Witness recalls demo in 'how to slit a throat' as terror trial opens

By Tina Susman
The Los Angeles Times
April 17, 2014

NEW YORK -- On a ranch in rural Oregon, a radical Muslim holding a dagger with a curved blade yanked back the head of a kneeling young man and brought the metal to his neck.

"He said he was going to show us how to properly slice someone's throat," the kneeling man's sister testified Thursday as prosecutors began presenting their case against an Egyptian-born imam known as Abu Hamza Masri, the latest terrorism case to unfold in a New York federal court.

Masri, who also goes by Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, was not the man holding the knife, but a government indictment alleges that he sent the knife-wielding man from London to Oregon to establish a terrorist training camp.

It is one of 11 charges against Abu Hamza Masri, a naturalized British citizen who gained fame for his radical sermons in London's Finsbury Park mosque and who was extradited to the United States in October 2012.

The defendant, who says he lost both arms fighting in Afghanistan, faces life in prison if convicted on the most serious charges of hostage-taking and conspiracy to take hostages, stemming from the December 1998 abduction of 16 tourists in Yemen.

Other charges include providing material support to terrorists and conspiring to support terrorists by sending men and money to set up the camp outside Bly, Ore., a remote hamlet about 300 miles southeast of Portland.

Masri, 55, pleaded not guilty, and in opening statements Thursday, defense attorney Joshua Lewis Dratel said Masri was being prosecuted not for his actions but for voicing controversial opinions.

"He wasn't in Yemen, wasn't in Oregon, never harmed Americans or anyone else," Dratel said as Masri sat quietly, his short-sleeved tunic revealing arms cut off just below the elbows.

"He's said a lot of harsh things ... anti-U.S., anti-Israel, anti-West," Dratel said. "These are views, not acts. This is expression, not crimes."

The arguments are similar to those of the defense in the trial of Sulaiman abu Ghaith, a former Al Qaeda spokesman who stood trial in the same courthouse earlier this year on charges of conspiring to kill Americans and other terrorism charges.

Abu Ghaith's lawyer argued that his client's speeches were controversial and sometimes "dumb" but did not prove he knew of any terrorist plots. A jury convicted Abu Ghaith.

Unlike Abu Ghaith, whose case evolved from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Masri is charged with actions that occurred in the late 1990s.

Dratel reminded jurors of this and warned them to not be swayed by the city's elevated anxiety about terrorism since September 2001. He said that with the passage of time, opinions of what constituted radical or terrorist behavior changed.

"For decades, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist," Dratel said of the late South African president. "Now, he's an icon."

In his opening statement, assistant U.S. Atty. Edward Kim said Masri used his power and influence to dispatch men on deadly missions and gave them money and equipment to carry out those jobs.

"His cause was war, and it was all-consuming," Kim said. "His goal was clear, it was simple, and it was vicious."

The prosecution's first witness was Angelica Morris, who was living in a trailer on the Bly ranch with her husband, daughter, son and younger brother in December 1999, when two mysterious men speaking with British accents arrived unannounced late one night.

Both men had long hair and long beards, both dressed in black, and both regularly patrolled the sprawling ranch with guns late at night during their roughly monthlong stay, said Morris. The pair often led other men on their night patrols across the ranch and had them fire pistols, shotguns and rifles down the dry creek bed running through the property, she said.

One day, Morris said the man known as Abu Abdullah took her and her brother, who was 18, outside to demonstrate throat-cutting techniques.

"He asked my brother if he would kill a kaffir," Morris said, defining "kaffir" as a Muslim term for someone who rejects Islam. "I've killed sheep, so I don't know why I couldn't," Morris recalled her brother replying.

At that point, Morris said, Abu Abdullah had her brother kneel in front of him and made a slicing motion across her brother's neck without cutting the skin.

Abu Abdullah eventually left the knife with Morris, who years later turned it over to the FBI. In court, Kim drew the knife out of an envelope and held it up for jurors.

In addition to weapons, Morris said the two men brought British currency. Both said the money was from Abu Hamza Masri, Morris testified. Abu Abdullah specifically told her that "Sheikh Abu Hamza had sent him there to train the brothers," she said.

Morris, who has left Islam and now lives in Louisiana, described phone calls between Abu Abdullah and Masri which took place in her family's cramped trailer. She said Abu Abdullah appeared frustrated that there were not more guns or "brothers" on the ranch and felt it was not a suitable training situation.

Prosecutors have said they also will call as witnesses two of the Yemen hostages who escaped. Three British tourists and an Australian died when Yemeni forces stormed the kidnappers' hideout on Dec. 29, 1998, a day after the abduction.

The government alleges Masri provided the kidnappers with a satellite telephone and other material support.

Ten Years Later, Radical Islam Still a Taboo Subject

Steve Emerson
September 9, 2011
Family Security Matters

"There's an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam," the lawyer told the judge, "that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action … that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don't do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith."

That sounds like a prosecutor explaining a terrorist's motive. But, in fact, it is defense attorney Kenneth Troccoli explaining in April why Farooque Ahmed eagerly agreed to scout D.C. Metrorail stops for what Ahmed thought was an al-Qaida bomb plot. And it echoes Faisal Shahzad's defiant rant at his sentencing hearing last October after he pleaded guilty to the failed Times Square bombing.

"This time it's the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah," Shahzad said. "So let's see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never do. Therefore, the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah, which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order."

Because they believe their actions are sanctioned by a higher power, they see their actions as inherently just. Ramy Zamzam, who led four other young northern Virginia Muslims to Pakistan in an attempt to fight American troops in Afghanistan, summed up that sentiment outside of court in January 2010. "We are not terrorists," he told a reporter. "We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism."

Despite these examples of candor, there remains a refusal to acknowledge the role radical Islamic ideology plays in fueling terrorist plots 10 years after the 9/11 attacks. Administration officials take pains to avoid even uttering the phrase "radical Islam."

It appears that the subject of radical Islam has taken a seat next to offensive ethnic humor. It's okay for a member of the group to say it, but it's bigoted if outsiders try it, too.

American Islamist organizations have tried to separate religion from any discussion of terrorism. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) joined forces last year with a University of Chicago researcher to hype sales of a book arguing religion is not a factor in suicide terrorist attacks.

A year earlier, after Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan opened fire at a Fort Hood processing center killing 13 people, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that he was "not happy to see that his religion is becoming the subject." Though witnesses heard Hasan shout "Allahu Akhbar" before opening fire, Awad said the shooting spree was merely "an isolated incident by a disturbed individual. All the information we're getting indicates that he is a disturbed individual."

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper made a similar statement in a separate interview. "Why can't the killer at Fort Hood just be a crazy guy?" he asked. "Don't take it out on American Muslims because you're upset about another issue," he said.

CAIR issued a statement in the wake of the attack saying, "No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence."

Clearly, Hasan believed his did.

Subsequent investigations show he established a long record of radical Islamic behavior, including writing "SOA," or "Soldier of Allah" on business cards and justifying suicide bombings and other terrorist acts during presentations. One presentation was entitled, "Why the War on Terror is a War on Islam."

Other officers reported that Hasan said "his religion took precedence over the U.S. Constitution he swore to support and defend as a U.S. military officer." His superiors refusedto report such behavior out of concern they would be labeled Islamophobes.

None of that is mentioned in the Army's report on the Fort Hood massacre, which was blasted by the Senate Homeland Security Committee for a "failure to address violent Islamist extremism by its name signal[s] to the bureaucracy as a whole that the subject is taboo."

It is not an isolated example.

In its new policy paper on countering violent extremism, the White House mentions Islam only in denying that the United States is out to harm the faith itself or Muslim people.

"There is no single profile of an al-Qa'ida-inspired terrorist," the report says, "but extensive investigations and research show that they all believe: (1) the United States is out to destroy Islam; and (2) this justifies violence against Americans. Al-Qa'ida and its supporters spread messages of hate, twist facts, and distort religious principles to weave together a false narrative that Muslims must attack Americans everywhere because the United States is waging a global war against Islam. While al-Qa'ida claims to be the vanguard of Islam, the overwhelming majority of its victims are Muslim."

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, took issue with the administration's refusal to discuss radical Islam during a speech at the National Press Club Sept. 1.

"[T]he administration still refuses to call our enemy in this war by its proper name, violent Islamist extremism. We can find names that are comparable to that, but not the one that the administration continues to use which are 'violent extremism.' It is not just violent extremism," Lieberman said. "There are many forms of violent extremism. There's white racist extremism, there's been some eco-extremism, there's been animal rights extremism. You can go on and on and on. There's skinhead extremism, but we're not in a global war with those.

"We're in a global war that affects our homeland security with Islamist extremists. To call our enemy violent extremism is so general and vague that it ultimately has no meaning. The other term used sometimes is Al-Qaida and its allies. Now, that's better, but it still is too narrow. It focuses us on groups as opposed to an ideology, which is what we're really fighting."

Policy Papers Silent

Yet, the White House's National Strategy for Counterterrorism issued in June never refers to radical Islam, instead repeatedly saying that strategies are needed to combat al-Qaida's ideology. Though it describes that ideology as violent over and over again, the document never describes its theological foundations or offers advice on how to show how it can be refuted on religious grounds.

Al-Qaida's ideology "draws on a distorted interpretation of Islam to justify the murder of Muslim and non-Muslim innocents," it says. "Countering this ideology—which has been rejected repeatedly and unequivocally by people of all faiths around the world—is an essential element of our strategy."

That's as far as it goes in outlining the radical Islamic ideology driving al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Terrorist supporters have been pushing this interpretation for more than 20 years. In 1991, an imam in Cleveland exhorted people to donate cash and jewelry to support the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. To Allah, he said, donors receive the same benefit in the afterlife as the martyr who killed himself waging jihad.

"God says, the Messenger, God's blessing and peace be upon him, says, 'Whoever equipped a raider for the sake of God, has himself raided,'" Fawaz Damra told a crowd at a fundraiser. "Whoever donates for a mujahid so that he may throw stones, is as if he too is fighting the Holy War, and will be rewarded like him, even if he stays home. 'Whoever equipped a raider for the sake of God, has himself raided.'"

In 2009, a would-be homegrown terrorist told followers they needed to fight to be good Muslims. It is because Muslims abandoned jihad, Daniel Patrick Boyd said in a recording captured by the FBI, that Muslim blood became cheap and infidels pushed them around. "The American troops even occupy the place of our two holy sites, Mecca and Medina. This isn't some fantasy, this is a reality. They are there and they are helping the Jews be in our third holy site, Aqsa. That would be our deen [religion]. This was forbidden by the Prophet on his death bed, he forbid that they can be in Mecca and Medina and there they are. "

Boyd echoed the justification bin Laden offered in a fatwa 20 years earlier in declaring it "an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it" to kill any American or American ally, "in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

Jihad's Scriptural Justification

In a 2002 letter to America, bin Laden invoked Quranic passages saying Allah gives victory to those who fight disbelievers. "You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire," he wrote. "You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."

