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.