Sunday, July 30, 2017

 Imran Awan’s Lawyer, Chris Gowen, 
Is A Long Time Clinton Associate
 Published on Jul 26, 2017
Imran Awan’s Lawyer Is Long time Clinton Associate

Chris Gowen, Imran Awan’s lawyer, is a long-time campaigner for former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a member of an attorney team that brought a fraudulent lawsuit against energy giant Chevron.

Pakistani-born Awan was arrested late Monday at Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia before he could board a flight to Qatar and then Pakistan on bank fraud charges. Awan, his younger brothers, Abid and Jamal, his wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, his best friend, have been subjects of a federal criminal investigation led by the U.S. Capitol Police and including the FBI since February 2017.

The investigation is focused on allegations the Awan group abused their access as congressional information technology (IT) administrators for dozens of Democratic members of the House of Representatives, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida.

Politico reported the criminal probe concerned “serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network.”

 Imran Awan was hired by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to head up the IT department, but his real job was spying on communications for her.
 Published on Jul 29, 2017
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that she says belongs to her in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani staffer suspected of massive cybersecurity breaches involving funneling sensitive congressional data offsite.

The Florida lawmaker used her position on the committee that sets the police force’s budget to press its chief to relinquish the piece of evidence Thursday, in what could be considered using her authority to attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation.

 Finally! Evidence Of Foreign Influence Revealed
 Published on Jul 28, 2017
With the news of Debbie Wasserman Schultz' top IT aide getting arrested while attempting to flee the country comes a twisted tale of foreign actors compromising congress. Will justice finally be served despite this story receiving virtually no mainstream news coverage?
 Huge DNC / Muslim Brotherhood Scandal 
Ignored By MSM 
 Published on Jul 28, 2017
Paul Joseph Watson details the current scandal unfolding surrounding Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her IT Staffers, the Awan brothers, as the mainstream media ignores it all.
 Awan Arrested At Airport As Democrats In Panic
 Published on Jul 27, 2017
 The media focuses on Trump Russia, but the Democrats are about the face justice.The long saga of the Awan brothers reached a turning point when Imran Awan was arrested at the airport, along with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, smashed hard drives being picked up by the FBI.
The media focuses on Trump Russia, but the Democrats are about the face justice.
 DNC IT Staffer Caught Trying To Flee The Country
 Published on Jul 27, 2017
The DNC staffer in charge of IT for Debbie Wasserman Schultz was caught attempting to flee the country.
 Is Imran Awan The Domino That Will Topple The Clinton Crime Network?
 Published on Jul 27, 2017
Imran Awan was hired by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to head up the IT department, but his real job was spying on communications for her.
 Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Awan Brothers Sent Sensitive Intel To Terrorist Groups
 Published on Jul 29, 2017
Just when you thought the case surrounding the Awan brothers could not get any darker, a new piece of news emerges. Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer revealed to Laura Ingraham, who filled in for Tucker Carlson Thursday evening, the Pakistani IT staffers were sending sensitive information to the Muslim Brotherhood.


 Published on Jul 27, 2017
An ATP Report Production - on this episode Barry Nussbaum reviews how American cities want to prevent Islamophobia but are not preventing terror!

Friday, July 28, 2017


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 They got what they wanted: all the new security measures were removed. 
But they’re still rioting. Why? Because the Israeli concessions show 
that violence is the way to get what they want. So now they’re pressing 
for more concessions.
 Video by Jerusalem Online
“BREAKING: Arabs Attack Israeli Police on Temple Mount,” by Andrew Friedman, Tazpit News Agency, July 27, 2017:
Arabs attacked Israeli police on the Temple Mount Thursday as Muslim worshipers returned to the holy site after a 10-day boycott to protest Israeli security measures.

Livestreamed footage taken from the Mount of Olives, overlooking the Temple mount, showed thousands of people milling around the site, with the sounds of gunshots and ambulance sirens clearly heard.
The clashes took place hours after Islamic authorities who are responsible for maintenance at the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque agreed to call off the boycott after Israeli authorities dismantled security cameras and metal detectors at entrances to the Mount.
The security measures were introduced following the murder of two police officers near the Lion’s Gate area of the compound by three Israeli-Arabs who emerged from the Al Aqsa mosque within the Temple Mount on July 14.
Late Thursday afternoon new protests began in the Bab Hutta neighborhood, in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, when a gate leading from the neighborhood to the Mount was closed; the gate was later opened, allowing hundreds of Muslims to pour through and into the compound.
18:55 At least 56 people have been injured in the attacks against Israeli police, and the subsequent response by security personnel on the Temple Mount.
18:24 The most recent count is 46 people wounded in the clashes, according to local sources….
 Islamic Violence Erupts at the Temple Mount
 Muslim protestors riot and burn throughout Jerusalem 
 Published on Jul 22, 2017
Jerusalem, Israel (Ynetnews) — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday declared a freeze on all relations with Israel in response to the Temple Mount crisis. "Relations with Israel will be frozen at all levels until Israel commits itself to canceling all its steps against the Palestinian people as a whole and against the city of Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in particular, and to committing itself to preserving the historical and legal situation in Al-Aqsa," he said in his statement.

"We reject to magnetometers, as they are political moves presented in the guise of security measures, whose sole goal is to take over the Al-Aqsa Mosque and escape the peace process, turn the conflict from a political one to a religious one and break up the mosque based on time and place.

In a dramatic move, Palestinian Pres. announces PA 'freezing of contacts at all levels in light of the steps in Jerusalem by placing magnetometers'; Hamas calls move 'a meaningless announcement.'

Read more here:,73...
Jihad terrorism works: Israel removes all security apparatus from al-Aqsa Mosque after violent protests
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Israeli government no doubt believes that by caving in, they have pacified an increasingly volatile situation. That is true in the short run. But in the long run, they have only reinforced the proposition that when “Palestinians” don’t get things their way, all they have to do is riot and kill some innocent Israeli civilians, and the Israelis will give them whatever they want. This will only lead to more, not less, jihad terrorism in the future.
Now that Muslims can carry weapons to the Temple Mount with impunity, how many more Israelis will be murdered?

“Israel removes all security apparatus from al-Aqsa Mosque after unrest,” Reuters, July 26, 2017:
Israel overnight removed all security infrastructure it had put in place this month at Muslim entrances to the Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City, stepping up its efforts to diffuse political and religious tension.
The government had already dismantled metal detectors it installed in the area after the killing of two Israeli policemen on July 14, hoping the move would calm 10 days of often-violent protests that have put the city on edge.
But separate security measures, including closed-circuit cameras and low metal gates, were left in place, angering Palestinian leaders and the population, who have threatened a “day of rage” on Friday. Most Muslims have avoided entering the compound in the past two weeks, praying instead in the streets.
The stand-off at the holy site – the Haram al-Sharif compound, or the Noble Sanctuary of Jerusalem – has provoked some of the worst bloodshed in Jerusalem for years, with peace efforts having stagnated since 2014….
Amateur video shot overnight showed Israeli contractors dismantling gantries put up to hold security cameras and using forklift trucks to take away metal barriers from the marbled Lion’s Gate entrance to the mosque compound.
Witnesses said all the security devices had been removed and crowds of Palestinians gathered in the early hours to celebrate. Police spokeswoman Luba Samri confirmed the removal. “Everything that was installed after the attack (the killing of the two police officers) was taken down overnight,” she said….
 Temple Mount Flashpoint: Clashes Erupt as Muslim Worshipers Return to Site, 125 Injured
Published on Jul 27, 2017
Thousands of Muslim worshipers entered the Temple Mount on Thursday for the first time in nearly two weeks, many shouting in delight as they did so, and violent clashes erupted between Palestinians and Israeli security forces at the compound.

A police officer was injured after a rock was thrown at his head, police said.

Channel 2 reported that 10 police officers were injured in the ensuing clashes.

Some 115 Palestinians were treated for injuries both inside the compound and in the surrounding area, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent. A spokesperson said the injuries were mainly caused by rubber bullets, burns and bruises. Fifteen people were hospitalized, it said.

Police said worshipers began hurling rocks at security forces upon their reentry to the compound.

Some stones fell at the Western Wall plaza below, causing no injuries, a police spokesperson said.

The police responded to the stone-throwing with riot dispersal methods and vowed to forcefully combat any violence.