During the Farooque Ahmed sentencing, Troccoli invoked American-born Anwar al-Awlaki, perhaps al-Qaida's most effective recruiter, "who previously preached in this country that that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don't do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith."

In his lecture "Constants in the Path of Jihad," Awlaki invokes a verse to dispute certain conditions are needed before waging jihad. The verse says: "Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not."

Awlaki is a major contributor to Inspire magazine, which mixes spiritual messages with specific instructions on how individuals can wage jihad against the United States. The sixth issue, for example, includes a three-page article, "Why Did I Choose Al Qaeda," by Abu Musab al-Awlaki. Among the reasons, "when the kuffar [disbelievers] turned away from listening to the Quran and from reflecting upon it, that action wasn't preventing the establishment of Allah's evidence against them."

The "Open Source Jihad" section starts on the following page. It features a pictorial on firing an AK-47 while standing, seated and even laying down. In addition, detailed directions show how to mix acetone peroxide, which "is a very popular explosive because it is easy to manufacture and its ingredients are widely available."

Investigators found copies of Inspire among Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo's belongings in July after arresting him in what is believed to be a plot to bomb a restaurant popular among personnel at Ford Hood and then shooting any survivors. That plot was thwarted only when a gun shop operator in Killeen, Tex. reported Abdo's suspicious behavior.

The incident shows that, while al-Qaida may be incredibly weakened - even on the brink of defeat – its message girded by Quranic passages, remains globally accessible to impressionable minds. Until the message of radical Islam is confronted and undermined, the terrorist threat continues to lurk over America and the West.

"To win this struggle, it is vital to understand that we're not just fighting an organization Al-Qaida, but we are up against a broader ideology, a politicized theology, quite separate from the religion of Islam that has fueled this war," Lieberman said earlier this month. "Success in the war will come consequently not when a single terrorist group or its affiliates are eliminated, but when broader set of ideas associated with it are rejected and discarded. The reluctance to identify our enemy as violent Islamist extremism makes it harder to mobilize effectively to fight this war of ideas."

The Muslim Mafia in America

Tom Tancredo
November 2, 2009

The recent indictment and arrest of Colorado resident and Afghanistan immigrant Najibullah Zazi on terrorism charges has again put a spotlight on the problem of Islamic radicals plotting acts of violence. But a book released on October 15th raises the question whether the FBI’s response to the terrorist threat is being deliberately undermined by US-based organizations whose mission is the eventual Islamization of America.

The book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America hit bookstores on October 15th and is already gaining attention from national lawmakers. Four members of Congress have asked the House to investigate allegations in the book of double agents placed inside Congress itself by the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Such allegations will be dismissed as alarmist by many, but critics will have to confront the book’s extensive documentation. Its authors are two investigative reporters, David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry, with national security backgrounds and solid reputations.

The most controversial part of the book is the documentation of the relationship between the Washington, D.C.-based CAIR and the international Muslim Brotherhood, a relationship that has both financial and ideological aspects. The Muslim Brotherhood is highly organized and operates in both public and covert realms. One of its avowed missions is to bring Sharia law to America as one step in the destruction of Western civilization from within.

The Council for American-Islamic Relations is well known in our nation’s capital and as a member of Congress, I had many run-ins with it. Until very recently it enjoyed a cozy relationship even with the FBI. Our nation’s news media often turn to CAIR for a “moderate Muslim response” to events of the day. Yet this book shows that the mask of moderation is only that – a mask covering its real mission.

CAIR has a record of opposing all laws and measures that aim to deal effectively with the jihad being waged against the U.S. and Western democracies by radical Islam. How “moderate” is an organization that  supports Palestinian terrorists, seeks to eliminate all obstacles to Islamic immigration to the U.S., opposes the Patriot Act, and accepts funding from sources tied to the Muslim Brotherhood?

But that is not the most alarming part of the story. According to the evidence collected in Muslim Mafia, CAIR is only one part of a network of over 100 organizations in the U.S. that are serving as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood. Their agenda is not to protect the civil rights of Muslim-Americans. Their agenda is a purely political mission – to neuter all opposition to the agenda of radical Islam.

CAIR’s operatives and apologists try to paint all critics as “Islamophobes” and “McCarthyites” and seldom responds to specific charges. They are aided in this strategy of deception by the mind-set of modern multiculturalism, which serves as a moral umbrella of denial about the mortal threat posed by radical Islam. To these apostles of preemptive forgiveness, Islam is just another exotic religion, and we can all live together in peace and friendship if we will only put away the fears and slanders propagated by the “merchants of hate.” The problem is that the principal “merchant of hate” in the modern world is radical Islam and its jihad of violence, not those who are sounding the alarm.

Fortunately, we are beginning to hear the voices of authentic leaders within Islam speaking out against the jihad waged by the radicals. The dividing line, however, between Muslims wanting to live within our democracy as Muslim-Americans and the radicals who want to replace it is not support or opposition to jihad. That dividing line, this book makes clear, is the choice of Sharia law over Anglo-American common law and the U.S. Constitution. CAIR and its allies are pursuing a plan to place civic loyalty and ultimately citizenship itself outside the Constitution and in the hands of radical imams.

The articles of indictment against Najibullah Zazi say he attended terrorist training in Pakistan. The FBI and CIA have ways of monitoring such foreign travel and surveilling suspects who purchase the ingredients for bomb-making. But if the authors of this book are correct, we face a far larger problem than these foreign-trained terrorists. We may well be growing and training our own brand of domestic terrorist who know how to destroy our nation from within. Contributing Editor Tom Tancredo is a former U.S. Congressman from Colorado and founding chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Congress. He is the author of In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security (2006) and currently serves as chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation. He can be reached at


Georgia man convicted of aiding terrorism groups

An Atlanta jury finds Ehsanul Sadequee, 23, guilty in a trial that explored an Internet network of global militant plotting.

By Sebastian Rotella reporting from Washington
Los Angeles Times
August 13, 2009

An Atlanta jury on Wednesday found a 23-year-old man guilty of aiding terrorist groups after a trial that explored a subculture of youthful extremists who used the Internet to plot attacks and form a loose network connecting North America, Europe and South Asia.

Ehsanul Sadequee, the U.S.-born son of Bangladeshi immigrants, faces up to 60 years in prison after being convicted of conspiracy to materially support terrorists. The jury found that he had discussed attacks with accused militants in Toronto and Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Along with another Georgia man convicted in June, Sadequee drove to Washington in 2005 to film the Pentagon and other potential targets, then e-mailed the scouting videos to British citizens who since have been convicted of terrorism charges.

"It's a good example of how these Islamic extremists across the world connect up and start to organize using the Internet," David Nahmias, the U.S. attorney in Atlanta, said in a telephone interview. "The Internet is very hard to control, and it is exploited by the bad guys."

Sadequee worked at an incense shop and a nonprofit agency that aided South Asian victims of domestic violence. During the trial, he acted as his own lawyer, wearing a Muslim skullcap over his curly hair and engaging witnesses in occasionally odd exchanges about Superman and the antichrist. He argued that his Internet conversations about jihad, or holy war, were idle fantasies and noted that he did not attend overseas training camps.

"We were immature young guys who had imaginations running wild," he said during his closing argument Tuesday. "But I was not then, and am not now, a terrorist."

The jury heard testimony from Bosnian and British investigators and weighed evidence from six cases that have involved several dozen defendants and years of complex international cooperation. Defendants in those cases have been convicted in Sarajevo, Copenhagen, London and Toledo, Ohio. There also were several acquittals in Copenhagen. A group remains on trial in Toronto, accused of plotting to attack the Canadian Parliament.

Sadequee's story, according to investigators, showed how the Internet has become an arena of jihad. Without ever meeting face-to-face, online militants can radicalize, hatch plots, exchange funds and help one another reach training camps and battlegrounds.

Born in Virginia, Sadequee exhibited militant sentiments at age 15 while attending an Islamic school in Canada. Soon after Sept. 11, 2001, he sent an e-mail to an extremist website expressing his desire to join the Taliban, Nahmias said.

Sadequee's extremist activity intensified when he met Syed Ahmed, a Pakistani American student at Georgia Tech, at a mosque in Atlanta. The two made contact in Islamic chat rooms with an extremist constellation including the Toronto group; a Bosnian named Mirsad Bektasevic, who lived in Sweden; and Younis Tsouli, a Moroccan diplomat's son living in London whose computer expertise made him a hub of the network.

In early 2005, Ahmed and Sadequee took a bus to Toronto and met with suspects there to discuss potential attacks on military bases and oil refineries, as well as traveling to Pakistan to train with militant groups. Weeks later, the two drove to Washington and filmed more than 62 video clips of potential targets, including the Pentagon, the Capitol and World Bank headquarters, according to testimony at trial.

Sadequee used the computer at the Atlanta domestic violence shelter where he worked to send the videos to Tsouli and Aabid Khan of Manchester, England, who recruited others for the Pakistani camps.

Internet communications revealed Sadequee's enthusiasm for holy war. His first choice was to train with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani group that caters to English-speaking Westerners. Lashkar is suspected in last year's attacks in Mumbai that killed 166 people.

But he also talked about going to fight in Iraq and about joining the Afghan Taliban, whose members he referred to as "the Students" in an e-mail presented as evidence.

"[G]et with the Students, man, the Students are back in full force," he wrote, according to a report compiled by an investigator in a British case.

Sadequee and Ahmed traveled to Bangladesh and Pakistan, respectively, but never underwent training, according to trial testimony. But the U.S. attorney said Sadequee's extensive contacts with militants and attempts to reach overseas training camps made him potentially dangerous.

"It's not that easy to get from here to a training camp," Nahmias said. "They had troubles with visas, passports and money. But the great fear is that what's easy to do is go down to a gun store, pick your place" and carry out an attack.

Sadequee, who got married in Bangladesh, continued his participation in the global network, according to testimony. In October 2005, he communicated from Bangladesh with Tsouli in London and Bektasevic in Sarajevo as the Bosnian obtained explosives and weapons. They discussed a propaganda video that Bektasevic was preparing that would announce the formation of a group they called Al Qaeda in Northern Europe.

Within days, police arrested Tsouli and Bektasevic, subduing the latter as he assembled a suicide vest attached to a detonator. Both now are serving prison sentences after being convicted on terrorism-related charges.

The FBI tracked down Sadequee in Bangladesh and arrested him in April 2006.

