transnationalism by activist judges.
SQ 755 contains several flaws, some legal and some practical. The legal flaws have already been exposed in the federal courts, which have effectively quarantined the amendment from being implemented. Here is a summary of the flaws in SQ 755, Oklahoma’s Save Our State amendment:
SQ 755 is not facially neutral, because it specifies shariah law.
SQ 755 contains what appears to be a blanket ban on the use of international law or the laws of foreign nations. While this may seem like a good idea at first glance, from a practical standpoint it may interfere unnecessarily in the right to contract and could serve as an impediment to international commerce. In essence, if someone in Oklahoma, or a business or corporation in Oklahoma, wants to sign a contract with provisions of foreign or international law, they can do so. This is not an uncommon practice in business in these times, and throwing such agreements out of Oklahoma courts simply based on the fact that they contain elements of foreign law could in fact place Oklahoma corporations at a disadvantage in having to have all disputes adjudicated away from home.
SQ 755 is too vague. It does not give the courts specific enough instructions with regard to such complex legal issues as comity and choice of forum. This could create loopholes for activist judges.
Practically speaking, SQ 755 is defective if its aim is to prevent the enforcement of shariah laws in America. The bill bans the use of shariah in decisions without defining what shariah is. Judges in the U.S., Oklahoma being no exception, are not generally educated or informed about shariah. They cannot be expected to recognize shariah. If a question arises in a case as to whether some aspect of a conflict comprises shariah or not, a judge will be forced to consult an outside expert or source to make a determination. In almost every circumstance, that outside expert or source will end up being a shariah scholar or the work of a shariah scholar. So, ironically, the very law that is designed to prevent shariah from working its way into our legal system will have invited shariah experts in to make rulings.
Unfortunately, SQ 755 has now given ammunition to proponents of shariah and transnationalism, who point to 755 as “proof” that any law designed to prevent the incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines into state courts in the United States is unconstitutional, or will be subject to expensive legal challenges from Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or the judicial activist/transnationalist ACLU.
The reality is that there is an effective alternative to SQ 755 legislation and its various copycats around the country. That legislation is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) and it can be accessed here.
ALAC has already been passed into law in 3 states — Tennessee (April 2010), Louisiana (June 2010), and Arizona (May 2011) — and has not incurred any legal challenges, because there is simply no legal basis on which to challenge ALAC. This is significant because SQ 755 was challenged in federal court within days of passage.
ALAC remedies the flaws in SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:
ALAC is facially neutral. In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.
ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755’s. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated. If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process. This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws. ALAC also contains a specific provision for corporations and businesses so as not to interfere with commerce; it exempts Native American laws; it specifically says that the law cannot detract from the right to free exercise of religion, which would include religious courts like Jewish Bet Din or Catholic ecclesiastical courts; and it states that the law would not interfere with compliance with international treaties the U.S. has signed.
ALAC is not vague. It provides specific instructions for judges on complex legal issues involving comity and choice of forum, thus closing potential loopholes for activist judges.
Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law — including in many cases, shariah law — that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.
And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study found fifty cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including many appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law. Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty — including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah laws.
It is important that activists, legislators, and the media recognize the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, so that they do not use it as a model.
Fortunately, most legislators have already made the right choice. The American Laws for American Courts Act — already passed in three states and never challenged in court — is progressing through legislatures in several states with two-year or year-round sessions, and is either scheduled to be introduced or under consideration in over 25 additional states for the coming legislative session.
On August 31, 2011, the initiative received an important endorsement when the Michigan version of the American Laws for American Courts bill was endorsed by a prominent group of American Muslims opposed to the enforcement of shariah law in America: the American Islamic Leadership Coalition. The model American Laws for American Courts Act on which the Michigan bill is based has already been endorsed by a former CIA director; a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; a former inspector general for the Defense Department; and dozens of lawyers, law professors, rabbis, clergy, and community leaders across the country as “the 21st Century civil rights initiative to ensure constitutional liberties for all Americans.”
