 Editor's note: Steven Emerson is the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the largest archival storehouses of open source intelligence on radical Islamic networks, and the author or co-author of six books on terrorism and national security. (CNN) -- In the wake of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, security experts, political commentators and the media have been asking one question: How can the United States prevent terrorists from smuggling homemade bombs through security? The most frequent answer has been full body scanners, a developing technology used in a handful of airports around the world. Although these scanners may be effective, they are at best the right answer to the wrong question. The question that law enforcement and security professionals must ask is how to prevent the terrorists themselves from getting on the airplane. Once we focus our attention on individual terrorists rather than their potential weapons, one fact is immediately clear: We must completely change the way we go about airport security and counterterrorism in general. The procedures are both inadequate and ineffective.
The current random searches do only a minimum to improve security. Nothing is more unproductive than searching an 80-year-old woman in a wheelchair from Sweden or a 3-year-old child simply because she or he was the 10th person in line. Quite simply, the system has failed and must be revamped. Recognizing existing deficiencies, on Monday the Transportation Safety Administration announced it has taken the first step toward implementing a revised screening process for airline passengers. TSA will mandate that "every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening." This is a step in the right direction. But more should be done. Instead of a system akin to searching for a needle in a haystack while blindfolded, the Transportation Security Administration and the intelligence community should institute a system of "smart screening." Such a revised screening process would consider a host of factors in determining whether someone is a potential security threat. Among the considerations would be: behavioral signs; appearance; itinerary and travel history; appearance on watch lists; known connections to radical organizations or individuals; and yes, ethnicity and religious identity. Recognizing that the inclusion of ethnicity and religious characteristics in this list may be unsettling, it simply cannot be ignored that the overwhelmingly large majority of terrorist attacks undertaken over the past decade were committed by Islamic fundamentalists. Consequently, to ignore it as a factor -- as does current policy -- could have devastating effects. The procedures are both inadequate and ineffective. The current random searches do only a minimum to improve security. Any characteristic that can help us identify followers of radical Islam would be critical to determining who should be denied a visa, who should be put on the no-fly list and who should be subjected to a secondary inspection at the airport. One point worth mentioning is that a proposal for "smart screening" is not a call for a ban on Muslims flying on planes, nor is it an attempt to stop every person with Arab features and put them on a watch list. Rather than an accusation of guilt, it is simply an additional investigative tool that will allow law enforcement officials to effectively and efficiently marshal their resources toward a known threat, that posed by violent adherents of radical Islamic theology. Screeners and officials of intelligence agencies need as much information as possible to make decisions. To ban the use of critically relevant criteria in preventing catastrophic acts of terrorism, a policy in effect today, is to deny intelligence officials all the tools they need to make critical decisions. Law enforcement has done criminal profiling for decades and recognizes it as an invaluable tool. If a child is raped, the first suspects logically are pedophiles. Skeptical that "smart screening" will be effective? Mohammad al-Qatani, the intended 20th hijacker from the September 11 attacks, was stopped in Orlando, Florida, in 2001 because of profiling. It must be conceded that this proposal may not be 100 percent effective. No system ever will be. However, as terrorist groups consistently demonstrate their adaptability, one thing that has remained relatively constant is the pool of willing and able recruits. If some of the most well-trained and effective terrorists cannot carry out their mission because of profiling, that makes the likelihood of a successful terrorist attack that much slimmer. The new operatives may be less well-trained and hence less deadly. What they will undoubtedly have in common with their more experienced brethren, regardless of their ethnicity or nationality, will be an adherence to radical Islam. Rather than calling for an all-encompassing program where all followers of Islam would be swept up in some sort of dragnet, law enforcement officials should be provided with all of the tools necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, including the ability to consider the potential that an individual getting on an airplane has been radicalized. Race and ethnicity should never be sole criteria in evaluating threats. Rather I am calling for consideration of such criteria only in addition to many other factors. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Steven Emerson. IPT
Terrorism experts, Steve Emerson and Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, share their thoughts on the Christmas day terrorism aboard a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
 Striking a blow against the trade deficit. In Human Events today: The five young northern Virginia Muslims arrested in Pakistan for trying to join jihadist groups offer an intriguing example of role reversal.