In addition to the evidence against him, the 23-year-old's performance as his own lawyer in court may have helped seal his fate, said Evan Kohlmann, an expert witness for the prosecution. Sadequee discussed the fine points of holy war and other Islamic concepts with Kohlmann during a lengthy cross-examination.

Sadequee seemed eager to discuss his radical ideas and apparently did not realize that a jury was unlikely to sympathize, said Kohlmann, who also worked as a consultant to investigators in the British trials. "I think he believed he could express these ideas eloquently enough that an American jury could see the light," Kohlmann said. "But I don't think there was a light to be seen. He may have convicted himself."


WASHINGTON, DC, January 28, 2005- Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom released today a new report exposing the dissemination of hate propaganda in America by the government of Saudi Arabia.

The 89-page report, “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques,” is based on a year-long study of over two hundred original documents, all disseminated, published or otherwise generated by the government of Saudi Arabia and collected from more than a dozen mosques in the United States.

The propagation of hate ideology by Saudi Arabia is known to be worldwide, but its occurrence within the United States has received scant attention until now. Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Saudi Arabia’s extremist Wahhabi ideology are a distinct minority, as is evident by the millions of Muslims who have chosen to make America their home and are upstanding, law-abiding citizens and neighbors.

The report concludes that the Saudi government propaganda examined reflects a “totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence,” and the fact that it is “being mainstreamed within our borders through the efforts of a foreign government, namely Saudi Arabia, demands our urgent attention.” The report finds: “Not only does the government of Saudi Arabia not have a right – under the First Amendment or any other legal document – to spread hate ideology within U.S. borders, it is committing a human rights violation by doing so.”

Such publications that “advocate an ideology of hatred have no place in a nation founded on religious freedom and toleration,” write James Woolsey, chairman of the board of Freedom House, in the foreword to the report.

Among the key findings of the report:

· Various Saudi government publications gathered for this study, most of which are in Arabic, assert that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations;

· The documents promote contempt for the United States because it is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian Wahhabi-style Islamic law. They condemn democracy as un-Islamic;

· The documents stress that when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam. Any other reason for lingering among the unbelievers in their lands is illegitimate, and unless a Muslim leaves as quickly as possible, he or she is not a true Muslim and so too must be condemned. For example, a document in the collection for the “Immigrant Muslim” bears the words “Greetings from the Cultural Attache in Washington, D.C.” of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, and is published by the government of Saudi Arabia. In an authoritative religious voice, it gives detailed instructions on how to “hate” the Christian and Jew: Never greet them first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never imitate the infidel. Do not become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel;

· One insidious aspect of the Saudi propaganda examined is its aim to replace traditional and moderate interpretations of Islam with extremist Wahhabism, the officially-established religion of Saudi Arabia. In these documents, other Muslims, especially those who advocate tolerance, are condemned as infidels. The opening fatwa in one Saudi embassy-distributed book, published by the Saudi Air Force, responds to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who taught that it is not right to condemn Jews and Christians as infidels. The Saudi state cleric’s reply rebukes the Muslim cleric: “He who casts doubts about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his.” Since, under Saudi law, “apostates” from Islam can be sentenced to death, this is an implied death threat against the tolerant Muslim imam, as well as an incitement to vigilante violence;

· Sufi and Shiite Muslims are viciously condemned;

· For a Muslim who fails to uphold the Saudi Wahhabi sect’s sexual mores (i.e. through homosexual activity or heterosexual activity outside of marriage), the edicts published by the Saudi government’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and found in American mosques advise, “it would be lawful for Muslims to spill his blood and to take his money;”

· Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs explicitly asserts, they “should be killed;”

· Saudi textbooks and other publications in the collection, propagate a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treat the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avow that the Muslim’s duty is to eliminate the state of Israel;

· Regarding women, the Saudi publications instruct that they should be veiled, segregated from men and barred from certain employment and roles;

The report states: “While the government of Saudi Arabia claims to be ‘updating’ or reforming its textbooks and study materials within the Kingdom, its publications propagating an ideology of hatred remain plentiful in some prominent American mosques and Islamic centers, and continue to be a principal resource available to students of Islam within the United States.”

The research, translation and principle analysis of the materials for the report were carried out by both Muslims and non-Muslims who wish to remain anonymous for reasons of security. Some 90 percent of the publications are in Arabic; two independent translators reviewed each Arabic document. This project was undertaken after many Muslims requested the Center’s help in exposing Saudi extremism in the hope of freeing their communities from ideological strangulation.



Destroying Domestic Islamist Enemies

By J. Atticus (07/16/05)

British citizens, who happen to be Muslim, murdered over 50 people, including themselves. Or, was it Islamists, who happen to be British, killed innocent people? It makes a difference. Brits today, Americans tomorrow, must know who their domestic enemies are and what kind of war they are fighting to win. Assuming Brits or Americans have the will to win. This World War is between a totalitarian ideology, born of a relatively barbaric culture, against all humankind. Domestic Islamists, acting as terrorists in the country of their birth, can be defeated.

The Liberal Secular Humanist majority in the U.K., like their U.S. counterpart, preens about a “multi-cultural,” diverse society. Yet, one culture alone rules. Only thoroughly changed, Westernized Muslims can co-exist within Western culture. Islamic culture produces a naturally-growing Islamist Totalitarian minority (currently 10% of Muslims) regardless of any dialogue, understanding, groveling, and concessions made to Muslims. It’s like the American Indians. The cultures of warring Neolithic tribal societies and an agrarian, then industrial, Western society could not co-exist peacefully. History and modernity suggest several solutions.

· Ignore and Pretend. No surviving culture succeeded with this strategy. Liberals and moderates would like to try to ignore the problem beginning by not naming it truthfully. Pretend that more security measures will make life safe enough. Like it’s a police problem. Like it’s a hatred of our ‘freedoms’ and our way of life. Indian raids, integral to the Indian way of life – their culture, were savage assaults on the frontier. From 1608 to 1890, those folks living under the threat of Indian attacks, didn’t suffer the folly and well-wishing pretense of people who lived in safety. If Islamists personalize the war with many more July 7ths and 9-11s, the pretending will end.

· Separate and Isolate. Indians were shoved out of the way or put on reservations. Israelis are building a wall to keep Palestinians away. The Chinese built their Great Wall. The Romans had Hadrian’s Wall, rivers and seas and a fortified frontier to keep the barbarians out. The U.S. passed a Chinese Exclusion Act and cut non-Northern European immigration to a trickle with the 1920’s Immigration Act. The U.K. and U.S. could restrict the immigration of Muslims to cut their rate of growth, but both nations lack the consensus and will to do so. Neither nation would dare move their Muslim populations to better control them.

Yet, both countries may increase their surveillance and intrusive searches for the Imams and their followers who preach “hate,” if attacks terrify their populace enough. New Patriot Acts on steroids may come to both birthplaces of modern Western freedoms. Unfortunately, when the Liberal Secular Humanists find enough moral courage to suppress more speech, assembly and religion in the name of security and safety, they will assuredly use it against the Evangelical Christians they hate more than the Islamists they fear.

· Annihilate and Expel. Genocide and mass expulsions frequent history, as against Indians in America, but neither will be considered, unless almost all Muslims became Islamists. That is unlikely to happen in the coming decades. Alien Muslims could be deported more frequently, but such scrutiny by religion and defense of sovereign borders, is improbable in the politically correct U.S.

· Convince and Convert. If the U.S. or U.K. can define what it means to be an American or British, then either nation could assimilate a minority. Once, Indian children were shipped to the Carlisle School and Hampton Institute and Westernized.

A confident and ascending culture gains converts voluntarily. Barbarians crossed the Rhine in the 4th Century to join the rising Legions, call themselves by Latin names, wear Roman dress and become citizens - inheritors to Roman Civilization. One hundred years later as Rome declined, Romans adapted Barbarian names and dress and swore allegiance to local tribal leaders.

Liberal Human Secularists in the U.K. will try to convert Muslims to their Paganism. They will fail. Something always beats nothing. The something of an identity, and purpose in life, regardless of how false a God image and phony as Abrahamaic faith, will reproduce and prevail over worship of small god of ‘self’.

Unless the U.K. has a Great Awakening of its traditional Christian faith, it’s doomed to a long twilight struggle against the enemies being born within the gates. The U.S. shall prevail. If domestic Islamists ever threaten like the Indians did, then they will suffer the same fate. Or, Muslims will be assimilated as Christian Evangelicals love them into Christian faith and Western Civilization – American culture.


CAIR Founded by "Islamic Terrorists"?

by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha July 28, 2005 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead, of Anti-CAIR (or ACAIR), a grass-roots project whose name explains its mission: to expose the largest, most vocal, and dangerous Islamist organization in North America.

CAIR's March 2004 lawsuit is part of what seems to be a policy of using the legal process to silence or chill critics. In this case, CAIR claimed it had been harmed by six statements on ACAIR's website, including CAIR's being founded by Hamas supporters, being partially funded by terrorists, and intending to impose Islamic law on the United States.

Then, on June 20, 2005, CAIR filed an amended motion that substantially cut back on its libel claims, retaining just portions of two of the original six statements. With original misspellings retained, the offending passages are:

·         Let their be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization….

·         [CAIR] seeks to overthrow constitutional government in the United States….

Why did CAIR drastically reduce its claims versus Whitehead?

It might have to do with Whitehead, admirably represented by Reed Rubinstein of Greenberg Traurig LLP, having responded to CAIR's lawsuit with an extensive and well informed set of discovery requests and documents. These filings perhaps established for CAIR the depth of Whitehead's knowledge and the soundness of his opinions. If so, then CAIR's leadership concluded that the bulk of its case against Whitehead would collapse in court.

CAIR's filing an amended motion has two apparent implications: that CAIR has tacitly acknowledges the truth of Whitehead's deleted assertions; and those assertions can now be repeated with legal impunity.

We list here the key statements that CAIR no longer deems legally improper, followed by some speculations as to why it might have decided not to contest them in court.

·         [CAIR is an] organization founded by Hamas supporters….

·         CAIR was started by Hamas members….

·         CAIR … was founded by Islamic terrorists.

CAIR's leadership must have stretched its collective memory back to 1994 and recalled (along with counterterrorism expert Matthew Epstein) that Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, former officials of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), founded the organization, while IAP's president, Rafeeq Jabar, was (according to Steve Emerson) one of CAIR's founding directors,.

Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver "Buck" Revell) has described the IAP as "a front organization for Hamas." This linkage between the IAP and Hamas was decisively established in 2004, when a federal judge in Chicago found it partially liable for $156 million in damages for its role in aiding and abetting Hamas in the murder of David Boim, a 17-year-old American citizen.

And, CAIR no doubt remembered that it had been caught by Joe Kaufman exploiting the 9/11 attacks to raise funds for two Hamas-linked fundraising organizations, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and the Global Relief Foundation.