Illinois taxpayers are funding a Muslim American Advisory Council to help put Muslims in their state government! Just like Obama is unilaterally doing at the federal level.
The State of Illinois has announced the creation of its Muslim American Advisory Council that includes the Secretary-General of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). According to the press release:
CHICAGO – August 30, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today named members to serve on the Muslim American Advisory Council, which will help ensure Muslim American participation in state government. Governor Quinn announced the new council during “Eid,” the close of the holy month of Ramadan. “Illinois is a diverse state, which is one of our greatest strengths,” Governor Quinn said. “There are more than 400,000 Muslims and 300 mosques within our borders, representing various racial and ethnic sects of Islam. I want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity for input in how we address issues such as education, public safety and jobs, because the strategies may need to differ based on the history, culture and needs of different communities.” The Muslim American Advisory Council will advise the Governor on ways to advance the role and civic participation of Muslim Americans in Illinois. Additionally, the council will recommend strategies to better integrate Muslims in Illinois socially, educationally, culturally and economically. The council will facilitate relationship-building in the Muslim community to achieve goals related to International Commerce in Muslim countries/communities, and identify ways to more effectively disseminate information and outreach to Muslim Americans regarding state programs and services. The council will advise the Governor on appropriate policy developments, official directives, and other issues of significance impacting Illinois’ Muslims. It will bring important faith-based issues based on factual findings to the Governor’s attention and make recommendations to address those issues. It will also strengthen communication between the state and Muslim leadership and the general community.
Included in the list of appointees is ISNA Secretary-General Saafa Zarzour who has extensive ties to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood which a Hudson Institute report says includes ISNA as a major component. For example, Mr. Zazour is a board member and President of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR.) Investigative research posted on GMBDR has determined that CAIR had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and documents released in the Holy Land Trial have revealed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as identifying the organization itself as being another part of the U.S. Brotherhood. A recent post discussed an interview with the Deputy leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in which he confirms a relationship between his organization and CAIR.
August 22, 2011 – San Francisco, CA – CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, an unindicted coconspirator in the nation’s largest and most successful prosecution of domestic Hamas funding, is once again taking on the Electrolux Corp., based [stateside] in Minnesota.
The company employs approximately 150 Muslim workers, whom CAIR has been taking advantage of in order to foment the type of civilizational/cultural jihad proposed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its numerous front groups. [see, document General Strategic Goal For The Group In North America]
CAIR is alleging that the employer is not making reasonable accommodation for Muslims to observe Ramadan. This despite an already extant EEOC mediated settlement of a similar complaint last year. [see, CAIR Strong Arms Electrolux In Minnesota]
Many of Electrolux’ Muslim workers are “political refugees” who were permitted to immigrate to the United States from Somalia, a key al-Qaeda stronghold, under an ill-considered State Dept. program which has been roundly criticized.
Somali immigrants have in large part not been a model of successful acculturation and have a history of precipitating labor disputes [often represented by Islamist groups such as CAIR] in businesses as diverse as Dell Computer, J.B Swift & Co and the Minneapolis airport.
To many, the prospect of a pressure group advocating on behalf of its constituency is unremarkable however the above outlined type of dispute reflects something far more insidious. It’s a clear demonstration of the ability of Shari’a proponents to employ the West’s numerous freedoms and rights against itself – a seditious stealth weapon – designed to weaken and eventually overturn constitutional government.
Flashback. It’s much less secretive than before, although they’ve infiltrated all levels of government and beyond and some people haven’t figured it out yet.
By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Sam Roe and Laurie Cohen Tribune staff reporters
September 19, 2004
Over the last 40 years, small groups of devout Muslim men have gathered in homes in U.S. cities to pray, memorize the Koran and discuss events of the day.
But they also addressed their ultimate goal, one so controversial that it is a key reason they have operated in secrecy: to create Muslim states overseas and, they hope, someday in America as well.