Extra police and troops deployed to Jerusalem and West Bank after rollback of security measures at sacred compound failed to calm tensions.

Israeli forces prepared for possible violent protests in Jerusalem and the West Bank Friday, as flaring tensions surrounding the Temple Mount persisted even as Muslim leaders ended their protest over Israeli security arrangements at the flashpoint holy site.

Extra police and border guard gendarmes were ordered deployed to Jerusalem hotspots, and the military was beefing up its presence in the West Bank amid expectations of possible violent protests following midday prayers Friday, a week after heavy clashes in the capital and West Bank left five Palestinians dead.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered police reinforcements in Jerusalem following the latest unrest, and police were weighing limiting entry of younger men in anticipation of mass protests for Friday prayers — the highlight of the Muslim religious week.

Israeli troops in the West Bank were put on high alert and prepared for more violence Friday, a military official said.

Israeli officials had been hoping a planned “day of rage” by both the Fatah and Hamas Palestinian factions would be called off after the security measures were removed, but said they were prepared for protests.


Israeli forces gird for Friday protests as Temple Mount unrest persists


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 (Evangelical Focus) — Pastors, evangelical leaders 
and Christian politicians gathered last weekend in San Jose, the capital
 of Costa Rica, to publicly express their rejection of the inclusion of 
gender ideology in the sex education classes that the Ministry of 
Education wants to put into effect.
With the motto #aMisHijosLosEducoYo (I educate my children), thousands of believers participated in a demonstration in the center of the Costa Rican capital.
Endorsed by the Evangelical Alliance, the concentration was full of speeches and prayer for the family.
 Continue reading this story >>
Pastors, evangelical leaders and Christian politicians gathered last weekend in San Jose, the capital of Costa Rica, to publicly express their rejection of the inclusion of gender ideology in the sex education classes that the Ministry of Education wants to put into effect. With the motto #aMisHijosLosEducoYo (I educate my children), thousands of believers participated in a demonstration in the center of the Costa Rican capital. Endorsed by the Evangelical Alliance, the concentration was full of speeches and prayer for the family. The Evangelical Church is struggling in different areas, because the Ministry of Education is including a series of subjects for high school students which promote ethical, family, and sexual views and values contrary to the biblical vision. Christian deputies are also fighting to prevent the progress of this and other projects which aim to promote gender ideology in the schools. “CLAIM THE RIGHT TO EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN” "I encourage you to educate and instruct your children,
See more:
Thousands of believers participated in a demonstration in the center of the Costa Rican capital under the motto #aMisHijosLosEducoYo (I educate my children).
See more:
Thousands of believers participated in a demonstration in the center of the Costa Rican capital under the motto #aMisHijosLosEducoYo (I educate my children).
See more:
Thousands of believers participated in a demonstration in the center of the Costa Rican capital under the motto #aMisHijosLosEducoYo (I educate my children).
See more:


 Scaramucci: White House Leakers Would Have Been Hanged In Past
 “So treasonous.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
In a 30 minute interview that is being poured over this morning, White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci told CNN that the ‘treasonous’ leakers he is going after would have been hanged at one time.
“The White House leaks are small potatoes relative with things going on about leaking things about Syria or North Korea or Iraq.” Scaramucci said.
“Those are the types of leaks that are so treasonous that 150 years ago people would have been hung for those type of leaks,” Scaramucci added.

As the interview the host Chris Cuomo progressed, Scaramucci outlined his goal as far as the leaks are concerned.
“Now all of the cynics around here and the tweets and all these other nonsense saying the leaks are never to going to stop. And I say to those people, you are correct. I know the leaks will never stop, but if I can dial back the leaks in the department that I am representing and the department that I am running, then I will feel that I’ve accomplished something on behalf of our president.” Scaramucci noted.
The newly appointed comms man said that the President personally authorized this morning’s call to CNN:
Scaramucci revealed that he and the President know who the senior White House leakers are, and are moving to deal with them.
“It’s absolutely completely and totally reprehensible.” He said, adding “As you know from the Italian expression, the fish stinks from the head down, but I can tell you two fish that don’t stink, and that’s me and the president. I don’t like the activity going on in the White House. I don’t like what they’re doing to my friend.”
Scaramucci also commented on his relationship with Reince Priebus, who he seemed to implicate as one of the leakers in a now deleted tweet, saying he only posted it to make a point about how its Priebus’ responsibility to help him uncover the leakers.
“When the journalists who know who the leakers are like Ryan Lizza, these guys know who the leakers are. Jonathan Swan at Axios, these guys know who the leakers are. I respect him for not telling me because I understand journalistic integrity. However, when I put out a tweet, I put Reince’s name in a tweet, they make the assumption it’s him because journalists know who the leakers are. So, if Reince wants to explain he’s not a leaker, let him tell you about himself.” Scaramucci said.
Scaramucci said last week that he and Priebus are like brothers, but today added that ‘some brothers are like Cain and Abel.’
Scaramucci stated that he doesn’t know “if the relationship with Reince is reparable,” adding “that’s up to the President.”

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Reversing a move made by President Obama late in his administration, President Donald Trump said July 26 that “transgender” individuals — those who identify with and behave according to the opposite sex — will be banned from serving in the U.S. military.
“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military,” the president communicated in a series of Twitter posts. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
While an Obama administration order had enabled transgender individuals to serve in the armed forces, earlier this month the Defense Department had put a six-month moratorium on further transgender enlistment, even as military branches moved forward with training for how rank-and-file military personnel should treat transgender personnel.

While the move bans further enlistment of transgender individuals, it remains unclear what will happen to the approximately 250 transgender military personnel currently serving. A Pentagon spokesman referred all questions about Trump’s statements to the White House. “We will continue to work closely with the White House to address the new guidance provided by the Commander in Chief on transgender individuals serving the military,” said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis. “We will provide revised guidance to the Department in the near future.”
Addressing the likely medical costs that would result from transgenders in the military, the New York Times reported that Trump had “elected to announce the ban in order to resolve a quietly brewing fight on Capitol Hill over whether taxpayer money should pay for gender transition and hormone therapy for transgender service members. The dispute had threatened to kill a $790 billion defense and security spending package scheduled for a vote this week.”
Among the first to criticize the president's decision was the American Civil Liberties Union, which called it “outrageous and desperate,” vowing to fight the ban. “Let us be clear,” said ACLU staff attorney Joshua Block. “This has been studied extensively, and the consensus is clear: There are no cost or military readiness drawbacks associated with allowing trans people to fight for their country. The president is trying to score cheap political points on the backs of military personnel who have put their lives on the line for their country.”
Similarly, U.S. Representative Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) vice chair of the congressional LGBT caucus, said the decision amounted to a “slap in the face to the thousands of transgender Americans already serving in the military,” and said it “undermines our military's readiness.” Kildee added that “anyone who is willing to put on the uniform of the United States and risk their life in service to our country should be celebrated as patriots, regardless of their gender identity. This short-sighted and discriminatory policy will make America less safe.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called Trump’s decision a “cruel and arbitrary decision,” and recalled that “on this very day in 1948, President Harry Truman signed the executive order desegregating the U.S. military. Sixty-nine years later, President Trump has chosen this day to unleash a vile and hateful agenda that will blindside thousands of patriotic Americans already serving with honor and bravery.”
Even Senator John McCain, a celebrated Vietnam POW and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, added his own criticism concerning the announcement, insisting that all Americans should be allowed to serve in the military. “There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity,” he said.
But Representative Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), who had introduced a failed amendment to the defense budget that would have banned transgenders from the military, said that “President Trump’s decision today to rescind Obama’s transgender military policy has the best interests of the military in mind, and I thank him for taking this decisive action.”
Marine Corps veteran Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC), which has been a leading voice against allowing transgenders in the military, applauded the president “for keeping his promise to return to military priorities, and not continue the social experimentation of the Obama era that has crippled our nation’s military. The military can now focus its efforts on preparing to fight and win wars rather than being used to advance the Obama social agenda.”
Similarly, Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis (U.S. Army, Ret.), the FRC's senior fellow for national security, speculated that “the president obviously has been consulting with the top leaders in the Pentagon, who are grounded in common sense, and they made recommendations to end it. So the president has decided to not go down that path that the Obama administration paved regarding political correctness.”
Looking at the issue in relation to long-held military requirements for recruits, the ban was logical. The military has long sought Americans who fit a "military mold," so to speak, who won't cause needless disruptions or cause needless money to be spent. For instance, the U.S. military excludes those without at least a high-school equivalency degree, those with tatoos on the fingers, neck, or face or "ear gauges," those Americans on ADHD medication or insulin, those who have a felony conviction, and those who are overweight. Many Americans who are specifically excluded could, as senator John McCain said, "fight, train, and deploy." Transgenders are just one of many groups that aren't deemed good military material.
The Truth About The Military Trans Ban