·         [CAIR] is partially funded by terrorists…

Terrorists themselves don't literally give out money, but organizations that fund terrorism also fund CAIR.

The Saudi-based Islamic Development Bank, gave CAIR $250,000 in August 1999. The IDB also manages funds (Al-Quds, Al-Aqsa) which finance suicide bombings against Israeli civilians by providing funds to the families of Palestinian "martyrs."

The International Institute of Islamic Thought, an organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, gave CAIR's Washington office $14,000 in 2003, according to IIIT tax filings. David Kane, who investigated IIIT as part of Operation Green Quest's probe into some one hundred companies and organizations, described in a sworn affidavit the various ways in which it may have funded suspected terrorist-front organizations.

The International Relief Organization (also called the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO), a Saudi-financed organization being investigated by the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance for terrorism financing donated at least $12,000 to CAIR.

·         CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorist supporting countries.

CAIR has received funds from Saudi Arabia, such as the $250,000 from the Islamic Development Bank noted above. In addition; the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a Saudi-sponsored charity (and another one suspected of financing terror), announced in December 1999 that it "was extending both moral and financial support to CAIR" to help it construct its $3.5 million headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Saudi Arabia, the homeland Osama bin Laden and fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, is reasonably described as "terrorist supporting." The 9/11 Commission staff describes Saudi Arabia as having an environment where "fund-raisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and the Gulf" raised money for al Qaeda. In July 2005, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey stated that "even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the insurgency in Iraq."

·         CAIR has proven links to… Islamic terrorists.

It's easy to understand why CAIR chose to leave this one alone, what with five current or former CAIR affiliates arrested, convicted, or deported on terrorism-related charges:

Randall Royer, CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, was indicted on charges of conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to battle American troops in Afghanistan. He later pled guilty to lesser firearms-related charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted in July 2004 along with his four brothers of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to Libya and Syria, two designated state sponsors of terrorism. In April of 2005, Elashi and two brothers were also convicted of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader and Specially Designated Terrorist. He continues to face charges that he provided more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), America's largest Islamic charity.

Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and for passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001, for which he was deported. Khafagi was also a founding member and president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), an organization under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for terrorism-related activities.

Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he co-founded; in October 2002, GRF was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. According to a CAIR complaint, Homam Albaroudi, a member of CAIR's Michigan chapter and also a founding member and executive director of the IANA also founded the Free Rabih Haddad Committee.

Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in connection with the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman.

·         CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.

·         CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of a SHARIA law in American.

·         [CAIR seeks to replace the government of the United States] with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection....

·         CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and to convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran.

CAIR's goals are clear, as indicated by its leaders' sometimes revealing comments:

Ihsan Bagby, a future CAIR board member, stated in the late 1980s that Muslims "can never be full citizens of this country," referring to the United States, "because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country."

Ibrahim Hooper, the future CAIR spokesman, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune on April 4, 1993: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

Omar Ahmad, CAIR's chairman, announced in July 1998 that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

These facts suggest why CAIR felt it had to drop most of its libel claims against Andrew Whitehead. Should this case go to court, we will watch with interest how Whitehead's two remaining opinions (that CAIR is a terrorist-supporting front organization and that it seeks to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States) will fare.


CAIR Launches Yet Another Attack Against Free Speech;

Calls D.C. Radio Talk Host Michael Graham 'Bigot' For Criticizing Islam

"CAIR complaining about hate speech is like Saddam Hussein complaining about prison food," Graham says.

To: National Desk

Contact: Michael Graham, of the Michael Graham Show, 202-686-3100

WASHINGTON, July 25 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The following is a statement from Michael Graham, mid-morning host at 630 WMAL in Washington, DC:

Earlier today, I received a press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations accusing me of bigotry for criticizing the state of the Islamic world today and its well-known—and tragically unfortunate—links to terror.

Normally I would ignore attacks from CAIR, a group notorious for its direct links to terrorism and terror supporters. After all, as Middle East analyst and expert Daniel Pipes has reported, two of CAIR's associates (Ghassan Elashi, Randall Royer) have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, one (Bassem Khafegi) convicted on fraud charges, two (Rabih Haddad, Bassem Khafegi) have been deported, and one (Siraj Wahhaj) remains at large. Its most prominent members have praised Hamas and Hizbullah even as these two terrorist groups were murdering civilians in the Middle East.

However, the listeners of the Michael Graham Show—many of whom have called and emailed to agree with me during my discussion of Islam—deserve to be defended.

As I've said many times on 630 WMAL, I have great sympathy for those Muslims of good will who want their faith to be a true "religion of peace." Sadly, as Islam is constituted today, it is not. It is instead a faith whose structure provides cover for terrorists and their theological supporters. Of course the vast majority of Muslims have no connection to terror whatsoever. However, Muslims calling for violence and murder in the name of Islam have not been removed or "excommunicated" from their faith, and one-fourth of British Muslims told pollsters last week that they would not report planned terror attacks to the police if they knew of them.

So closely entwined are Islam and violence targeting civilians that, even after the bombings in London, moderate Muslim clerics at a conference on terror could not say flatly that suicide bombings violate their faith.

I believe that terrorism and murder do violate the sensibilities and inherent decency of the vast majority of the world's Muslims. I believe they are good people who want peace. Sadly, the organization and fundamental theology of Islam as it is constituted today allows for hatreds most Muslims do not share to thrive, and for criminals they oppose to operate in the name of their faith. That's why I said that "Islam is a terrorist organization which (the folks from CAIR conveniently declined to provide the entire quote) can be and must be rescued by the majority of Muslims who reject this terrorism."

I stand by that statement.

Every Muslim who bravely steps forward to accept the challenge of rescuing modern Islam from itself will have my support and, I believe, the support of my 630 WMAL listeners.


How CAIR cows critics

By Joel Mowbray
The Washington Times
Published August 26, 2005

Though there is some disagreementbetween WMAL Radio and fired mid-morninghost Michael Graham over the details of his termination, one thing is not in dispute: The big winner is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which called for his ouster, yet has never specifically condemned Islamic terrorist organizations, such as Hamas or Hezbollah.

In a year that started with it blasting away at the Fox television show "24" — because it had terrorists who were Muslims — CAIR has garnered more attention than ever before. Now, with the firing of Mr. Graham, it has achieved perhaps its greatest feat yet — at least in perception, which is typically tantamount to reality.

And a stronger CAIR almost inevitably means a weakened spirit of free speech.

Mr. Graham was fired this week by Disney-owned WMAL for his on-air comments on July 21 that Islam is a "terrorist organization." After initially defending him, however, the station suspended him without pay on July 28 — three days after CAIR launched its initial campaign.

In an official statement, the station dismissed the coincidence of timing, saying, "we make our decisions independent of external pressures or third parties." But given that the station went abruptly from supporting Graham to suspending him, it seems difficult to believe that the CAIR-stirred controversy had no impact on the sudden switch.

Mr. Graham likely was not immediately shown the door after making the comments on July 21 because they were rich with context, with the logic and rationale for his labeling Islam a "terrorist organization" well laid-out. The remarks were far from flippant, and seen in context, they don't read as the rantings of a fire-breathing bigot.

Here is a representative sample of Mr. Graham's remarks:

"Because of the mix of Islamic theology that — rightly or wrongly — is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion."

Focusing solely on the "terrorist organization" soundbite obviously makes Mr. Graham's comments indefensible — and legitimately an outrage. But with his clearly spelled-out reasoning, there is still much room with which to disagree with his labeling — but it is much harder to pillory his comments as bombastic bigotry.

Whether WMAL intended to or not, the station has handed CAIR arguably its biggest victory to date, and has certainly increased the legitimacy of an organization that deserves none.

It won't just be radio talk hosts that will start feeling chilly when the topic of Islam arises. Television personalities, reporters, columnists, or anyone who works for a corporate interest that would bristle at being the target of a CAIR scare campaign would think twice before making even entirely defensible statements. It's not inconceivable that the media outlet could set up clear demarcation lines and declare certain subject matters or groups off-limits.

In fairness to WMAL, it isn't the first conservative media outlet to bow to CAIR pressure. National Review (where this columnist once worked) earlier this year removed a book from its online bookstore deemed "bigoted" and "anti-Muslim hate" by CAIR after the group sent a threatening letter to major advertiser Boeing — which sells planes to many wealthy Arabs.

The threat of public controversy is apparently so strong that major media outlets — the top conservative talk station in the nation's capital and the nation's premier conservative publication — are fleeing from rather than fighting an organization replete with ripe targets.

Take your pick: CAIR's radical roots essentially as an offshoot of a rabidly anti-Semitic organization long viewed as Hamas' biggest political booster in the United States, its co-founder Omar Ahmad praising suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam" in November 1999 (according to a transcript provided by the Investigative Project), or its repeated failure to specifically condemn radical Islam or Hamas and Hezbollah, dismissing requests to do so as a "game."

CAIR's key to success in spite of its ugly history is an odd combination of finesse and noise. Realizing that it needs to pass itself off as moderate, CAIR has become the master of making even intelligent people believe that they've condemned something when they haven't.

Case in point: its recent fatwa against "extremism" and "terrorism." CAIR and others came out against two terms that they intentionally didn't define. Hamas, for example, has long maintained that it is not "terrorism" to kill Israelis because of the Jewish state's mandatory military conscription. Last year's CAIR-led "Not in the Name of Islam" campaign was of the same ilk.

All of this information is available to media outlets subjected to a CAIR onslaught. None has yet to take this tack, however.

Normal debating rules argue against attacking the messenger, but is it really unfair to ask CAIR to condemn terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah before acknowledging their criticisms of even admittedly offensive speech?


Cleric 'urged children to fight'

LONDON, England -- The jury in the trial of Abu Hamza al-Masri has heard recorded sermons of the Muslim cleric telling followers to "join the front line" in the fight against infidels and calling for children to be trained for a violent struggle.

Egyptian-born Hamza, former head preacher at the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London, faces life in prison if convicted of inciting murder and stirring racial hatred in speeches recorded on nine video and audio tapes made for supporters. He denies all the charges.

Prosecutors on Friday played jurors tapes in which the preacher urged Muslims to carry out the destruction of the "enemies of Allah," The Associated Press reported.

"Islam will never be dear to your hearts unless you sacrifice for it, until your blood comes out for it, your teeth get broken for it, you have enemies because of it," he said in one of the tapes played at London's Central Criminal Court.

The three-hour speech was delivered in 1999, prosecutor David Perry said.

"You are a fighter, so when the time comes for fighting you can fight and if you want more reward in what you do, join the front line," Hamza told followers, urging them to target non-Muslims and that children should be prepared to act as holy warriors.

The cleric said once a child reached 10 years old, they must get used to "sleeping rough, sleeping tough, going for training, sweating, getting a couple of punches in his face," AP said.