These men are part of an underground U.S. chapter of the international Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamic fundamentalist group and an organization with a violent past in the Middle East. But fearing persecution, they rarely identify themselves as Brotherhood members and have operated largely behind the scenes, unbeknown even to many Muslims.
Still, the U.S. Brotherhood has had a significant and ongoing impact on Islam in America, helping establish mosques, Islamic schools, summer youth camps and prominent Muslim organizations. It is a major factor, Islamic scholars say, in why many Muslim institutions in the nation have become more conservative in recent decades.
Leading the U.S. Brotherhood during much of this period was Ahmed Elkadi, an Egyptian-born surgeon and a former personal physician to Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal. He headed the group from 1984 to 1994 but abruptly lost his leadership position. Now he is discussing his life and the U.S. Brotherhood for the first time.
His story, combined with details from documents and interviews, offers an unprecedented look at the Brotherhood in America: how the group recruited members, how it cloaked itself in secrecy and how it alienated many moderate Muslims.
Indeed, because of its hard-line beliefs, the U.S. Brotherhood has been an increasingly divisive force within Islam in America, fueling the often bitter struggle between moderate and conservative Muslims.
Many Muslims believe that the Brotherhood is a noble international movement that supports the true teachings of Islam and unwaveringly defends Muslims who have come under attack around the world, from Chechens to Palestinians to Iraqis. But others view it as an extreme organization that breeds intolerance and militancy.
“They have this idea that Muslims come first, not that humans come first,” says Mustafa Saied, 32, a Floridian who left the U.S. Brotherhood in 1998.
While separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of American democracy, the international Brotherhood preaches that religion and politics cannot be separated and that governments eventually should be Islamic. The group also champions martyrdom and jihad, or holy war, as a means of self-defense and has provided the philosophical underpinnings for Muslim militants worldwide.
…
Documents obtained by the Tribune and translated from Arabic show that the U.S. Brotherhood has been careful to obscure its beliefs from outsiders. One document tells leaders to be cautious when screening potential recruits. If the recruit asks whether the leader is a Brotherhood member, the leader should respond, “You may deduce the answer to that with your own intelligence.”
Islamic state a long-term goal
Brotherhood members emphasize that they follow the laws of the nations in which they operate. They stress that they do not believe in overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather that they want as many people as possible to convert to Islam so that one day–perhaps generations from now–a majority of Americans will support a society governed by Islamic law. Muslims make up less than 3 percent of the U.S. population, but estimates of their number vary widely from 2 million to 7 million.
What’s wrong with infiltrating the places where terrorists learn their trade? At least Eric Holder is using the state secrets rule that says disclosing further information about the surveillance operation could cause significant harm to national security.
Why do we allow the taxpayer-funded ACLU to always litigate on behalf of America’s enemies like CAIR? The suit accuses the FBI of paying Southern California resident Craig Monteilh to go undercover, infiltrate mosques and record conversations in search for potential terrorists.
The Web site of Tower Presbyterian Church in Grove City, Pa., was one of 18 across the nation that were hacked this week and revised to promote conversion to Islam.
A computer hacker took control of more than a dozen church Web sites hosted by a Perrysburg designer this week, replacing their regular content with an appeal that Christians convert to Islam.
The Rev. Vinnie Dauer of Fallen Timbers Community Church in Waterville said he received a text message from a church member at about 6:30 p.m. Tuesday telling him someone had posted “Muslim propaganda” on the church’s Web site.
The cyber attack surprised church leaders there, who wondered why anyone would target their small congregation’s Web site.
“It was unnerving, but I think also it was an indicator to me of the different world we live in,” said Mr. Dauer, the assistant pastor at Fallen Timbers. “No one could walk into this church building and put up propaganda that’s contradictory to our belief system, but yet our Web site is a representation of who we are.”
The Fallen Timbers site was quickly taken down by Ryan Leisure, whose Web company, R Leisure Enterprises, designs and hosts sites for about 60 churches across the country. Of those, 18 came under attack, some as far away as Texas and California.