Wounded Warrior Defends Trump Transgender Ban

Iraq war amputee says stress of war ‘tests every ounce of your being’

 Wounded Warrior Defends Trump Transgender Ban



 Coast Guard Commandant Defies Trump Ban on Transgenders in Military



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Days after President Trump announced that “transgender” individuals would be banned from serving in the military, Admiral Paul Zukunft, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, said that he would defy the decision of his commander in chief rather than “break faith” with cross-dressing members of his service branch.
Noting that he had personally called one of 13 Coast Guard members who had “come out” as transgender, Zukunft indicated that the Coast Guard's “investment” in its handful of transgender members was more important that following orders from the president.
The call, Zukunft recounted in comments he made during a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was to Lt. Taylor Miller, who used to be a man, and whose supposed transition to the opposite sex was covered recently in the Washington Post. “If you read that story,” said Zukunft, “Taylor's family has disowned her. Her family is the United States Coast Guard. And I told Taylor, 'I will not turn my back. We have made an investment in you, and you have made an investment in the Coast Guard, and I will not break faith.'”

Zukunft said that after the call to Miller, he contacted retired General John Kelly, who at the time was director of Homeland Security (under which the Coast Guard operates), who in turn relayed the news to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Zukunft said that he has also engaged officers from the Judge Advocate General's Corps to navigate what will likely become a major military sideshow as transgender soldiers and sailors, emboldened by Zukunft's defiance, step forward to challenge President Trump's order.
That order came in a series of Twitter posts on July 26, as President Trump reversed an earlier move by the Obama administration, announcing that “the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail.”
Following that announcement, the pro-homosexual Palm Center, based in San Francisco, released a letter signed by over 50 retired generals and admirals who supposedly oppose the ban. “Transgender troops have been serving honorably and openly for the past year, and have been widely praised by commanders,” the letter stated. “Eighteen foreign nations, including the UK and Israel, allow transgender troops to serve, and none has reported any detriment to readiness.”
By contrast the conservative and Christian Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, a Marine Corps veteran, expressed the support for the ban given by a majority of both retired and active military personnel. “As our nation faces serious national security threats,” said Perkins, “... our troops shouldn’t be forced to endure hours of transgender 'sensitivity' classes and politically-correct distractions like this one.”
As for now, it appears to be business as usual for transgenders presently serving in the military. Following President Trump's announcement, General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a memo to military commanders indicating that there would be no changes to policy without further orders from above. “There will be no modifications to the current policy,” read the memo, “until the president’s direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance.”

 Limbaugh Defends Trump's Trans Military Ban: "US Military Is NOT An Experimentation Laboratory"





 Published on Jul 24, 2017
Crowd Of 45,000 Goes WILD For President Trump, Chants "USA!" - 2017 Boy Scout Jamboree

 Short Video:
 Longer Video:

Thursday, July 27, 2017





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday urged all Muslims to visit and protect Jerusalem after violence broke out over metal detectors that Israel installed and later removed from a sensitive holy site in the city.
This is a call to jihad by Erdogan, who further states: “From here I make a call to all Muslims. Anyone who has the opportunity should visit Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa mosque…Come, let’s all protect Jerusalem.” He also threatened that “Israel will suffer most” from the Al-Aqsa dispute.
While spewing hatred and calling for violence against Israel, Erdogan repeats the usual propaganda about Israel oppressing Palestinians, and makes no mention of why the metal detectors were installed in the first place. Israel installed them after three Arab-Israeli jihad gunmen shot and killed two Israeli policemen outside the Temple Mount-Noble Sanctuary complex on July 14th. It was deemed “one of the most serious attacks in the area for years.”
Erdogan has been increasingly showing signs of Islamic supremacist aggression. In April, he declared a clash between “the cross and the crescent” over an EU headscarf ban in the workplace. He has been seizing churches in Turkey and declaring them state property; he declared that “sick Europe” will “pay for humiliating and oppressing” Turks; and despite the chaos as a result of Muslim immigration into Germany, Erdogan openly rebuked Angela Merkel for using the expression “Islamist terrorism” because it “saddened Muslims.”

“Erdogan Urges all Muslims to ‘Visit’ and ‘Protect’ Jerusalem”, Breitbart News, July 24, 2017:
ANKARA (AFP) – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday urged all Muslims to visit and protect Jerusalem after violence broke out over metal detectors that Israel installed and later removed from a sensitive holy site in the city.
“From here I make a call to all Muslims. Anyone who has the opportunity should visit Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa mosque,” Erdogan said in Ankara. “Come, let’s all protect Jerusalem.”
He was referring to the site, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, which is central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel installed metal detectors at entrances to the site, which also includes the Dome of the Rock, following an attack on July 14 that killed two Israeli police officers.
Palestinians viewed the security measures as Israel asserting further control over the site and deadly clashes erupted during protests.
“They are attempting to take the mosque from Muslim hands on the pretext of fighting terrorism. There is no other explanation,” Erdogan said in a speech to ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) lawmakers in parliament.
He said Israel’s legitimacy rested on the extent of the respect it showed to Palestinians and their rights….

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as ‘jihad’, ‘shariah’ and ‘taqiyya’ now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.”
“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom? Google is bowing to pressure from Muslim such as Omar Suleiman without considering whether those who are demanding that the search results be skewed in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it be that those who are pressuring Google want to conceal certain truths about Islam that they would prefer that non-Muslims not know?
This is a real possibility, but of course Google executives would have to study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not these Muslims who are pressuring them are misleading them, and that’s not going to happen. Still, they could have done a bit more due diligence, and made some efforts to determine whether those being tarred as “hate groups” really deserved the label, whether the Southern Poverty Law Center was really a reliable and objective arbiter of which groups were and weren’t “hate groups,” and whether the information that Google was suppressing was really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and the others said.
Suleiman, however, still isn’t satisfied: “One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said ‘much still needs to be done.'” He claimed that Google has a responsibility to “combat ‘hate-filled Islamophobia’ similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.”
This should have made Google executives stop and think. The Islamic State (Daesh) and al-Qaeda slaughter people gleefully and call openly for more mass murders. There is no firm evidence that anyone has ever been killed by a “hate-filled Islamophobe,” and the claim that Hamas-linked CAIR and the SPLC make in this article, that this supposed “Islamophobic” rhetoric has led to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims, is supported by not a scintilla of evidence. Suleiman is equating critical words with murderous deeds, and Google should have realized at that point that he had an agenda and wasn’t being honest.
“Suleiman said Google should differentiate between ‘criticism of Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia’, emphasizing the religion should not be infringed upon.”
That’s not clear. He apparently is saying that there is acceptable criticism of Islam that is not “hate-filled Islamophobia,” but if that is so, then the religion can be “infringed upon,” at least by this legitimate criticism, no? Or if the claim that Islam must not be “infringed upon” means that it cannot be criticized, why is that so of Islam but not any other religion?
Suleiman says: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims.”
The problem with this is that neither Suleiman, nor Hamas-linked CAIR, nor anyone else who has ever said that there was a distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and “hate-filled Islamophobia” has ever identified anyone he thinks is a legitimate critic of Islam who is not “Islamophobic.” Over 16 books now, as well as thousands of articles and over 45,000 blog posts, I have attempted to present a reasonable, documented, fair and accurate criticism of Islam and explanation of the jihad doctrine. Nevertheless, I’ve been tarred as a purveyor of “hate-filled Islamophobia” by groups and individuals that have never given my work a fair hearing, but have read it only to search of gotcha!-quotes they could wrench away from their obvious benign meaning in order to claim I was saying something hateful. And this isn’t just me — this happens to anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about Islam or jihad, wherever they are on the political spectrum.
This experience, reinforced countless times over a decade and a half, makes me extremely skeptical when Omar Suleiman says that he doesn’t want Google to silence critique of Islam. If he could produce some critique of Islam that he approved of, my skepticism might lessen. But he won’t, and can’t. It seems much more likely that he pressured Google to skew its results so as to deep-six criticism of Islam, but knowing that he couldn’t tell them that he was trying to bring Google into line with Sharia blasphemy laws forbidding criticism of Islam, he told them instead that he wasn’t against criticism of Islam as such, but only against “hate-filled Islamophobia.”
Mr. Suleiman, if you and your colleagues hadn’t spent years tarring rational criticism of Islam that was accurate and presented in good faith as “hate-filled Islamophobia,” I might have believed you. But as one of your primary victims, I don’t.
I discuss the Islamic supremacist initiative to compel the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws under the guise of stamping out “hate speech,” an initiative that is now galloping forward and achieving immense success, in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).