Jurors were played a tape on Thursday in which the cleric said supporters should "bleed" their enemies and treat Britain like a toilet.

The cleric is also accused of keeping a terrorism "manual" containing a dedication to Osama bin Laden and suggested a list of potential targets including Big Ben.

Hamza, 47, from west London, faces nine charges under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 alleging he solicited others at public meetings to murder Jews and other non-Muslims.

He also faces four charges under the Public Order Act of 1986 of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior with the intention of stirring up racial hatred."

Hamza also faces one charge of possessing threatening, abusive or insulting sound recordings, and another charge under anti-terrorism laws.

Following his arrest Hamza did not answer questions, but instead gave a statement in which he claimed Islam was being placed on trial and that he had been the object of a witch hunt by the media and a hate campaign, the court was told.

The cleric also denied hating Jews or Christians and said the encyclopedia had been given to him as a "gift" and that he had never read it.

The trial continues.


Cleric: ''God sent Hitler to kill the Jews"

LONDON, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri told followers that Allah had cursed the Jews and had therefore sent Hitler for them, a British court heard Monday.

The Egyptian-born preacher -- who is wanted in the United States on a terrorism indictment -- also said Israel was blackmailing western politicians in order to control their governments' policies.

"Jews know how to control people. This is how they know how to control our leaders," he said in a October 2000 sermon, watched on video by jurors.

The 47-year-old, who holds British citizenship, denies 15 charges including soliciting murder, inciting racial hatred and possessing documents likely to be useful in preparation for terrorist acts.

Jurors heard Hamza criticize "the dogs of the West" for not condemning Israeli policy.

Western governments "act like sugar daddy for Israel" even though "they hate them very much" because the Israelis keep files on every politician detailing their secrets, he claimed.

In the October 2000 sermon, Hamza said Muslims could not have a peace treaty with Jews.

"They are enemies to one another and Allah has cursed them," he said.

"This is why he send Hitler for them. Jews they have nowhere to go, they are going to be buried in Palestine all of them."

He then told his audience that there was no liquid loved more by Allah "than the liquid of blood."

"Whether you do it by the lamb, or you do it by a Serb, you do it by a Jew, you do it by any enemies of Allah," he said.

Hamza is also accused of possessing a "terrorism manual" -- the Encyclopedia of Afghani Jihad -- containing instructions for making explosives, identifying targets and operating terror cells.

He is wanted in the United States on an 11-count indictment from 2004 that charges him with conspiring to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon; conspiring to take hostages in Yemen and facilitating terrorist training in Afghanistan. However, under British law, the domestic charges take precedence over the U.S. case.


Lynne Stewart, Jihadi Lawyer The Left's unholy alliance...
[Sharon Chadha] 1/19/06

A federal court will soon sentence attorney Lynne Stewart to prison for "providing material support" to terrorists, among related charges.[1] The charges center upon her assistance to Egyptian sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman who, from a federal prison cell in Minnesota, has continued his quest both to install an Islamist government in Egypt and to kill Americans and Jews around the world. Stewart's case is symbolic of a corollary battle in the war against terror and highlights the need not only to counter terrorism but also the ideology of Islamism. Her infatuation with her client's cause evolved into an example of what author David Horowitz terms the "unholy alliance" between radical Islam and the American Left.[2] Her embrace of violent jihad illustrates the growing confluence between militant Islam on one hand and non-Muslim radicals on the other.


The charges against Stewart are an epilogue to the conviction of her client. Many Americans first learned of the blind sheikh when, on February 26, 1993, his followers drove a truck bomb into the World Trade Center. Though the explosion was not as destructive as they planned—Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind, said that he had hoped to kill some 250,000 people[3]—it still left six dead and injured over 1,000 people. However, in his home country of Egypt, Abdel Rahman was a household name. During the 1990s, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, of which the sheikh was the spiritual leader, led an Islamic insurgency in Egypt that resulted in more than 1,200 deaths.[4]

It was not a one-time event. On October 1, 1995, a federal court in New York found Abdel Rahman and nine codefendants guilty of seditious conspiracy for plotting to blow up New York City landmarks, including the United Nations, the FBI's New York field office, and both the Holland and Lincoln tunnels.[5] The court also found the sheikh guilty of having solicited the murder of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.[6] On January 17, 1996, a federal court in New York sentenced Abdel Rahman to life in prison. In April 1997, the government blocked his access to the outside world because of fears that his terrorist connections remained active. Stewart signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice not to pass information to or from her client, except that which was legally necessary. Since the sheikh had already been convicted and had exhausted his appeals, Stewart's role should have been limited to assuring his humane treatment in prison.

Fast-forward eight years. On February 10, 2005, another New York court found Stewart, now 66, as well as the sheikh's court-appointed translator, Mohammad Yousry, 48, and his former paralegal, Ahmed Sattar, 46, guilty of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government for their part in enabling communications between the imprisoned sheikh and his network.[7]

Stewart and her coconspirators flouted their agreement with the Justice Department and helped the sheikh circumvent the communications ban. According to government recordings of their prison visits, Yousry, who also served as an adjunct lecturer in Middle East studies at York College of the City University of New York,[8] conveyed messages to and from the sheikh while Stewart created what the prosecution called "covering noises." On some surveillance videos, Stewart could be seen shaking a water jar or tapping on the table while Yousry and the sheikh exchanged communications that were then later disseminated to the sheikh's followers via the former paralegal.[9] The prosecutor argued, citing a letter written by the U.S. attorney's office to Stewart after she delivered the message to Reuters, that it was not in the sheikh's legal rights "to pass messages which, simply put, can get people killed and buildings blown up."[10] They argued that the case was equivalent to a "jail break," in which the defendants extracted Abdel Rahman from prison, "not literally, of course, [but] figuratively, in order to make him available to other terrorists."[11]

One of the most incendiary communications was a message Stewart herself gave to the Reuters news service in June 2000 in which the sheikh announced his withdrawal of support for a cease-fire between the Egyptian Islamic Group and the Egyptian government.[12] The truce had been in place since 1997, just after his followers in Egypt had opened fire on tourists at the Temple of Hatshepsut in Luxor, killing 58 foreigners and 4 Egyptians.[13] Subsequently, high-casualty Islamist terrorism resumed in Egypt on October 7, 2004, with a series of bombings that killed 34 in and around the Egyptian Sinai resort of Taba. On July 23, 2005, three bombs exploded in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, killing at least 64.

Government investigators searching Stewart's law offices found a draft of the sheikh's fatwa that bin Laden later said inspired him.[14] In it, Abdel Rahman enjoined his fellow Muslims everywhere to kill Americans, even children, "to treat them with brutality," and to "drown their ships, shoot down their airplanes, kill them on earth, in the sea or in the sky, kill them everywhere you find them" in order to obtain his release from U.S. prison.[15]

The jury also found Sattar guilty of additional charges of conspiracy to kidnap and murder. In this case, he ghostwrote and issued a fatwa under the sheikh's name in which he urged Muslims to kill Jews and their supporters. He also recruited a terrorist, at the time a fugitive in Egypt, in order to carry out the fatwa. Sattar, who has been held without bail since his arrest, faces life imprisonment.

Jihadism and Left-wing Radicalism

The defense maintained that the charges against Stewart and her codefendants were an assault on free speech and argued that Stewart enjoyed a lawyer-client privilege. They further argued that the George W. Bush administration hyped evidence against the defendants. Stewart and her defense knew what would play on campuses and in leftist forums across the country. Her website billed the trial as a manifestation of an Orwellian fear that, in the wake of 9-11 and armed with provisions of the Patriot Act, the U.S. Department of Justice was going to criminalize political dissent.[16]

Ramsey Clark, a former Lyndon B. Johnson administration attorney general who has since embraced radical left-wing causes, brought Stewart onto the sheikh's defense team in 1994.[17] As Stewart told The Washington Post, "Ramsey said it would be a terrible black mark against progressive forces in the United States not to represent him … He said, ‘If you're a fireman, and you walk by a burning building, you must run in.'"[18]

Stewart appeared to enjoy being a defendant. She used her position to argue against the malfeasance of the U.S. government and the Bush administration. Before her trial began in June 2004, she asked, "How could I be happier? … I feel like I've been waiting my whole life for this fight. My role now is to play the poster girl fighting Ashcroft. Besides, ‘Who on a jury wouldn't love me?'"[19]

On the witness stand at her trial, asked by defense attorney Michael Tigar to elaborate on her politics, Stewart characterized herself as a "revolutionary with a small ‘r'" and said that she believes "basic change is necessary." While "some of it will be accomplished nonviolently," she argued, overcoming "the entrenched voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism," might require violence.[20] "I'm not a pacifist," Stewart had earlier told The Washington Post. "I have cried many bitter tears. There is death in history, and it's not all rosebuds and memorial services. Mao, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh understood this."[21]

In May of 2000, according to the prosecution, tapes indicate that Yousry told the sheikh and Stewart that the Abu Sayyaf group had kidnapped tourists in the Philippines and was threatening to kill them if the sheikh and Ramzi Yousef were not released. Stewart commented, "Good for them,"[22] although she said that while she believed that Abu Sayyaf would not succeed in winning Abdel Rahman's release, its efforts were nonetheless "very, very crucial,"[23] since the demand would raise his profile among jihadists. Even bin Laden, a self-professed admirer of the sheikh,[24] had considered hijacking airplanes to free the sheikh and Yousef.[25] In September 2000, the Al-Qaeda leader reiterated his threat to wage jihad on the sheikh's behalf.[26]

Stewart also endorsed the sheikh's ghostwritten fatwa, calling for the murder of Jews and Americans.[27] When Sattar told Stewart that Ramsey Clark had concerns about the fatwa, she responded, "Does he really think that the American government can completely put this man in an iron box and cut him off from the whole world?"[28]

When asked about 9-11, Stewart told The New York Times that she thought the attacks were a predictable response to U.S. aggression. "I'm pretty inured to the notion that in a war or in an armed struggle, people die," she said. "They're in the wrong place; they're in a nightclub in Israel; they're at a stock market in London; they're in the Algerian outback—whatever it is, people die." Citing the U.S. use of a nuclear weapon against Hiroshima and the World War II firebombing of Dresden, she added, "So I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that is wrong, especially when people are sort of placed in a position of having no other way."[29]

The Pentagon, she argued, was "a better target" than the World Trade Center, though, since the people in the towers "never knew what hit them. They had no idea that they could ever be a target for somebody's wrath, just by virtue of being American."[30] On the witness stand, Stewart said she did not support terrorist violence because "it's basically anarchistic. It is not directed at institutions—it is directed against civilians, and therefore cannot be excused. Those are not legitimate targets."[31] Asked under oath to name some legitimate targets, she offered up banks or the New York City Board of Education.[32] Such logic parallels that of both Marxist terrorist groups like the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey and Islamist revolutionaries in Iran. Both groups targeted school teachers, for example, because they were state employees. Upon seizing power in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's regime likewise targeted bankers.