Instead of jihad terrorists training in the Middle East to come to the United States, a la Muhammad Atta and co., this group started out in the U.S. and went over there.
Nor are they the only examples of America's brisk new export trade in jihadists -- there are also the Somalis who have been streaming home from Minneapolis to join the jihad in their homeland. Both Somalia and Pakistan have so many jihadis that they have no need to import more, but in both countries right now jihad is a growth industry. Among the many lingering questions about this case is that of how these five young men fell in with jihad groups in the first place. The local Muslim community professed anguish and puzzlement about how it could have happened. Ashraf Nubani, an attorney for the mosque the five attended, said of their relatives and fellow worshippers: "There's shock and disbelief in these families and in this mosque." Mahdi Bray of the Falls Church-based Muslim American Society, sounded a plaintive note: "We want to know: What did we miss? We saw these kids every day. In hindsight, what could we have done?" The five frequented an Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) mosque in Alexandria, Virginia, where the youth leader, Mustafa Maryam, insisted: "Our group never talked about politics."
Essan Talawi, an imam at the mosque, said that "the teachings of this mosque are the Koran, moderation, tolerance and peaceful interaction with our neighbors and other faiths." They would have us believe that these young men turned to violent jihad at the same time and spontaneously. But there is every reason to think otherwise. Talawi may have had in mind a very different idea of "moderation, tolerance and peaceful interaction" from the one that generally prevails in the U.S.
According to Steven Emerson's Investigative Project, at ICNA's Annual Conference in 2001, ICNA president Zulfiqar Ali Shah led the crowd in a chant of "our way, our way, is jihad, jihad."... Read it all. With thanks to JihadWatch
 This documentary on Islamic jihad aired on PBS in 1994, not without controversy either. That is significant because by 2007, dhimmitude and fear had swept over America and PBS would not even approve, let alone air a documentary titled ‘Islam v. Islamists’ (will post if we can find). A full 15 years, and several disastrous Islamic terror attacks and many more thwarted Islamic terror plots on U.S. soil, later, its message is still relevant today. This version was updated after 9/11 to include commentary before and after the original program that kicks in around the 5 minute mark and shows the video creator, Steve Emerson, speaking with the World Trade Centers in the background. An excellent look back for those who might think Islamic infiltration and terrorist planning in the United States is a recent development. Interestingly, Emerson – one of the most prolific researchers of Islamic terrorism – was pushing the ‘Islam does not condone violence’ (i.e., religion of peace) meme in 1994. Watch it here and Thanks to Creeping Sharia Check back tomorrow at Creeping Sharia for a most interesting and very telling anecdotal video to this documentary, with a twist you have to see to believe.
 Hasan attended prayers regularly when he lived outside Washington, often in his Army uniform, said Faizul Khan, a former imam at a mosque Hasan attended in Silver Spring, Md. He said Hasan Malik was a lifelong Muslim.
"I got the impression that he was a committed soldier," Khan said. He spoke often with Hasan about Hasan's desire for a wife...
Nothing stood out about Hasan as radical or extremist, Khan said.
"We hardly ever got to discussing politics," Khan said. "Mostly we were discussing religious matters, nothing too controversial, nothing like an extremist."
Was Khan doing nothing more than talking to Hassan about his wife hunt? Faizul Khan is not just some Imam. He is on the board of directors of ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America. ISNA's links to terrorist are extensive and well known.The Islamic Society of North America is a Wahhabi Islamist group co-created by Sami Al Arian, of the Palestinian Arab terrorist group, Islamic Jihad. Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as "one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States."