Mr. Leisure, himself a member of Fallen Timbers, said his primary work comes from private businesses, but as a Christian he wanted to do something to help smaller churches reach out to their communities.
The hacker, who identified himself as a Muslim hacker and signed his work “Mr. HAiL,” somehow gained access to Mr. Leisure’s entire portfolio of sites, though only the church sites were altered.
“It seemed like he was clearly trying to convert people. I don’t see how he could actually be successful with this, but he was talking about Christians converting to Islam,” Mr. Leisure said.
The hacker deleted the church Web sites and replaced them with a photograph of Mecca, a few paragraphs about Islam, and a list of 12 other Web sites purportedly containing more information about the faith. The postings didn’t include any inflammatory language against Christians.
Despite the fairly benign nature of the hacking, both Mr. Leisure and leaders from the affected churches were concerned about it.
“It’s a little alarming that just the churches were getting targeted by it,” Mr. Leisure said. “The churches that did contact me were panicking a little bit.”
After he took down the hacked Web sites, Mr. Leisure called the FBI’s Toledo office to report the offenses. He said he was directed to file a report on ic3.gov, a Web site used by the FBI to gather information on and track cyber crimes.
“I can’t confirm we’ve opened a case, but certainly if he made that complaint they’ll review it and take whatever action they deem appropriate,” said Special Agent Scott Wilson, a spokesman for the FBI in Cleveland.
Muslims hacking Christian websites with dawah messages is not worthy of opening a case? Not a crime? If it a mosque website that was hacked for any reason it would be national news of an Islamophobic hate crime.
It’s not the first Islamo-jihad on web sites either.
A federal jury awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages Wednesday to a Tulsa woman who was not hired to work at a local Abercrombie Kids store because she wears a headscarf, but jurors opted not to award her any punitive damages.
$20K takes the distress away…
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell turned down the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s request for an injunction against the company.
Still, Samantha Elauf, 20, said she was “very excited” by the outcome and that she is glad she made her situation public.
The EEOC sued Abercrombie & Fitch on Elauf’s behalf in September 2009, alleging that the company practiced religious discrimination when it chose not to hire her to work at an Abercrombie Kids store at Woodland Hills Mall in June 2008.
She had worn a hijab – or religiously mandated headscarf – to her job interview.
Frizzell ruled last month that the company failed to establish that granting Elauf an exception to its “Look Policy” would have caused it undue hardship.
Because the judge had already found Abercrombie liable, the only issue before the jury was what – if any – damages should be awarded.
EEOC regional attorney Barbara Seely told the jury during her closing argument that Elauf – who was born in the United States – had never been discriminated against before, hasn’t gotten over how she was treated, and will always remember it.
Elauf had testified Tuesday that she felt insulted and disrespected after she discovered that she was not hired because of the scarf.
Seely told the jury that the company wanted its sales associates – or models, as Abercrombie calls them – to look like “cookie-cutter kids.”
Abercrombie attorney Mark Knueve said during his closing argument that diversity is very important to the company and that the organization doesn’t discriminate.
He did say, though, that the company considers its Look Policy a central part of its success, comparing it to Coca-Cola’s secret formula.
Part of the policy prohibits head wear, although the jury heard about several exceptions that had been made during the past few years.
Knueve told the jurors that Elauf should not receive damages, noting that she gained other employment within a few days of not being hired to work at Abercrombie Kids.
While the jury was engaged in what turned out to be more than four hours of deliberations, Frizzell heard testimony and arguments about whether he should issue an injunction against Abercrombie.
Such an injunction would have required the company to notify applicants who wear headscarves to interviews that they may request to be allowed to wear one as a religious accommodation and to provide training to its retail store managers that such notifications must be made.
The injunction also would have required the company to train managers about the company’s obligation to provide religious accommodation to applicants and employees and how to recognize when an applicant might need such an accommodation.
Frizzell noted that Abercrombie has changed its interview procedure so that applicants are now told that the company does not permit its models to sport headwear on the job and are asked if they have any questions about that policy.