For Stewart, the sheikh's case was another cause. She told The Washington Post that "my own political sense tells me the only hope for change in Egypt is the fundamentalist movement."[33] During their terrorist campaign, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya murdered more than a thousand people. Terrorists singled out the Coptic minority and Egyptian intellectuals. Somewhere along her evolution from progressive to radical, Stewart lost any moral compass.

Prosecutors were able to show that Yousry was aware that he was helping Stewart break the law by shuttling messages to the sheikh and his followers because he had written about the communications ban the government had imposed in his New York University doctoral thesis. The defense argued that as a translator, it was not Yousry's role to challenge the attorneys, particularly Lynne Stewart, "who," Yousry's lawyer pointed out in closing, "you know is not easy to stand up to."[34]

In his defense summation, Tigar argued that the government should show some "humility" because yesterday's terrorists are today's legitimate leaders. He cited the examples of Libya's Mu‘ammar al-Qadhafi, Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, Israel's Menachem Begin, and South Africa's Nelson Mandela.[35] He cautioned the jury that should they decide to punish people for their "radical politics," then the fundamentalists would have clearly won.[36] Tigar argued that his client's defense of those who are "despised, neglected, hated" should be considered "a badge of honor."[37]

But fellow radical lawyer Ron Kuby, who at one time represented the sheikh, disagreed. "I love Lynne, but no one in the world could fairly posit the sheikh as a progressive or liberal on any issue," he told The Washington Post. "In the aftermath of September 11th, I could no longer put myself in the service of those who are trying to create a world in which I would be put up against a wall and shot, and my daughter and wife would be put in burqas."[38]

Stewart's arguments found a receptive audience in the National Lawyers Guild, which featured her as a speaker and, in the wake of the guilty verdicts, called for a "National Day of Outrage." Billionaire philanthropist George Soros's Open Society Institute contributed $20,000 to her defense.[39] She had long been popular among the Left. She had represented Black Panthers, the Weather Underground, and murderers of policemen.[40] Various and assorted socialist organizations and fronts including Refuse and Resist, Pravda, and the World Socialist Website rallied behind her.[41]

Despite the charges and trial, Stewart remained a popular speaker on campuses, particularly at law schools and small liberal arts campuses. Law students at the City University of New York even tried to honor her with their school's Public Interest Lawyer of the Year award in May 2003 though the administration would not have it. A few months later, Stewart was invited by Stanford Law School to become a "Public Interest Visiting Mentor" until Stewart's public statements supporting violence were brought to the attention of the dean who rescinded the invitation.[42]

Stewart is not alone in drifting from leftist radicalism to Islamism and adopting terrorism as a tactic to counter the prevailing order. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as "Carlos the Jackal," a Venezuelan Marxist who had dedicated himself to pro-Palestinian terrorism, followed a similar path. In 2003, he published a book entitled Revolutionary Islam[43] from his prison cell in France in which he encouraged "all revolutionaries, including those of the Left, even atheists," to embrace radical Islam in order to destroy the United States, which he sees as the citadel of imperialism.[44] His terrorism began as a secular struggle. Terrorism is a preferred tactic, he writes, because it is "the cleanest and most efficient form of warfare," able to demoralize the enemy.[45] In later years, though, he justified his actions in terms of Islamism. In March 2004, he claimed responsibility on French television for the terrorism-related deaths of between 1,500 to 2,000 people. Arguing that "not even 10 percent of these people were innocent," he refused to ask for forgiveness.[46]

Just as the sheikh did with Stewart, Sanchez established a special relationship with his attorney, Isabelle Coutant Peyre, whom he married in an Islamic ceremony in 2001. Like Stewart, Coutant Peyre gravitated from radicalism to Islam. In 2002, she told The New York Times that she shared most of Sanchez's politics, is "genuinely convinced that Western ‘militarism' is evil and that capitalism is oppressive," and does not think terrorists such as Sanchez have any "more blood on their hands than many army generals."[47][48] She subsequently represented the family of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person to have been indicted in the United States in connection with the 9-11 attacks. Coutant Peyre also defended Slimane Khalfaoui, one of ten Islamic militants convicted of plotting to blow up a Christmas market in Strasbourg, France, on New Year's Eve 2000. Upon the conviction of her client, she said the judgment was "evidence that French institutions, and justice in particular, were racist, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic."

John Walker Lindh, the "American Talib," provides another example of how non-Muslims gravitate to jihadism as a result of disillusionment with the parameters of mainstream society. According to Newsweek, although Lindh was "oblivious to politics" before leaving the United States to study Islam abroad, he was "critical of America as a land that exalted self above all else."[49]

For Stewart, Sanchez, Coutant Peyre, and Lindh, radical Islam became the latest revolutionary movement, their last hope after the failure of communism to eradicate what they saw as the twin evils of U.S. imperialism and capitalism. Like those who have supported totalitarian movements before, Westerners who adopt radical Islam seem willing to embrace violence in order to establish their vision of utopia. While Sanchez and Lindh took up arms in pursuit of their cause, Stewart and Coutant Peyre indulged revolutionary fantasies by becoming far more than zealous advocates.


Back in 1997, Andrew C. McCarthy, the lead prosecutor in the trial of the sheikh in regard to his plot to destroy New York City landmarks, drew this lesson from the sheikh's case: to combat the jihad that has been declared against the United States, he wrote that Americans need to develop a "proper understanding of their constitutional liberties: that beliefs may be freely held or articulated [but that] does not mean that they are beyond public scrutiny or that they can immunize criminal behavior undertaken in their name."[50]

It is a lesson that many Europeans are beginning to take to heart. Following the July 7, 2005 Islamist attacks on the London mass-transit system, British policymakers and the public both moved to clarify the difference between free speech and incitement to violence. Within weeks, the British government—which had previously offered safe haven to Muslim extremists and allowed them to preach hate—announced plans to ban even indirect incitement to terrorism and to deport individuals who glorified or condoned acts of terrorism.[51]

Ironically, even if Stewart and her radical American supporters do not understand the destructiveness of Islamist rhetoric, across the Middle East, there is growing recognition. On October 24, 2004, two Arab websites published a petition urging the United Nations to prosecute those who issue fatwas to incite terrorism. The petition, which garnered some 2,000 signatures within twenty-four hours of being posted, clarified the stakes: "By these fatwas all terrorists have died, or will die, fully convinced that they will immediately enter Paradise … [These] fatwas remain the pivotal cause of terrorist acts."[52] Leftist radicals may say they speak on behalf of the developing world, but moderate Muslims and other victims of terrorism increasingly say otherwise. -one-

Sharon Chadha is a free-lance writer living in Santa Monica, Calif.

[1] "Superseding Indictment," United States v. Sattar, et al, 02 Cr. 395 (JGK) (hereafter, U.S. vs. Sattar), United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, Nov. 19, 2003.
[2] David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2004).
[3] The 9-11 Commission Report (New York: W.W. Norton Co, 2004), p. 72.
[4] Clyde R. Mark, "Egypt-United States Relations," Congressional Research Service issue brief, Oct. 10, 2003. [5] The New York Times, Oct. 2, 1995.
[6] United States v. Omar Ahmed Ali Abdel Rahman, et al, S3 93 Cr.181 (MBM). [7] U.S. vs. Sattar, pp. 13117-22.
[8] Tzvi Kahn, "When ‘Academic Freedom' Justifies Academic Terror," American Thinker, June 21, 2005.
[9] "Superseding Indictment," U.S. vs. Sattar. [10] U.S. vs. Sattar, p. 6657.
[11] Ibid., p. 11111.
[12] Reuters, June 14, 2000.
[13] U.S. vs. Sattar, p. 11984.
[14] The New York Post, Oct. 8, 2004.
[15] U.S. vs. Sattar, p. 7126, also referenced as "Government Exhibit, 2638," p. 11122;, Aug. 20, 2002.
[16] See, for example, "Why the Case of Lynne Stewart Should Matter to You," Lynne Stewart website,, accessed Aug. 3, 2005.
[17] Los Angeles Times, Apr. 26, 2003.
[18] The Washington Post, June 22, 2004.
[19] The Washington Post, June 22, 2004.
[20] U.S. vs. Sattar, pp. 7967-8.
[21] The Washington Post, June 22, 2004.
[22] "Visit to Minnesota," videotape 1, May 19, 2000, Stewart website.
[23] U.S. vs. Sattar, p. 2143.
[24] ABC News, interview with Osama bin Laden, May 1998; "Usama bin Ladin: ‘American Soldiers Are Paper Tigers'," Middle East Quarterly, Dec. 1998, pp. 73-9.
[25] The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 128.
[26] U.S. vs. Sattar, p. 5332-9.
[27] Ibid., p. 11373.
[28] Ibid., p. 2149, reference to "Government Exhibit 1193x."
[29] The New York Times, Sept. 22, 2002.
[30] The New York Times, Sept. 22, 2002.
[31] U.S. vs. Sattar, p. 7968.
[32] Ibid., p. 8369.
[33] The Washington Post, June 22, 2004, which she confirmed under oath, U.S. vs. Sattar, Nov. 8, 2004, pp. 8377-8.
[34] U.S. vs. Sattar, p. 11559.
[35] Ibid., p. 11799.
[36] Ibid., p. 11978.
[37] Ibid., p. 11824.
[38] The Washington Post, June 22, 2004.
[39] The National Review, Feb. 17, 2005.
[40] Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2002; The New York Post, Feb. 11, 2005.
[41] World Socialist website, Feb. 14, 2005; On-Line Pravda, Apr. 11, 2002; Refuse and Resist, Oct. 29, 2004, Aug. 1, 2005.
[42] Erick Stakelbeck, "Cheerleaders for Terrorism,", June 17, 2003.
[43] Paris: Edition du Rocher, 2003.
[44] The Sunday Herald (Glasgow), July 17, 2005. [45] The Sunday Herald, July 17, 2005.
[46] Agence France-Presse, Mar. 10, 2004.
[47] The New York Times, Jan. 12, 2002.
[48] The New York Times, Dec. 17, 2004.
[49] Newsweek, Dec. 17, 2001.
[50] Andrew McCarthy, "Prosecuting the New York Sheikh," Middle East Quarterly, Mar. 1997, pp. 9-18.
[51] The Washington Post, July 21, 2005.
[52] "To the United Nations Security Council and the U.N. Secretary General Requesting the Establishment of an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Terrorists," Middle East Transparent, Oct 24, 2004, Elaph, Oct 24, 2004; see, "Arab Liberals: Prosecute Clerics Who Promote Murder," Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2005, pp. 84-6; "Arab Liberals Petition the U.N. to Establish an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Terrorists," MEMRI Special Dispatch Series, no. 812, Nov. 8, 2004.