According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA "is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation"; "convenes annual conferences where Islamist militants have been given a platform to incite violence and promote hatred" (for instance, al Qaeda supporter and PLO official Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi was invited to speak at an ISNA conference); has held fundraisers for terrorists (after Hamas leader Mousa Marzook was arrested and eventually deported in 1997, ISNA raised money for his defense); has condemned the U.S. government's post-9/11 seizure of Hamas' and Palestinian Islamic Jihad's financial assets; and publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, that "often champions militant Islamist doctrine."
Adds Emerson: "I think ISNA has been an umbrella, also a promoter of groups that have been involved in terrorism. I am not going to accuse the ISNA of being directly involved in terrorism. I will say ISNA has sponsored extremists, racists, people who call for Jihad against the United States."
Emerson further reports that "In September 2002, a full year after the 9/11 attacks, speakers at ISNA's annual conference still refused to acknowledge Bin Laden's role in the terrorist attacks." That's who we're playing with here and Faizul Khan is not just a member, he's on the Board of Directors and held down a major Saudi funded mosque in Washington. Khan was also the Administrator and Assistant Director of Rabita, the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is one of the larger Saudi funded Islamist groups. MWL promotes Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League's Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden.
Khalifa was the co-founder of the Benevolence International Foundation and he helped to finance Operation Bojinka, a foiled 1995 plot that would have simultaneously detonated bombs aboard eleven U.S.-bound airliners, blowing them up in mid-flight over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea.
In addition, two members of an al Qaeda sleeper cell based in Boston worked at MWL's Pakistan office.
One worker, Nabil al-Marabh, number 27 on the FBI's list of wanted terrorists, was arrested by federal agents in Detroit shortly after 9/11; it was reported that he "intended to martyr himself in an attack against the United States." The other operative, Raed Hijazi, was apprehended and tried in Jordan on charges that he planned to blow up a hotel filled with Americans and Israelis on New Year's Eve in 2000.
In his book The Two Faces of Islam, Stephen Schwartz reports: "In 2000, the Muslim World League (a provider of funds to Osama bin Laden) hosted 100 prominent American Islamic personalities on hajj [a pilgrimmage to Mecca]. They were accompanied by a delegation of 60 Latin American 'academics and specialists.' All expenses for the latter were paid by Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the United States." After all this it's certainly possible that Faizul Khan and Hassan Malik did nothing but chat about Hassan's search for a wife, but considering the overview of the kind of extreme Wahhabi groups we're dealing with here, it is entirely possible that Imams like Khan helped shape Hassan Malik's radical Islamist worldview. Especially since it dates back to his time in Maryland, rather than being the product of army frustrations, as the media spin is attempting to portray it as. Nidal Hassan had written onlineScholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best. One wonders who exactly those scholars were.
 by Steven Emerson This article originally was published by The Hudson Institute's Hudson New York web site. To see the original, click here. In 1993, a secret meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee—mostly senior Hamas leaders--was held in a Philadelphia Marriott.
The group discussed new ways to secretly funnel money to Hamas and of creating a new public relations organization to deceive the American about their true objectives of helping Hamas. Less than a year later, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was created to serve as a front group for Hamas. Since that time, it has morphed into a quasi legitimate "Islamic civil rights" group portrayed in some circles as the equivalent of the NAACP. For 14 years, CAIR got away with the lying to us about who they are, justifying Islamic terrorist attacks, legitimizing suicide bombings, presenting speakers who had been Holocaust deniers, making incendiary presentations about the United States and urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI.