“US Muslim groups welcome changes to Google results,” by Michael Hernandez, Anadolu Agency, July 26, 2017:
Queries about Islam and Muslims on the world’s largest search engine have been updated amid public pressure to tamp down alleged disinformation from hate groups.
However, activists who have worked to bring about the changes say more work remains.
In the past, users on Google seeking information about the religion or its adherents would be presented prominently with what many criticized as propaganda from hate groups.
That has recently changed.
Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as “jihad”, “shariah” and “taqiyya” now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.
Google did not confirm to Anadolu Agency the changes but said it is constantly updating its algorithms.
The search giant referred the agency to a recent blog post in which it said it was working to push back on what it called “offensive or clearly misleading content”.
“To help prevent the spread of such content for this subset of queries, we’ve improved our evaluation methods and made algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content,” it said.
Combatting Islamophobia
One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said “much still needs to be done”.
Imam Omar Suleiman, who has been at the forefront of efforts to combat misleading information about his faith on the web, argued that Google and companies like it have a responsibility to combat “hate-filled Islamophobia” similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.
Suleiman said Google should differentiate between “criticism of Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia”, emphasizing the religion should not be infringed upon.
“Google does not need to silence criticism of Islam and honest discussions about Islam, but heavily funded hate groups that are able to work the SEOs to get their websites showing up on the first, second page – I think that’s deeply problematic,” the popular imam said, referring to search engine optimization — the way in which websites are able to improve their placement in search engine results.
The task of sorting out legitimate criticism or debate about Islam from misleading information will not be easy, particularly in societies that value freedom of speech — a fact Suleiman, who is the founder and president of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, acknowledged.
Google told Anadolu Agency it does not seek to remove content from its platform simply because it is unsavory or unpopular, but does its best to prevent hate speech from appearing.
One way it is working to improve on the effort is by providing users with a mechanism in autofill suggestions that would allow users to alert the company when an offensive term appears.
Amid a nationwide increase in hate crimes targeting Muslims, the effort to combat misinformation is more imperative than ever, Muslim group said.
Hate crimes against Muslims
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the U.S.’s largest Muslim advocacy group, said it tracked a 584 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes from 2014 to 2016.
The group is not the only one to find such numbers. The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks hate incidents and groups in the U.S. and said it found hate groups increasing in number for the second consecutive year in 2016, fueled largely by a near-tripling of anti-Muslim groups.
“The growth has been accompanied by a rash of crimes targeting Muslims,” the center said in its annual report.
Information people receive from a variety of sources — television, radio and the Internet — no doubt plays a role in fomenting hatred among some of those who perpetrate attacks but could also be used to stop them.
“We are seeing a rise in hate crimes towards Muslims, and there is a direct connection between this demonization of Islam and Muslims and the hate crimes that are being perpetuated against Muslims in the United States,” Suleiman said.
Still, he maintained that such voices should not be censored but “should not be featured prominently as authoritative voices.”
Suleiman added: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims…
Yes, you do.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 On June 30, 2017, in Lexington, Kentucky, Sam Girod, an Amish farmer, 
was sentenced to 72 months in prison. Girod’s crime? According to the 
federal agents going after him, he made a salve without the FDA’s 
permission. That’s it! A salve so innocuous that you could make it in 
your own kitchen. This “felonious” salve consists of rosemary, beeswax, 
olive oil, peppermint, eucalyptus, and chickweed.
He’s now in prison about 7 hours away from his family — his wife Elizabeth, their 12 children and 25 grandchildren — although Sam has never harmed anyone. There are no victims of the 3 herbal salves he made and sold for over 20 years.
In 2012, someone called the FDA and reported that a store in MO was selling Sam’s products and that medical claims were being made.
The claims turned out to be customer testimonials contained in a brochure about Sam’s products. No different than Amazon reviews, yet, since Sam reprinted his customer testimonials in a brochure, the FDA calls these “medical claims,” which puts Sam’s products under their so-called “jurisdiction”. Sam complied and stopped producing any further brochures.

Then the FDA claimed to have found a MO customer who had been harmed by Sam’s bloodroot salve, which turned out to be false – he wasn’t using Sam’s product.
With so many so-called “illicit” infractions the FDA decided to take Sam to federal court in MO in 2013.

The Amish do not use lawyers as a rule and Sam did not. Because he barely presented a defense against federal prosecutors, Sam was convicted on all counts against him.
To quote our friend, Sheriff Richard Mack, founder of
“The FDA and several state agencies as well, have already been raiding the Amish who think they can own a few acres of land, grow grass on it, let their cows graze and digest the grass, bring the cows home in the evenings, and milk them. Then the Amish have the criminal audacity to make raw dairy products and share them with family and neighbors. Many such dairies have been destroyed by our brave public officials and many Amish have been arrested. SWAT teams have raided such ‘criminal enterprises’ to protect us all from such dangerous people!”
Thanks to constitutional sheriffs or courts with juries who know their real duty, some Americans have been protected from this lawless tyranny.
You see, there is no authority for the FDA found in the constitution. The constitution designates no authority for a Federal Drug and Food Administration.
The FDA has found pretended authority, which they claim appears in the general welfare clause. However, the general welfare clause only applies to the 17 items found in Article 1, Section 8. This is a perfect example of what our founders call “pretended legislation” in the Declaration of Independence. This is a dangerous make-believe. The solution would be for a representative who understands the constitution to call for the impeachment of this federal judge, and finally, the president should pardon Sam so he can return home and be with his family.
You see God is the only one that can give rights. Not the FDA. And the right to health? Well, that’s yours and mine.
Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.
 FREE CHICKWEED MAN! Amish Father Of Twelve Faces 68 Years In Prison For Mislabeling Home Remedy
 Amish Father Arrested & Imprisoned for selling natural skin salves made from herbs 
 Published on Jun 10, 2017
The FDA is trying to put KY Amish farmer Samuel Girod in jail for up to 68 YEARS with up to $3 M in fines for charges stemming from an innocent labeling infraction which he corrected years ago. 


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 On Thursday a nonpartisan, nonprofit government watchdog group sent a warning 
 letter to Acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe reminding him of the FBI’s responsibility
 to follow the law stipulated by the Federal Records Act (FRA) to recover records — 
including memos Comey admitted under oath that he intentionally leaked to the media.
 The FRA, a law which originally went into effect in 1950 and was amended by President 
Barack Obama in 2014, makes the removal of documents from the Bureau by former 
FBI Director James Comey an unlawful act.
Comey who was canned by President Donald Trump, appeared in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on last week and made some statement against former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former President Barack Obama, the New York Times — which he said published “fake news” stories — and complained about the handling of the Hillary Clinton email brouhaha.
Comey also admitted he gave a confidential document about his meeting with President Donald Trump to a “friend” who then gave it to the New York Times, an admitted Trump-hating publication.
 The letter from watchdog group Judicial Watch’s President Tom Fitton states:
“As you are well aware, former FBI Director James Comey gave sworn testimony last week before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Among other things, Mr. Comey confirmed that, while in office, he created various memoranda regarding his meetings with President Trump. Mr. Comey also confirmed that, after his departure from the FBI, he provided at least some of these memoranda to a third party, Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman, for the purpose of leaking them to the press. Various media outlets now have reported that Professor Richman has provided these memoranda to the FBI. It is unclear whether he still retains copies of the memoranda.