Aussie PM defends cleric after Q'uran remarks

May 05 2006

Sydney - Australian Prime Minister John Howard stepped up to defend the country's highest-ranking Catholic cleric on Friday after Cardinal George Pell sparked controversy by saying the Q'uran was rife with "invocations to violence".

Pell, the traditionalist archbishop of Sydney, made the comments about the Islamic holy book during a speech to a United States audience earlier this year. The text of the address was posted on the archdiocese's website this week.

Speaking to a group of Catholic business leaders, Pell said an understanding of Islam was vital for the future of Western democracies.

He said the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States was "a wake-up call" that prompted him to read the Q'uran.

"I recommend that you too read this sacred text of the Muslims, because the challenge of Islam will be with us for the remainder of our lives," he said.

"In my own reading of the Q'uran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages," he said.

"Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for far-reaching renovation is severely limited," he said.

A prominent Muslim spokesperson, Keysar Trad of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, chided Pell for making "ill-informed comments" which he called a "totally subjective, an off-the-cuff dismissal of the teachings of one of the world's great religions".

"I think there will be many Catholics out there who'll be cringing when they hear these comments, and they'll be saying 'what happened to the legacy of Pope John Paul 2?'," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

But Howard defended Pell as someone who "brings a great intellect" to the debate among religions.

"I'm quite sure he is not trying to be unhelpful," Howard said in a radio interview when asked about Pell's remarks.

"I know for a fact he's been a strong proponent of good relations between Christianity and Islam," he said.


CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR

by Daniel Pipes
April 21, 2006

In a stunning setback, the Council on American-Islamic Relations' defamation suit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR has been dismissed with prejudice.

The Anti-CAIR website,, reports a "mutually agreeable settlement," the terms of which are confidential. However, Whitehead notes that he issued no public apology to CAIR, made no retractions or corrections, and left the Anti-CAIR website unchanged, so that it continues to post the statements that triggered CAIR's suit. Specifically, CAIR had complained about Whitehead calling it a "terrorist supporting front organization … founded by Hamas supporters" that aims "to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States." It also objected to being described as "dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America."

That clears the decks; no additional actions are pending between these two parties. In brief, Whitehead won a sweet victory, while CAIR suffered a humiliating defeat.

CAIR initially filed suit in a Virginia Circuit Court on March 31, 2004, claiming six of Whitehead's statements were false, that Whitehead made them "with knowledge of their falsity," and that the statements were actionable because "they impute the commission of a criminal offense." CAIR further claimed injury to its "standing and reputation throughout the United States and elsewhere," and sought $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, plus legal fees and interest. It did so despite Whitehead's telling a reporter "I haven't got any [money]."

The original five statements as quoted in CAIR's complaint were:

In January 2005, Whitehead's counsel, Reed D. Rubinstein of Greenberg Traurig LLP's Washington, D.C. office, submitted 327 discovery requests of CAIR; I have posted this important, well-informed discovery document at Whitehead sought extensive information regarding CAIR's finances, its relationship to Hamas, its ties to Saudi Arabia, and ties to other Islamists.

Signs of CAIR's problems came in June 2005, when – perhaps realizing how much was available in the public record about its activities, perhaps wishing to curtail some of the discovery process – it amended its complaint by dropping nearly all of its original claims. The amended complaint alleged only two brief statements to be false and defamatory:

(For an analysis of this amended complaint, see Sharon Chadha and my article, " CAIR Founded by ‘Islamic Terrorists'?")

In anticipation of a court hearing regarding discovery, Rubinstein filed papers in the Virginia Circuit Court in October 2005 and December 2005 alleging extensive links between CAIR's organizers and control group with Hamas and other foreign and domestic Islamists. Among other things, these papers alleged:

CAIR refused to respond to Anti-CAIR's discovery requests in its November 2005 response to Rubinstein. For example, it did not admit that Hamas murders innocent civilians, it refused to disclose the identities of its Saudi donors, it declined to answer whether it aims to convert American Christians to Islam, and it avoided questions about the anti-Semitic and anti-American activities of its founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, including his communications with Hamas terrorists, speeches supporting suicide bombings, and advocacy of violence against Jews.

In March 2006, shortly before a scheduled court hearing to decide on several of Whitehead's requests (compelling CAIR to disclose its financial data, to answer questions about its relationship with Hamas and other Islamists, and to provide information regarding its leaders' activities and intentions), the case was settled and then dismissed with prejudice by stipulation (meaning, the plaintiff has agreed to forever drop all of the claims that were in, or could have been in, the complaint).

Asked about these developments, CAIR's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, confirmed to the New York Sun that the libel case was dismissed at the request of both parties and added that "It was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount." Asked if he implied that Whitehead had paid the organization to drop the case, Hooper replied, "We filed the suit." Asked the same question again, Hooper repeated the same answer.

Comment: (1) I had a role in this story, for it was my article, " Why Is CAIR Suing Anti-CAIR?" published only a week after CAIR's initial filing, that brought this case to Reed Rubinstein's attention and led to Greenberg Traurig LLP's serving as Whitehead's wonderfully capable, pro-bono legal counsel.

(2) In that initial article, I expressed puzzlement why CAIR would voluntarily expose itself to discovery. Did it file this case expecting to steamroll Whitehead, whom CAIR may have perceived as an easy target, and thereby intimidate its critics? What seemed early on to be a mistake by CAIR is now confirmed as such; it ran into a litigation buzz-saw, and it seems to have cut and run. CAIR preferred the ignominy of walking away from the case it initiated rather than open to public scrutiny its finances, its list of supporters, and the beliefs and intentions of its key leaders.

(3) CAIR's November 2005 brief to the court contains several statements of note:

(4) Hooper stated the case settled for "an undisclosed amount" but did not disclose in which direction that amount went. The terms being confidential, one can only speculate. Perhaps CAIR desperately wanted out of the burdensome, embarrassing, and harmful case it foolishly had initiated? Rubenstein hinted as much when he observed that CAIR became more disposed to settle in late 2005, when a judge was considering what CAIR would have to divulge about its financing and its ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups. Rubenstein told the New York Sun that the lawsuit "would have opened up CAIR's finances and their relationships and their principles, their ideological motivations in a way they did not want to be made public."

(5) According to CAIR's own analysis of Whitehead's initial statements, they "impute the commission of a criminal offense" by CAIR, in that these suggest CAIR "actively supports" terrorists, and advocates the "overthrow" of the U.S. Constitution in favor of Islamic law. It bears noting that none of these words were found to be false, they were not retracted, and they remain posted on Anti-CAIR's website.

(6) The collapse of this lawsuit, combined with the even more recent ending of two other CAIR legal actions (versus Cass Ballenger and David Harris), suggests that CAIR is no longer the plaintiff in any court cases; more broadly, what I in 2004 called its pattern of growing litigiousness seems finished.

(7) With CAIR's hopes of defeating its opponents in the legal arena at least temporarily defeated, the next step for those of us in North America unwilling to live under Islamic law is to thwart the organization's social and political ambitions. I am doing my part by announcing today the establishment of " Islamist Watch," a new project to combat the ideas and institutions of nonviolent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries.


Telephoning the Enemy

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
April 18, 2006

North America's leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, enjoyed a seeming endorsement last week when it hosted the FBI on a television show. But if America's top law enforcement agency and many in the American establishment are clueless about CAIR's sympathy for the enemy, others may understand the problem better - such as the Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS).

A bit of background on GETS: In times of extreme telecommunications congestion, such as during a national emergency, it offers a calling card that permits those "responsible for the command and control functions critical to management of and response to national security and emergency situations," including members of Congress, law enforcement, and the military, to benefit from priority status when making calls. Private organizations with roles to play in emergency response also may receive cards.

CAIR, which claims to enjoy a "status of enviable prestige within [the] highest echelons" of Washington, figured it, too, deserved the privilege. This month, the group applied for GETS status, claiming to serve as an important point of contact with Muslims following September 11, 2001.

CAIR's request was denied in less than three hours.

GETS reportedly turned down CAIR because it did not qualify for the status. But it would have been on solid ground denying the request based on CAIR's telephonic connections to persons suspected of links to terrorists, as CAIR helpfully has detailed in its own court filings.

More background: CAIR submitted documents in January 2006 as part of a lawsuit the organization co-filed. It claimed its international calls likely had been listened to by the National Security Agency under an allegedly unconstitutional program President Bush authorized in 2002 that enabled the NSA to wiretap without warrants enemy communications during wartime.

In the suit, CAIR documented some of its electronic communications with persons accused of links to terrorists. Specifically, four names are mentioned:

·         Tariq Ramadan. The Swiss Islamist, as he was about to assume a position at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana in 2004, had his American visa revoked under what a Department of Homeland Security spokesman at the time said was a law barring from entering the country aliens who have endorsed or espoused terrorist activity. Though recently filed papers contradict the initial assertion, a senior DHS official told one of us then, "the evidence we have [against him] is damning." Mr. Ramadan previously was denied access at an international border. The French authorities kept him out of their country in 1995, suspecting him of being linked to Algerian terrorists then bombing Paris.

·         Yusuf Islam. The convert to Islam - formerly known as Cat Stevens - was removed from a flight bound to America in September 2004 and returned to Britain when American authorities noted his name on a "no fly" list. According to a DHS spokesman, Brian Doyle, the one-time folk singer was added to the list because of "activities that could be potentially linked to terrorism." Earlier, Israeli authorities twice barred Mr. Islam from entering their country, accusing him of having provided funding to an Islamist organization that has repeatedly pounded Israel with terrorist attacks, Hamas.

·         Rabih Haddad. This CAIR fundraiser co-founded a Muslim charity, the Global Relief Foundation, which the American government designated as a sponsor of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in 2002 and shut it down.

·         Islam Almurabit. The former head of the Islamic Assembly of North America, now living in Saudi Arabia, in the words of CAIR's complaint, is trying to evade "continual harassment by the FBI." That "continual harassment" is likely related to Mr. Almurabit's IANA activities, or what federal prosecutors have described as the organization's "recruitment of members, and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism" in the service of its "radical Islamic ideology." Specifically, the IANA hosted a senior Al Qaeda recruiter, Abdelrahman Al-Dosari, and distributed publications advocating suicide terrorism against America.

By its own court filings, then, CAIR conclusively established its multiple communications with persons suspected of connections with terrorists. More than merely denying CAIR's request for GETS privileges, the American government should consider cutting the organization's telephone lines in the event of a national emergency.