CAIR claims that that there is no such thing as radical Islam, but rather a secret cabal to attack all of Islam, while secretly receiving millions of dollars from Saudi financiers and attacking terrorist prosecutions as somehow an "attack on Islam." CAIR now has dozens of chapters which host annual banquets featuring not only radical speakers, but outside guests including chiefs of police, congressmen, FBI and DHS officials—even getting Tampa and Houston to declare "CAIR Day' in their respective cities. (In fairness, Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio announced this year that she would no longer do so after studying CAIR's record.) On the other side, the FBI—despite 14 years of a cozy relationship with CAIR—finally decided to sever relations with CAIR in late 2008 for its ties to Hamas. In the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an FBI agent testified that CAIR was a front for Hamas. In other words, CAIR was a front for a terrorist group. And it was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator as well in the case. Bravo to the FBI for making the right and politically courageous decision. Last week, a new book, Muslim Mafia, disclosed or elaborated on many of these developments within CAIR. Four Congressmen, led by Sue Myrick, (R-N.C), held a press conference to protest the fact that CAIR, a Hamas front group, had a plan to insert interns into key congressional committees. The book made plenty of other disclosures that were highlighted by the Congressman. And what happened? Those other points were discarded by the media, which picked up CAIR's dissembling spin that the Congressmen advocated a witch hunt against all Muslim staffers on Capitol Hill. They said no such thing. CNN never challenged any of the demonstrably false statements made by a CAIR official it interviewed. The news website Politico whitewashed CAIR.
Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution called CAIR a "mainstream" group unfairly targeted by right wing wackos. Congressmen John Conyers and Loretta Sanchez, who had done CAIR's bidding for years, were among those who leapt to CAIR's defense. They all bought into CAIR's manifestly ludicrous claim that attacking CAIR was somehow tantamount to attacking all of Islam. That has been CAIR's modus operandi since its inception. CAIR often throws out unsubstantiated charges of bigotry to deflect attention away from its detailed and documented record of conning the American people.
My organization challenged those specious claims in a thorough report that can be seen here. Read more here,,,, Source: IPT
 by Steven EmersonExecutive Director, The Investigative Project on Terrorism On September 30, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) expressed concerns over recently revised and publicly posted FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG).
Specifically, CAIR complained that a substantial portion of the DIOG was “whited out” and did not disclose the policies covered by that section. The ACLU is a co-complainer with CAIR in this matter. Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of its Washington, DC legislative office, stated, "The FBI has considerable authority - and a noted history of abusing that authority. Its investigative powers must have nothing less than clear, bright and easily understood boundaries." The DIOG is 258 pages of clear, and understandable instructions on how the FBI conducts its domestic investigative and intelligence operations.
These policies are replete with admonitions concerning the protection of Constitutional and civil rights. These policies link directly to similar Attorney General guidelines, requiring specific high level FBI headquarters and Department of Justice approval for the FBI to engage in certain kinds of investigative or intelligence gathering operations, including those that target religious organizations or prominent religious figures and prohibiting investigative efforts focused on First Amendment-protected activities. These are the documented facts. Facts that are conveniently ignored by CAIR and similar Islamist apologist organizations as they seek to have these issues viewed through their muddied perspective.
CAIR contends that Part 16, dealing with “undisclosed participation,” covers the use of informants working undercover in mosques. This has been a major issue of contention with CAIR and other Islamist groups, who believe the FBI indiscriminately and unjustifiably sends undercover informants into mosques even when there is no criminal predicate to do so.
 She founds a new organization: Former Muslims United Not again. Ah, yes again and again until we have won this war of ideas.
Nonie Darwish, the warmest, sanest, least prejudiced Egyptian whom I know, has both been attacked and has not been defended by the administrative elite at the Whittier College Law School where she is scheduled to speak later today. According to Steven Emerson, the Muslim Student Association on campus defamed Darwish and tried to stop or at least delay her presentation. Not surprising. They specialize in such demonization and censorship campaigns. Darwish pleads the case of Muslim women whose human rights are seriously violated by shariah law. But the academic administrators at Whittier Law School have not strongly defended her right to speak, nor have they praised her work. This is unforgivable; according to Emerson, many happen to be women who are also feminists. Alas, this is also not surprising. I wrote an entire book about this phenomenon: The Death of Feminism. What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom I have written about Darwish before. I admit it: I adore her for her courage. Darwish is also the founder of ArabsforIsrael—c’mon, this woman warrior has guts.