Elauf testified Tuesday that she did not ask during her interview for any sort of accommodation that would have allowed her to wear a scarf while on the job, saying she didn’t know it was necessary to bring up the topic.
The EEOC, not Elauf, is the plaintiff in the case, but Seely told the court at a pretrial hearing that any damages would go to Elauf and not to the agency. Frizzell told the jury Wednesday that Elauf has no legal fees to pay connected to the case.
Compensatory damages were sought for the emotional distress Elauf endured because of the discrimination, Seely told the jury.
Knueve did not give a definitive answer when asked whether Abercrombie intends to appeal.
Barring a successful appeal by the company, Elauf plans to save the $20,000 and apply it toward the costs of opening her own clothing store someday, she said.
When asked how it will compare to Abercrombie, a smiling Elauf said, “It’ll be better.”
Seely said Wednesday’s jury verdict was “icing on the cake” for the EEOC after previously winning on the liability issue.
“Samantha Elauf deserves every penny,” Seely said. “She is a courageous young woman who stuck with this case for three years in order to stand up for her rights and the rights of every Muslim woman to work wearing a headscarf.”
Obligatory and useless comment from terrorist-linked CAIR not printed here.
Some updates over the past few weeks on the Obama administration’s newest partner – the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – whom Obama has been embracing and legitimizing before and after he became president.
It’s official — the radical Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted America’s agenda in the Mideast and possibly the broader war. The Obama administration has formalized ties with the group.
In a shocking first, the State Department will now allow diplomats to deal directly with Muslim Brotherhood party officials in Cairo, where the international organization is based.
The terror-supporting group — whose credo is “Jihad is our way, and dying in the cause of Allah is our highest hope” — was formally banned by the secular Mubarak regime. Now it threatens to take power when elections are held in September.
Legitimizing the Brotherhood and its agenda has dangerous consequences both at home and abroad.
The group, which founded and still controls Hamas, does not recognize Israel. In fact, its leaders have called for its destruction. So the administration’s diplomatic overture is another affront to our key Mideast ally.
The Brotherhood responded this week by thanking Clinton, and issuing its first demand of its new American friends: drop support for the “Zionist regime.”
In an email response quoted by Bloomberg, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mahmoud Ghozlan stated that if America wants solid relations with the group, it should “stop supporting the corrupt and tyrannical regimes, backing the Zionist occupation and using double standards.”
It is important to remember that when the Muslim Brotherhood speaks of the “Zionist occupation” it does not mean only the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria, the so-called “West Bank.”
The Muslim Brotherhood sees all of Israel as a cancerous growth that must be eradicated. The group supports returning Egypt to a state of war with Israel, and wants to see the entirety of the region become an Islamic Caliphate.
Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood for making peace with Israel.
CAIRO – Following the footsteps of their American allies, the European Union is not ruling out holding official contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Al-Ahram Online reported.
“We are always open to dialogue with anyone who is interested in democracy,” said Michael Mann, spokesperson for EU’s High Representative Catherine Ashton.
For years, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned and its leaders were repressed by governments since the 1950s.
The European move comes days after Washington said it would hold contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood.
“We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier this month.
“And we welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.”
The Muslim Brotherhood opposes the US policies in the Middle East and its wavering support to Israel.
It has historic links with the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas and shares its belief in armed struggle against Israel.
Historic links as in Hamas is a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood – as stated in Hamas’ own covenant.
Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Hazem Abu Ismail announced his intention to run in Egypt’s upcoming presidential elections.
…“If I could apply sharia in Egypt, all people, including non-Muslims, would applaud me four years later,” said Abu Ismail.
“We seek to apply Islamic law, but those who don’t want it prefer cabarets, alcohol, dancers and prostitution, as the implementation of Islamic law will prohibit women to appear naked in movies and on beaches,” Abu Ismail added.