“I am writing to you on behalf of Judicial Watch, Inc., a not-for-profit educational organization that seeks to promote transparency, accountability, and integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. In furtherance of its public interest mission, Judicial Watch regularly requests access to the records of the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act and disseminates its findings to the public. In fact, on May 16, 2017, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request seeking these specific memoranda removed from the FBI by Mr. Comey. Judicial Watch also has pending FOIA lawsuits in which the memoranda may be at issue.
“These memoranda were created by Mr. Comey while serving as FBI director, were written on his FBI laptop, and concerned official government business. As such, they indisputably are records subject to the Federal Records Act. 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-18, 2901-09, 3101-07, and 3301-14. The fact that Mr. Comey removed these memoranda from the FBI upon his departure, apparently for the purpose of subsequently leaking them to the press, confirms the FBI’s failure to retain and properly manage its records in accordance with the Federal Records Act. Even if Mr. Comey no longer has possession of these particular memoranda, as he now claims, some or all of these memoranda may still be in possession of a third party, such as Professor Richman, and must be recovered. Mr. Comey’s removal of these memoranda also suggests that other records may have been removed by Mr. Comey and may remain in his possession or in the possession of others. If so, these records must be recovered by the FBI as well.
“As you may be aware, the Federal Records Act imposes a direct responsibility on you to take steps to recover any records unlawfully removed from the FBI. Specifically, upon learning of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency,” you must notify the Archivist of the United States. 44 U.S.C. § 3106. Upon learning that records have been unlawfully removed from the FBI, you then are required to initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records. Id.
“In the event you fail to take these steps, you should be aware that Judicial Watch is authorized under the law to file a lawsuit in federal district court seeking that you be compelled to comply with the law. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282,296 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Please advise us no later than June 26, 2017 if you intend to take the action required under the law. If we do not hear from you by that date, we will assume that you do not intend to take any action. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
“[Director] Comey took government records and the FBI and Justice Department are obligated to get them back. The former FBI director isn’t above the law and current leadership of the FBI should stop protecting him and take action,” Tom Fitton noted in a press statement.
Fitton’s team of attorneys and investigations — such of Judicial Watch’s Chief of Investigations Chris Farrell — are currently pursuing a lawsuit  against the U.S. State Department for failing to take proper action to retrieve emails written or received by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other employees which were unlawfully removed from the State Department.  Judicial Watch’s legal argument is that the State Department and FBI never even bothered to undergo a full and complete search for Hillary Clinton’s government emails.
This is one of several of Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits seeking government records and information about the non-government email system used by Clinton. Her email system transmitted and received classified information but the Obama administration allowed her to skate, although she did lose the presidential election.


 Published on Jul 25, 2017
Anni Cyrus exposes Linda Sarsour's newest Jihad of finance and practice of Sharia's jizya (FORCED TAX) on people of America.
 Thank You, Linda Sarsour
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Through the Looking Glass’ – An Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 1, 2017 Speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention

Where ever you came from, you came to America. And you came for one reason – for one reason only – to establish Allah’s deen [a complete way of life, governed by a system of law]. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, November 15, 1991
As long as you remember that if you get involved with politics, you have to be very careful that your leader is for Allah. You don’t get in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics can be a weapon to use in the cause of Islam. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, November 15, 1991
Before beginning an analysis of Linda Sarsour’s speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention, I’d like to thank Ms. Sarsour for doing all of us here in America (and the West) an invaluable favor.
What favor, you may ask?
Linda Sarsour has graciously accompanied us right up to the shore of the Great Sea of Islam, and allowed us to capture a rare glimpse into its impressive breadth and depth.
However, this thoughtful gesture comes with caveat, because even though Ms. Sarsour has granted us this unique opportunity to see Islam more clearly, we must still overcome the strong temptation to either hide our eyes (and ears), or to simply walk away entirely.
Perhaps now, thanks to you, Ms. Sarsour, we’ll all be delivered from the powerful grip of ignorance and delusion about Islam, and we’ll finally be able to gain a better, correct understanding of The Religion of Peace ®.
More specifically, Thank You, Linda Sarsour, for so graciously showing us:
*how to use social media to blatantly distort and mischaracterize the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in real time
*how to lie (and distract) with a straight face about the deliberate and intentional efforts of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), to impose (“normalize”) the malevolent statutes of Islamic Shariah on our Constitution, and our unalienable, endowed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
*how to criticize women with more vindictive obscenity and cynical sarcasm than anyone on the alt-right could ever imagine
*that female genital mutilation (FGM) is barbaric, but NOT an Islamic practice, that “has no place in Detroit or anywhere else in the world,” (while ignoring the well-established fact that it is considered obligatory according to Shariah law)
*how to skillfully use ad hominem attacks on your opponents (your “oppressors”), whenever facts (such as previous public statements) get in your way
*how to enthusiastically endorse your special roster of convicted murderers
*how to extend heartwarming, sincere praise to your chosen mentor, motivator and encourager (your “favorite person in this room”), who was himself an dedicated protégé of the murderous Blind Sheikh
*that since the Muslim terrorists who massacred the Charlie Hebdo staff had “avenged the Prophet,” you would not stand with the victims, especially since the magazine was “a bigot and a racist” for publishing Muhammad cartoons, which served to “vilify my faith, dehumanize my community [and] demoralize my prophet.”
*that advocating violence against right wing Zionist media outlets, Israel and Israelis=Jews, while insisting that “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” is now considered acceptable in the red-green alliance you so passionately represent
*that support of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement (BDS), under the banner of true feminism and social justice, has become so obviously avant-garde and progressive
*that for all those Islam-bashers out there who “spout anti-Muslim, xenophobic and white-supremacist beliefs” (along with “right-wing Zionists, and Islamophobes”), you are our self-proclaimed worst nightmare
Yes, Linda Sarsour, Thank You, for showing us the best possible reflection of what a first-generation, native born Palestinian-American Champion of Change really should look like.
Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017 Speech At The 54th Annual ISNA Convention
His announcements and his talk have made an incredible measure of mischief [to] the American Muslim people group.
ISNA President Azhar Azeez, June 30, 2017 (referring to President Donald Trump’s efforts to reform immigration)
This is a “through the looking glass” analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017, speech at the 54th Annual Islamic Society of North America Convention, entitled Hope & Guidance Through the Quran, which was held in Chicago, IL from June 30 through July 3, 2017.
Just above, I summarized several years of opinions and public statements that have made Linda Sarsour a highly visible media figure. This is the “looking glass” (mirror) that the general public gets to see.
Meanwhile, as we’ll see in the following phrase-by-phrase analysis of Linda Sarsour’s ISNA speech, there is an entirely different dimension of meaning that lies camouflaged behind the everyday words and phrases she used during her presentation.
Let us now walk through this looking glass, into Sarsour’s ISNA-endorsed world of the Quran, Hadith and Shariah, as we examine the deeper Islamic meanings that lie hidden behind the veil of common American English.
Also, we should keep in mind that the federal government has already proven that the ISNA is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, and that for nearly 10 years, the ISNA has remained listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, still the largest terrorist financing trial in American history.
It should also be noted that the ISNA is prominently listed in a May 5, 1991 document entitled An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America, as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s self-described “organizations of our friends.”
The same Muslim Brotherhood strategic document, which was drafted for internal review as early as 1987, also lists the ISNA Fiqh Committee, the ISNA Political Awareness Committee, and the ISNA+Dr. Jamal Badawi Foundation (Islamic Information Foundation), as friends of the “Muslim Brotherhood Group in North America.”
In addition, Jamal Badawi, who also remains listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial, has been an ISNA member since its inception on July 14, 1981. Dr. Badawi joined the ISNA Board of Directors (Majlis Ash-Shura) in 1988 and also served on the board of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) from 1991 until 1993. Along with the ISNA and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the NAIT was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trail.
With all this in mind, we might ask: Who was the real target audience for Linda Sarsour’s speech? Was it the American general public, or was it the ISNA’s core leadership (Majlis Ash-Shura), who were assembled there at the annual conference?
A partial answer to this question will be found in a particular phrase on Page 1, Paragraph 1, of the Explanatory Memorandum. In Arabic, the phrase is Al-Qaeda Al-Islamia Al-Moltzema, while in English, it is translated as the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.
Yes, Al-Qaeda, the word translated here as “Base,” is the very same word we commonly associate with Jihadist groups throughout the world. However, in its original meaning, Al-Qaeda is actually an important socio-political concept, i.e., a “base of operations,” rather than a violent terrorist organization operating somewhere far away in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.
In the context of her ISNA-endorsed speech, this is the “Base,” (audience), i.e., the ISNA Board of Directors, or Majlis Ash-Shura, that Ms. Sarsour was specifically addressing.
Ms. Sarsour’s calls to socio-political tactical action are actually based on well-established Islamic strategic principles, and were closely parallel to the call(s) to action (and Quranic warnings) found in a carefully-written document entitled AMJA Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap, which was published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) on November 28, 2016.
A careful analysis of this 14-paragraph document, which regards the election of Donald Trump as President a disruptive calamity and source of oppression (see Sarsour’s comments on oppression below) for the Muslim community, can be found here. Officially known in Arabic as the Majama Fuqaha Al-Shariah B’Amrikia (Group of Shariah Specialists in America), the AMJA is openly promoting the implementation of Islamic Shariah, right here in America.
This is in direct violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.
To put this all in context, Sarsour’s speech before the ISNA leadership echoes the strategic and tactical plans of both the “Muslim Brotherhood Group in North America,” as outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum, drafted thirty years ago, and in the AMJA Roadmap, published just two weeks after the November 2016 election.
Note: This analysis is presented in a chronological time sequence. Specific comments or phrases are cited by marking the time they occurred in Ms. Sarsour’s speech, e.g., (3:01)
Honoring Imam Siraj Wahhaj as “My favorite person in the room” (1:50-2:33)
Much has already been written about Siraj Wahhaj, Imam of Masjid At-Taqwa in Brooklyn, NY, who was listed as an “unindicted person who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and stated that the bombing was a terrorist attack staged by the U.S. government and possibly Israel as a “conspiracy” against Islam.
What does it say about Ms. Sarsour, who considers Imam Wahhaj to be her mentor, when Wahhaj supported Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was charged with the attempted assassination of Egyptian leader Anwar Al-Sadat, and said while leading the Al Farouq mosque in Brooklyn that, “We must terrorize the enemies of Islam and…shake the earth under their feet.”
In fact, what does endorsing and supporting Siraj Wahhaj say about the leadership of the ISNA?
To be fair, we should also ask why the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC would feature Siraj Wahhaj as their ‘Grand Imam’ at its first everJumah [Gathering] At The DNC”?
Allah is the Best of Protectors (3:01)
This phrase is taken directly from Quran 3.150 and Quran 12.64, Allah is the Best of Protectors (Al-Hafiz in Arabic).
For more on this concept from an Islamic perspective, especially the severe admonition not to take non-Muslims as helpers or protectors, or against obeying disbelievers and hypocrites, because such obedience leads to utter destruction in this life and the Hereafter, see here, here and also see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 3.150.
In America, Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism (5:32-5:45)
Patriotism in your home country is different than patriotism in these United States of America. In this country, in the land of freedom of speech, in the land of democracy, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Is Linda Sarsour correct? Is dissent really the highest form of patriotism in America?
Apparently, the earliest documented use of this phrase is found in a 1961 Friends Peace Committee publication entitled, The Use of Force in International Affairs: “If what your country is doing seems to you practically and morally wrong, is dissent the highest form of patriotism?” The Friends Peace Committee is a Quaker anti-war group that was founded in the 1880’s.
It was also used repeatedly during the Vietnam era, as when New York Mayor John Lindsay declared during an October 15, 1969, speech at Columbia University, “We cannot rest content with the charge from Washington that this peaceful protest is unpatriotic…The fact is that this dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
In a July 3, 2002 interview, Howard Zinn said, “While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles. And if we’re exercising that right to dissent, it’s a patriotic act.
While dissent may truly be a form of patriotism (depending on the circumstances), so is defending the freedoms and liberties that our Creator endowed us with, as documented in the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.
Whether or not dissent is a higher form of patriotism than defense of our Constitutional freedoms depends entirely on motive, i.e., is it designed to undermine or supplant the Constitution, or strengthen and support it?
Sorry, Ms. Sarsour, but according to Article 6, Islamic Shariah will never be compatible with the Constitution, which means that, here in America, dissent for the sake of Islam cannot possibly be the highest form of patriotism.
Policies that Oppress the communities that they came from…(5:45-5:55)
This is the moment when Ms. Sarsour introduces the central theme of her speech, which is the volatile Islamic concept of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression (Fitnah فِتْنَةَ, which occurs at least 60 times in the Quran). Fitnah is also translated as Affliction, Confusion, Disbelief (Shirk), Discord, Dissention, Distress, Domination, Mischief, Sedition, Strife, Testing, Trials, Tumult, Opposition, Persecution and Punishments.