Who CAIRs About Terror Victims?

By Joe Kaufman

July 6, 2006

Incredible as it seems, two “moderate” American Muslim groups, International ANSWER, and other radicals are protesting in the nation's capital today against the Middle Eastern “hostage-taking”...of Israel.

Two Sundays ago, Israeli Defense Force Corporal Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists from Hamas, the Popular Resistance Committees (reportedly a Hamas front), and a little known group called the Army of Islam. Since that time, the Israeli government has made it its mission to do what it takes to get Shalit back, whether by diplomacy or force. The United States government has said that Israel has every right to defend herself. However, two prominent American Muslim groups – the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) – have been outspoken for the other side. They have chosen to condemn the victims and overlook Palestinian terrorism.

On June 28, 2006, CAIR issued the press release “CAIR: Targeting of Gaza Infrastructure a ‘War Crime,’” in which it used the term “war crime” three times to describe Israel’s activities in Gaza. That day, Israel dispatched thousands of troops, backed by warplanes and tanks, into the Gaza Strip. The reason for this, as stated by Israeli officials, was to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority (PA) to secure the freedom of Shalit. The PA is led by the main group responsible for Shalit’s kidnapping, Hamas. This pertinent information was left out of CAIR’s release.

The next day, June 29th, CAIR issued another press release repeating the term “war crime,” with regard to Israel. This release used the term “state terror,” as well, to describe Israel’s actions. The subtitle read, “CAIR urges international community to repudiate Israeli ‘state terror.’” And in the body of the text, it said, “CAIR called Israel’s hostage-taking a form of ‘state terror.’” When CAIR used the term “hostage-taking,” the group was referring to the 64 Hamas officials Israel had arrested that day. But while CAIR bemoaned what they called “hostages,” once again, CAIR left out any mention of Shalit, who was truly taken hostage and (at least) injured in the process.

CAIR conveniently leaving out Shalit’s name, or the circumstances behind his disappearance, is very telling. CAIR, in the past, has stated that there is no problem with Palestinian terrorists targeting Israeli soldiers. At an interfaith event that took place shortly after 9/11, Ghazi Khankan, then-Executive Director of CAIR-New York, stated, “Anyone over eighteen is automatically inducted into the service, and they are all reserves. Therefore, Hamas in my opinion looks at them as part of the military. Those who are below 18 should not be attacked.” Gilad Shalit is 19.

CAIR, it should be noted, is not an unbiased source. The group, itself, was the byproduct of a Hamas front, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP).

CAIR’s press releases played right into the hands of Islamist radicals overseas, who used the releases to further their hate propaganda. Qatar-based Islam Online, a website that features live dialogues with Hamas leaders, pulled a quote from the June 29 CAIR release for its piece, entitled “Muslims Protest Israel Onslaughts.” The quote was made by CAIR’s National Chairman, Parvez Ahmed. It read, “Again we see Israel carrying out acts of state terror and the international community offering only a mild and indirect response that will be taken as a ‘green light’ by Israeli officials.”

In addition to the CAIR content, the Islam Online piece also reported that “Egypt’s opposition Muslim Brotherhood had called for an anti-Israeli demonstration outside Al-Azhar,” a fanatical university located in Cairo. This is of interest as the Brotherhood’s American counterpart, the Muslim American Society (MAS), on Thursday (June 29), led a protest against Israel in Washington, D.C. The rally, called “Justice for Palestine,” was outside the Israeli Embassy, and another one is planned for today: Thursday, July 6, 2006.

The event was co-sponsored by International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), a pro-North Korean, pro-Milosevic totalitarian group that is currently using its website to call on the United States to “Cut off U.S. aid to Israel!” Echoing CAIR, people at the rally held such signs as “Israel Guilty of War Crimes.”

Speaking at the rally was Mahdi Bray, the Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation. Bray is no stranger to rallies. In October of 1998, he led a D.C. rally in which participants held posters calling for “Death to Israel” and chanted threatening statements aimed at Jews. Other speakers at the June 29th event included:

Brian Becker, the Director of the ANSWER Coalition. In November of 2000, during a pro-Palestinian speech, Becker told an audience that the violent September 2000 Intifada (Uprising) against Israel was “part of the movement against U.S. and Western imperialism.” In September and October of 2001, Becker told audiences that America’s retaliatory war in Afghanistan was “one of the great crimes and acts of terrorism” in our era. He then stated, “Let us not forget that September 11 was not the beginning of violence, but just one point in a long continuum of violence that is fundamentally a consequence of U.S. policies in the world.” He has further called the U.S. government “racist” and “criminal.”

Hadia Mubarak, the former President of the national Muslim Students Association (MSA) and current board member of CAIR. In March 2004, Mubarak was the contact for the “Rachel Corrie Day of Remembrance,” an event being held in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the anti-Israel group, End the Occupation. In September 2004, Mubarak posted an MSA national newsletter to a Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA) Yahoo! Group calling on all North American MSA chapters to demand the reinstatement of Tariq Ramadan's visa to the United
States, which had been revoked by the U.S. government. According to the French daily newspaper, Le Monde, Ramadan is suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda.

Joan Drake, a representative of the Washington, D.C. branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and board member of Partners For Peace. In August 2003, Drake participated in a press conference to denounce President Bush’s recess appointment of Daniel Pipes to the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). In April 2004, during a panel question-and-answer portion of a forum sponsored by the Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), titled “The Geneva Proposals for Peace: Still Viable?” Drake asked: “how much arrogance can the rest of the world absorb from positions taken by the United States and Israel? We seem…to be in a situation where we've gone much further than I could ever imagine could be realistic or reasonable in today's world.”

Sarah Powell, a reporter for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) and representative for ANSWER. A former member of the anti-Israel left, Michael Lopez-Calderon, has related Powell was perturbed that Lopez-Calderon castigated the 9/11 hijackers in an article he wrote. He says Powell believes the terrorists “were driven to rage by American and Israeli policies.” In May 2005, Powell participated in a protest against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). At the protest, Powell delivered a speech amidst signs reading, “SOLUTION: Peaceful Dismantling of the Zionist State,” “STOP NEOCON ZIONIST WARS,” “Expel Israeli Spies,” and “AIPAC, SHARON SHAME ON YOU.” The event was endorsed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), among others.

According to MAS, the protests “serve as opportunities to educate the American public about how the United States’ one-sided foreign policy in favor of Israel is an impediment to peace in the Middle East….” MAS’s release states additional rallies are being coordinated by MAS Freedom Foundation chapters in New York, Texas, Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Illinois, and Michigan.

Unlike CAIR, the MAS protest acknowledged Gilad Shalit’s kidnapping. At the event, MAS callously claimed that his kidnapping “merely served as a disingenuous pretext to invade Gaza and weaken the existing Palestinian governing authority.” Of course, that governing authority is led by Hamas.

With respect to all of the above, there are many significant facts we can come away with:

Israel has declared war on Hamas, the main group that was involved in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit;

Both CAIR and MAS are U.S. groups connected or spiritually akin to Hamas, CAIR being the offspring of a Hamas front and MAS being the offshoot of the organization that created Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood); and

Both CAIR and MAS, this past week, have defended Hamas.

There is one other fact that has been left out, and its importance cannot be diminished. Hamas is on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, and as President Bush has said so many times since the war on terrorism began, “The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder.” That statement has been put to the test overseas. Now, it may be time for it to be implemented here at home.


Piggybacking on Terror in Britain

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
August 29, 2006

Two days after British authorities broke up an alleged plot to blow up multiple aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean, the "moderate" Muslim establishment in Britain published an aggressive open letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It suggested that Mr. Blair could better fight terrorism if he recognized that the current British government policy, especially on "the debacle of Iraq," provides "ammunition to extremists." The letter writers demanded that the prime minister change his foreign policy to "make us all safer." One prominent signatory, the Labour member of Parliament Sadiq Khan, added that Mr. Blair's reluctance to criticize Israel increased the pool of people whom terrorists can recruit.

In other words, Islamists working within the system exploited the thwarted Islamist terror plot to pressure the British government to implement their joint wishes and reverse British policy in the Middle East. Lawful Islamists shamelessly leveraged the near death of thousands to forward their agenda.

Despite its reported fears of Muslim street unrest, the Blair government heatedly rejected the letter. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett called it "the gravest possible error." The Foreign Office minister Kim Howells dismissed it as "facile." Home Secretary John Reid deemed it a "dreadful misjudgment" to think that the "foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity." Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander rejected the letter as "dangerous and foolish."

Undaunted, the "moderate" Muslim establishment pushed even harder on the domestic front. In an August 14 meeting with high government representatives, including the deputy prime minister, it made two further demands: that a pair of Islamic religious festivals become official holidays and that Islamic laws pertaining to marriage and family life be applied in Britain. A Muslim present at the meeting later warned the government against any plans to profile airport passengers, lest this step radicalize Muslim youths further.

Why these ultimata and why at this time? According to the Daily Mail, the leader of the August 14 Muslim delegation, Syed Aziz Pasha, explained his group's logic: "if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens." More ominously, Mr. Pasha threatened the government leaders. "We are willing to cooperate, but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems. Then we will understand their problems."

The press reacted furiously to these demands. The Guardian's Polly Toynbee condemned the open letter as "perilously close to suggesting the government had it coming." The Daily Mirror's Sue Carroll portrayed Mr. Pasha's position as "perilously close to blackmail."

This was not the first such attempt by "moderate" British Muslim leaders at political jujitsu, to translate Islamist violence into political clout. The same happened, if less aggressively, in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings, when they piggybacked on the death of 52 innocents to demand that British forces leave Iraq.

That pressure did succeed, and in two major ways. First, the Home Office subsequently issued a report produced by "moderate" Muslims, " Preventing Extremism Together," that formally accepted this appeasing approach. As Dean Godson of Policy Exchange summarizes the document, Islamist terror "provided a wonderful, unexpected opportunity for these moderates to demand more power and money from the State."

Second, 72% of British subjects now accept the Islamist view that Mr. Blair's "backing for action in Iraq and Afghanistan" has made Britain more of a target for terrorists, while a negligible 1% say the policies have improved the country's safety, according to a recent poll. The public solidly backs the Islamists, not the prime minister.

I have argued that terrorism generally obstructs the progress of radical Islam in the West by stimulating hostility to Muslims and bringing Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny. I must admit, however, that the evidence from Britain – where the July 7 terrorism inspired more self-recrimination than it did fury against jihad – suggests that violence can also strengthen lawful Islamism.

And here's another reconsideration: While I maintain that the future of Europe – whether continuing in its historic Christian identity or becoming an adjunct of Muslim North Africa – is still an open question, the behavior of the British public, that weakest link in the Western chain, suggests that it, at least, may be too confused to resist its Londonistan destiny.