…Concerning the peace treaty with Israel, he said, “The Camp David peace treaty is insulting to the Egyptian people, so it must be canceled, and I will do my best to convince people to cancel it.”
“There is no other way but gradual action, preparing the [people’s] souls and setting an example, so that faith will enter their hearts… Gradual action does not impose Islam at once, but rather step by step, in order to facilitate understanding, studying, acceptance, and submission. […]
“The Prophet, peace be upon him, acted in a gradual manner, by first preparing the people, and then [preparing] family, society, state, and finally the caliphate…
I ask the honorable Al-Azhar to rally the Islamic streams in order to unite the Muslim word and effort, restore the caliphate, and prepare a practical plan to implement the law of Allah the Exalted. This is the goal of the honorable Al-Azhar and of all Islamic streams. And Allah will help.
“O Allah, guide us, open our hearts to faith, and restore this [Muslim] nation to its previous self – one united nation worshipping You and You alone.”
Egypt’s State Security Prosecution has uncovered what it claims to be a special women’s unit within the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement.
The prosecution says this group is led by the brotherhood’s deputy chairman Mahmoud Ezzat, who was arrested with 15 other Muslim Brotherhood members on February 8.
“There’s a Muslim sisters organization and that’s nothing new,” Shadi Hamid, deputy director of the Brookings Doha Center told The Media Line. “It’s important to note that even though the Muslim sisters can’t technically be members of the formal brotherhood organization, they still participate in its activities in a sense that the brotherhood runs women candidates at different levels.”
“It is a historic moment worthy of thanks to Allah,” Khayrat Al-Shatter, the deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, told the opening session of the conference on Saturday, July 1, cited by the group’s website.
“This conference is the first for the Sisters and Muslim women for nearly sixty years.”
Themed the “Muslim Sisterhood”, the one-day conference brought together 2,000 Brotherhood’s female members.
Why hasn’t this been mentioned in U.S. media? Why did left-wing liberal apologists for sharia law scoff at the notion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aid and confidant’s mother, Weiner’s mother-in-law a member of Muslim Brotherhood? Facts aren’t on their side:
Al-Liwa Al-Arabi reports that the members of the Muslim Sisterhood are the “the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood,” who are being recruited to “smuggle secret documents for the members since women go undetected by security surveillance” and “to spread the Brotherhood’s ideology by infiltrating universities, schools and homes.”
The Sisterhood, the paper says, is commissioned to “fulfill the interests of the Brotherhood and also to benefit from international women’s conferences and unify all efforts to benefit the Brotherhood globally.”
The Sisterhood’s mission also includes organizing projects that will penetrate its prohibited ideology into the decision-making in the West in an indirect way under the guise of “general needs of women.”
The objectives will be accomplished, Al-Liwa Al-Arabi reports, “through the university and the state capitals and institutions.”
The newspaper lists Huma Abedin’s mother among a dozen members of the Sisterhood from Saudi Arabia.
The mother of Huma Abedin, Hillary’s Clinton’s chief of staff, has represented a Saudi-funded Muslim charity accused of terrorism financing and ties to al-Qaida.
Abedin has reportedly represented the Muslim World League, or MWL, a Saudi-financed charity that has spawned Islamic groups accused of terror ties. One of the groups was declared by the U.S. government to be an official al-Qaida front.
Global media are reporting that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has addressed students at the Dar El-Hekma women’s college in Saudi Arabia, known to have been co-founded and patronized by an individual designated as a terrorist by the U.S as well as by important Saudi bankers and members of the Bin Laden family.
This blog-site is not the official blog-site of ACT! for America,
Inc. This blog-site is independently owned and operated by that ACT! for America chapter named on this site. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this blog-site, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc., its directors, officers, or agents.
Statements, views, positions and opinions expressed in articles, columns, commentaries and blog posts, whether written, audible, or video, which are not the original work of the ACT! for America chapter that operates this site and is named on this site, are not necessarily the views, positions, and opinions of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this site.
WindsorCOAct!forAmerica 