To further build her case, Ms. Sarsour goes on to say that if you [the ISNA audience] maintain the current status quo that not only oppresses Muslims…you, my dear sisters and brothers, you are aligned with the oppressor…if you are neutral in the face of oppression in this country…you are not a patriot, you are aiding and abetting the oppressors in these United States of America (6:09-6:35)
The concept of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression (Fitnah) is a 1,400 year old doctrine, deeply embedded within the founding ideology of Islam. From such a Quranic perspective, the consequences of transgressing the statutes and commandments of Shariah law, or of oppressing (opposing or preventing ) the Islamic community from following the laws of Allah, warrants a Shariah-authorized violent response toward all such ‘rulers and tyrants.’
For example, in 2014, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, wrote to President Barack Obama about his views on the situation in Iraq, Gaza and Palestine, while also commenting about “Muslim oppression at the hands of the West in general and the United States in particular.”
For three explicit Quranic examples, see Quran 2.190: Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors, Quran 21.9: Then We fulfilled for them the promise, and We saved them and whom We willed and destroyed the transgressors, and Quran 2.193 Fight them until there is no [more] Fitnah [oppression] and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression, except against the oppressors.
The concept of Oppression is also discussed in extensive detail in the Hadith (Bukhari), Volume 4, Section 43, and in Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 8.73
What is the Best Form of Jihad, or Struggle? (7:02-7:04)
After introducing the concept of Oppression (Fitnah), Ms. Sarsour segues into a discussion of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression, by recounting a passage from the Hadith: “What is the best form of Jihad”?
Paraphrasing the Hadith, Ms. Sarsour then provides the answer, which is, “A word of truth, truth in front of a tyrant, ruler or leader, that is the best form of Jihad.”
At this point, it is also important to note that the phrase “The best Jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler” also occurs in Chapter Q1.2(3) of Reliance of the Traveller, which is the world’s most authoritative English translation of Islamic Shariah.
Also, Chapter Q2.4(4) of Reliance begins a section entitled Being Able To Censure, which includes the following incredible endorsement of what we call lone-wolf terrorists, or lone-wolf Jihadists:
There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battle lines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed…Such censure is only praiseworthy when one is able to eliminate the wrong and one’s action will produce some benefit.
The phrase eliminate the wrong in Chapter Q2.4(4) is just the theological equivalent for what we call Socio-Political Activism in the secular (non-Islamic) arena.
All of Book Q in Reliance is under the main heading of THE OBLIGATION TO COMMAND THE RIGHT (AND FORBID THE WRONG), which is derived from Quran 3.104.
For additional detail on the concept of enjoining Al-Maruf (all that Islam orders) and forbidding Al-Munkar (all that Islam has forbidden), see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 3.104.
It is disingenuous, at best, for Ms. Sarsour to claim that she wasn’t talking about violence, or that she is being persecuted by the alt-right, for her statements about the Best Form of Jihad, when she is well aware (and so is her ISNA audience), of the deeper, inflammatory, theological connotations of her remarks.
A Note on Linda Sarsour’s use of the phrase “A Word of Truth” (7:10-7:18)
In his July 11, 2017 article entitled Linda Sarsour Defends Her Call for Jihad Against President Donald Trump, writer Neil Munro made the following observation:
Sarsour’s “word of truth” phrase seems like a Western-style appeal for debate, but for Muslim activists, truth is only found in the Koran’s transcribed instructions from Allah, which include his frequent calls for warfare against his enemies.
That ‘word of truth’ phrase also evokes the dramatic courtroom defense strategy adopted by the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, who was accused by the Egyptian government of urging the murder of Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat in 1981.
Shortly after Sadat was murdered, Rahman was accused by the Egyptian government of urging the murder of Sadat in prior religious tracts. But Rahman pressured the Egyptian government and judges to declare him innocent by portraying himself as merely a blameless messenger of the Koran’s denunciations against oppressors.
This is what “A Word of Truth” looks like, when you go through the looking glass, and look at the world through the eyes of Islam.
And I hope…that Allah accepts from us that as a form of Jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers…but here in these United States of America (7:23-7:29)
This is the part of Ms. Sarsour’s speech that received the most attention (and criticism) in the media. In an attempt to defend her comments, she posted a July 09, 2017 editorial in the Washington Post, entitled Islamophobes Are Attacking Me Because I’m Their Worst Nightmare.
In her editorial, Ms. Sarsour made the following assertions:
Most disturbing about this recent defamation campaign is how it is focused on demonizing the legitimate yet widely misunderstood Islamic term I used, “jihad,” which to majority of Muslims and according to religious scholars means “struggle” or “to strive for.” This term has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike, leaving ordinary Muslims to defend our faith and in some cases silenced. It sets a dangerous precedent when people of faith are policed and when practicing their religion peacefully comes with consequences.
At this point, an obvious question arises: Is Linda Sarsour correct that the term Jihad “has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike”?
Let’s start with Chapter O9.0 of Reliance, which defines Jihad in the following manner:
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word Mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser Jihad. As for the greater Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (Nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad.
Then, in Chapter H8.17 of Reliance, in a section entitled Those Fighting for Allah, we find the following discussion of Jihad:
The seventh category [of giving charity] is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).
In addition to what is found in Reliance, it is also important to note that variants of the root word Jihad occur about 40 times in the Quran. In virtually every case, it is obvious from the plain Arabic meaning of the text, that Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims.
It seems pretty obvious that the leaders of Turkey recognize the full meaning of Jihad, too. On July 22, 2017, Ahmet Hamdi Çamlı, a deputy of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), participated in a debate about the introduction of the concept of jihad, or holy war, into the national school curriculum. During the debate, Çamlı said it is useless to teach math to a child who does not know the concept of jihad, while also asserting that jihad is one of the main pillars of Islam. The previous week, Ankara Minister of Education İsmet Yılmaz said, “Jihad is an element in our religion; it is in our religion…”
Fascists, and White Supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House (7:30-7:38)
This is another subject that is discussed extensively in the Quran (for example, see verses 10.83, 28.19 and 40.35), and in Reliance. Chapter P13.0 of Reliance is entitled The Leader Who Misleads His Following, the Tyrant and Oppressor. Section P13.1 refers to Quran 42.42, which says: “The dispute (lit. ‘way against’) is only with those who oppress people and wrongfully commit aggression in the land; these will have a painful torment.”
In Section Q1.2(4) of Reliance, it is written: The Prophet said, “When you see my Community too intimidated by an oppressor to tell him, ‘You are a tyrant,’ then you may as well say goodbye to them.”
The Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 40.35 says, “[Tyrants] who attempt to refute truth with falsehood and who dispute the proof without evidence or proof from Allah, Allah will hate them with the utmost loathing. It is greatly hateful and disgusting to Allah, and to those who believe…”
From an Islamic perspective, Ms. Sarsour is well aware of the volatile implications of calling President Trump a tyrant, fascist, white supremacist or Islamophobe.
Islamophobia Industry…if those who choose to vandalize our masjids [mosques]…if they are treating us like we are one community, why are we not acting like one community…(8:42-9:06)
According to Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry,
Fear sells and the Islamophobia Industry – a right-wing cadre of intellectual hucksters, bloggers, politicians, pundits, and religious leaders – knows that all too well. For years they have labored behind the scenes to convince their compatriots that Muslims are the enemy, exhuming the ghosts of 9/11 and dangling them before the eyes of horrified populations for great fortune and fame.
Their plan has worked. The tide of Islamophobia that is sweeping through Europe and the United States is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is their design.
A June 24, 2016 Al Jazeera article entitled Report: Islamophobia Is A Multimillion-Dollar Industry claims that,
More than $200m was spent towards promoting “fear and hatred” of Muslims in the United States by various organisations between 2008 and 2013, according to a fresh joint report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the University of California, Berkeley.
Released on Monday , the report [Confronting Fear] identifies 74 groups, including feminist, Christian, Zionist and prominent news organisations, which either funded or fostered Islamophobia. “It is an entire industry of itself. There are people making millions of dollars per year from promoting Islamophobia. They often present themselves as experts on Islamic affairs when they are not,” Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, a spokesman for CAIR, told Al Jazeera.
At least 32 states have introduced and debated anti-sharia or anti-foreign law bills. And, according to our research, 80 percent of legislators who sponsor this type of legislation also sponsor bills restricting the rights of other minorities and vulnerable groups.
If Ms. Sarsour wants to put an end to the Islamophobia Industry, she should simply stand up for the Constitution, and stop promoting the normalization of Shariah in America.
Potentially horrific time that could come (9:20)
This is a direct parallel to Paragraph 8 of the AMJA Roadmap, which states:
Islam, with respect to its belief and legal foundations is unalterably fixed. It does not accept any replacement for change…A Muslim must comply with his faith and refer confusing or troublesome matters to the well-grounded scholars. AMJA is of the view that there has yet to occur – and they do not expect to occur – a situation in which one is required to flee with one’s faith, or wherein one is excused from performing some parts of the faith’s teachings.
Note on the phrase Flee With One’s Faith’: This refers to the Hijrah (Migration), another fundamental concept in Islam, with connotations going back 1,400 years, to the founding history of Islam. At this point, the Roadmap introduces the possibility that Muslims in America may have to flee to a safer location, for the sake of their faith. Socially, this is a very provocative (and potentially inflammatory) statement by the AMJA. It engenders immediate animosity and tension, and serves to further alienate and marginalize the Muslim community in America.
Notice also that in this time of crisis, the AMJA is not encouraging Muslims to assimilate into American mainstream culture, but instead advises them to further distance themselves from it, while surrounding themselves with the protective wall of Shariah law, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.
We need to build coalitions; we need allies…in communities who are marginalized and oppressed in this country (10:23-10:32)
Ms. Sarsour also refers to building coalitions as “creating intersectional alliances within communities of color, and other oppressed minorities,” while her biography says she is “most known for her intersectional coalition work and building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities.”
Remarkably, building coalitions is also specifically called for in Paragraph 11 of the AMJA Roadmap:
Among the most important of obligations during these days is to open our doors to all sectors of our society and to reach out to the other ethnic and religious groups as well as political movements on both the left and right of the political spectrum. This will be the only way to stop those who deal in hate.
This is AMJA’s call (and official authorization) for American Muslims to form coalitions with a diversity of ethnic and religious groups, as well as movements on the left and right of the political spectrum. In other words, to start forming new alliances, in as many different arenas as possible, to build a wall of resistance.
Some of the organizations involved in this AMJA-authorized effort to develop common-cause alliances include the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, the Black Lives Matter movement, ANSWER Coalition, the Tides Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
In Islamic terms, phrases like creating intersectional alliances and building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities are socio-political substitutes for what is known as Dawah, which means to invite or summon someone, in order to teach them more about Islam.
Quran 16:125 calls Muslims to, “Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.” Dawah is mentioned at least 19 times in the Explanatory Memorandum. In fact, Mohamed Akram Adlouni, the author of the memo, signs the Foreword with the salutation, May God reward you good and keep you for His Daw’a, Your brother, Mohamed Akram.
Paragraph 12 of the AMJA Roadmap reinforces this premise:
From among the most important obligations during this stage is to support those institutions and organizations that serve the Muslim community, such as those interested in defending freedoms, civil rights and political activism, those dedicated to social services and relief, and those dedicated to Dawah, religious instruction and providing religious rulings. It is most unbelievable that there are some who cry over the state of the community and then they are too stingy to donate their time or money to such organizations. Worse than that are those who are even too stingy to pray for them or give them a kind word. But the worst of all are those who seek to destroy such organizations.
U.S.-based Shariah-promoting organizations include the AMJA itself, as well as the Fatwa Center of America, the North American Imam’s Federation (NAIT), and the Institute of Islamic Education (IIE), which is part of a network of Islamic schools (Madrassas) operating across America.
So, when we go through the looking glass, we find out that Linda Sarsour is channeling (mainstreaming) the strategic goals of the Muslim Brotherhood here in America, as found in both the Explanatory Memorandum, and in the AMJA Roadmap.
We also discover that creating intersectional alliances is really just the cynical use of American style politics and social activism for the promotion of Islam, and, ultimately, to push us toward acceptance (normalization) of Islamic Shariah.
Giving support to ICNA Relief, ISNA, CAIR, MAS (13:43-13:48)
All four of these organizations are known front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR and ISNA remain unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, while ICNA Relief and the Muslim American Society (MAS), have also been linked to support of terrorism (specifically, to the support of Hamas).
What does it say about Linda Sarsour, that she would encourage (exhort) Muslims in America to increase their financial support of these known pro-Shariah, pro-Jihad Muslim Brotherhood organizations?
And we still as a community find ourselves unprepared, in so many moments…Why, sisters and brothers, why are we so unprepared, Why are we so afraid of this administration, and the potential chaos, that they will ensue on our community…? (14:10-14:45)
At this point, Ms. Sarsour reinforces her basic theme, which is to resist the tyrannical, racist, relentlessly Islamophobic Trump administration. She also uses the word ‘chaos,’ which is just another adjective for the Islamic concept of Fitnah.
From an Islamic (Quranic) perspective, she is now calling for the Muslim community in America to Prepare themselves fight Jihad against the Fitnah of the Islamophobic Trump administration.
The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is Wa’a’idu (وَأَعِدُّو), which is translated “Be Prepared,” or “Make Ready.” Make ready for what, exactly?
The answer is found in Quran 8.60 (Al-Anfal – The Spoils of War), which says:
And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.
Also see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 8.60, which makes it very plain that this entire verse (in fact, the entire Chapter) is about preparing to wage war against unbelievers.
Once again, the Explanatory Memorandum has already laid the groundwork for the path that Ms. Sarsour (and the ISNA) are now following. In a section entitled Understanding The Role Of The Muslim Brother In North America, the following emphatic declarations are made:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.
Page 8 of the Memo also addresses the theme of being prepared:
And in order for the process of settlement to be completed, we must plan and work from now to equip and prepare ourselves, our brothers, our apparatuses, our sections and our committees in order to turn into comprehensive organizations in a gradual and balanced way that is suitable with the need and the reality
All of this sounds remarkably similar to the major themes that Linda Sarsour emphasized during her ISNA speech. In fact, Ms. Sarsour was obviously warning her ISNA audience, as well as the wider Muslim community, not be caught unprepared, or to be numbered among those who are counted as ‘slackers’ by Allah.
Now that we’ve gone through this part of the looking glass, we can finally get beyond the outward persona, and the social media hype, and the cultural barriers, and the gender sensitivities, and just listen to the actual words that Ms. Sarsour is saying.
When we do that, we soon discover that she is speaking a dialect of English that is 100 percent pure Muslim Brotherhood.
When I think about building power, I think about brothers like Abdul Sayed, who is in this room today, who is running to become the first Muslim Governor of the state of Michigan (14:49-16:07)
To set an example of taking direct action (i.e., political Jihad), Ms. Sarsour now endorses Abdul Sayed [Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed], who was seated in the audience, while urging the audience to donate to his political campaign (cue the applause).
At the same time, Ms. Sarsour also criticized “establishment Democrats” who have blocked Muslims from succeeding within the Democratic Party in the past, and declared that brother Sayed would change that.
On February 25, 2017, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed announced his bid to become the Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan. Dr. Sayed graduated from the University of Michigan on June 11, 2007, where he served as Vice President of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), and was also chosen for a [Paul & Daisy] Soros “New American” Fellowship.
With nearly 600 chapters located in the United States and Canada, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) is the most visible and influential Islamic student organization in North America. The MSA was incorporated in January of 1963 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, with the goal of “spreading Islam as students in North America,” and for the specific purpose of Dawah (promoting Islam, as discussed above).
Dr. Sayed has grown up in an environment saturated with Muslim Brotherhood ideology. If he is selected to run as the first Muslim Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan, it will likely draw national (and international) interest.
We have to stay outraged…We as a Muslim community in these United States of America have to be Perpetually Outraged every single [day] (18:52-19:01)
Even this concept – Staying Perpetually Outraged – is alluded to in Reliance. The title of Book Q is COMMANDING THE RIGHT AND FORBIDDING THE WRONG, which is based on a passage from the Hadith, “Command the right and forbid the wrong, or Allah will put the worst of you in charge of the best of you, and the best will supplicate Allah and be left unanswered.”
To add further context, Book Q of Reliance specifically discusses how Muslims should actively oppose the unjust leader (the tyrant, the oppressor), who does not rule his people according to Islamic Shariah. Perhaps now, we can better understand why Ms. Sarsour’s determination to stay perpetually outraged is actually authorized by Islamic law.
Then, Chapter Q5.0 of Book Q, which is entitled THE ACT OF CENSURING, provides eight ‘degrees’ (levels) of authorized response when a Muslim encounters a non-Islamic ‘wrong act.’ Each one of these progressively more violent eight levels of response has ‘various degrees of severity and rules.’
For brevity, I will just include the main title of each one of the eight authorized degrees of response to a wrong act (i.e., Fitnah).
Q5.2: Knowledge of the Wrong Act
Q5.3: Explaining that Something is Wrong
Q5.4: Forbidding the Act Verbally
Q5.5: Censuring with Harsh Words
Q5.6: Fighting the Wrong By Hand
Q5.7: Intimidation
Q5.8: Assault
Q5.9: Force of Arms
Ms. Sarsour, haven’t we been told repeatedly that Islam is a benign, harmless religion of peace?
Do not ever be those citizens that normalize this administration, because when the day comes that something horrific happens to us, or to another community…you will be responsible for normalizing this administration…(19:18)
Once again, we can turn to the Quran, and to Reliance to find the deeper source of what Ms. Sarsour refers to as “normalization” of a corrupt, tyrannical regime.
For example, Quran 4.89 warns Muslims that:
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
Quran 5.51 gives an even more specific warning:
O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.
Section R7.1 of also Reliance reiterates this theme:
It is not permissible to give directions and the like to someone intending to perpetrate a sin, because it is helping another to commit disobedience. Allah Most High says, “Do not assist one another in sin and aggression” (Quran 5.2).
Once again, as we go through another part of the looking glass, we find that Ms. Sarsour’s use of the term “normalization” is just a secular (political) equivalent of the well-established Islamic concept of opposing (“striving against” = Jihad) tyrants and unjust rulers.
Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community; it is not to assimilate and to please any other people in authority…(19:32-19:36)
The admonition to avoid assimilation into non-Muslim cultures is found in multiple places in the Quran (as in verse 5.51, cited above), as well as in the fundamental Islamic doctrine known as Al-Wala’ Wa’l-Bara (Loyalty and Enmity; see here and here), and in the Explanatory Memorandum, as stated here in paragraph 7 of the section entitled The Process of Settlement:
The success of the [Islamic] Movement in America in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the best support and aid to the global Movement project…the global Movement has not succeeded yet in “distributing roles” to its branches, stating what is needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani [Brotherhood] branch will have far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud.
In other words, more than thirty years ago, the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in North America was already looking ahead, to the time when an entire generation of American children would be raised under the influence of orthodox Ikhwan ideology, with the hope that this future American Muslim generation would play a central role in the establishment of a Shariah-compliant, global Islamic state (= Caliphate).
Nor is this strategic goal of non-assimilation and separation unique to North America. Islamic communities in many western countries are in the process of balkanizing, as they rapidly transform into Shariah-compliant “no-go zones.”
Finally, if we refer one last time to the AMJA Roadmap, we find that in this time of calamity, chaos and crisis (i.e., the tyrannical Trump Administration), the AMJA scholars are not encouraging American Muslims to assimilate into mainstream culture, but instead advising them to further distance themselves from it, while building a protective barrier of Shariah, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.
No wonder, then, that Linda Sarsour would feel compelled remind the audience of the ISNA, the premier Muslim Brotherhood organization in America, that their top priority is to “defend and protect our community; it is not to assimilate.”
Our top priority…even higher than all those [other] priorities, is to please Allah, and only Allah (19:52)
The concept of pleasing only Allah is found in at least 110 verses in the Quran, such as this example from Quran 5.55:
Your Guardian [Friend, Helper or Protector] can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor due, and bow down (in prayer).
As Linda Sarsour has said, we must be prepared.
Even if you don’t believe me (yet), then at least take a look at the world around you.
It remains my hope that America will never succumb to the temptation to hide our eyes (and ears) from the threat(s) we face.