But, I now wonder whether this brou-ha-ha has anything to do with a press release that Darwish has just sent round. Darwish and others have formed a new organization: Former Muslims United. Darwish is an apostate (she converted to Christianity)—just like Magdi Alam who converted to Catholicism and now requires seven police officers around the clock– and just like Rifqa Bary, the Ohio teenager who has run away from her Muslim family and is now in state custody in Florida. The Former Muslim press release reads as follows: “Prominent former Muslims– apostates from Islam– will hold a press conference Thursday, September 24 to announce the launch of a new civil liberties organization, Former Muslims United, and the start of a national campaign to educate the American public and policymakers about the threat from authoritative Shariah– Islamic law– to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims. At the press conference, Former Muslims United founders Nonie Darwish and Ibn Warraq (both internationally-respected authors and scholars) will release letters calling on the Department of Justice and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate possible hate crimes and civil rights violations against apostates from Islam, including the circumstances of the current Florida case of 17-year old Rifqa Bary, a former Muslim. The letters are also signed by Former Muslims United co-founders Mohammad Asghar, Wafa Sultan and Amil Imani.” Darwish and Warraq will release the text of Former Muslim United’s groundbreaking “Muslim Pledge for Religious Freedom and Safety from Harm for Former Muslims,” copies of which will be received in the offices of dozens of Muslim leaders across America by September 25, the 220th anniversary of Congress passing the Bill of Rights. They will also distribute a list of the names of this first group of Muslim leaders to be asked to sign the Muslim Pledge. Additional Muslim leaders will be sent the pledge in the next month as the national campaign gets underway. The names of all pledge recipients will be listed at Formermuslimsunited.org.” Smart. Islamists are not the only ostensibly aggrieved people who can use civil rights law to their advantage. Darwish and the Former Muslims United organization can be reached at info@formermuslimsunited.org We, the people are not boots on the ground, we are not risking our lives as soldiers in combat zones. All we can do is risk our popularity by telling the truth, standing up to the Big Lies about America, Israel and the West, and opposing Islamist and leftist “politically correct” censorship. I congratulate Nonie Darwish for her leadership in the war of ideas. Source: Chesler Chronicles
 At last, a readable and honest guide to the book that inspires terrorists worldwide: the Koran
Robert Spencer writes,,,the Conservative Book Club has made my new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, a main selection for this month. Here is their review of the book: If we don't know the Koran, we can't defeat the jihadists: Osama bin Laden, the masterminds of 9/11 and those who have perpetrated the over 13,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11 repeatedly point to it as their inspiration and authority, explaining that they're committing acts of terrorism and hate because of it. Yet the Koran is not an easy read -- it has been called "wrist-slittingly boring," as well as confusing, contradictory, and muddled. But Robert Spencer reads the Koran so that you don't have to! Now, in The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, Spencer, the bestselling author and Islam expert, shows exactly what's in the Koran, and why every military and intelligence official -- and every American -- should be concerned about this revered and reviled holy book. This witty and breezily written guide to the Koran explains who those who have vowed to destroy us think they are, what they think they're doing, and what they hope to accomplish. Spencer explains what the Koran says about who Infidels are and what must be done about them; its appallingly harsh teachings on women; what it really says about warfare against Infidels; its strange teachings on Christians and Christianity; and its relentless demonization of the people whom the Koran identifies as the chief enemies of the Muslims: the Jews. He shows how the Koran developed, why central Muslim claims about it are false, and even provides a revealing and disquieting glimpse into the Hadith, the traditions of Muhammad that for Muslims worldwide are second in authority only to the Koran itself. A huge number of policy decisions are predicated upon the assumption that the Koran teaches peace, and that those who brandish Korans and commit violence are misunderstanding their own religion and perverting the teachings of their own holy book. These include U.S. government postures toward Pakistan and Egypt; immigration matters; airport security procedures; military strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan; domestic anti-terror policies; and our acquiescence to Saudi Arabia's Islamic proselytizing campaign in America and many other countries. That's why The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran is so urgently needed: it shows how and why U.S. policies in these areas are not only wrong but dangerous to our national security -- and sounds a clarion call for a restoration of sanity on these issues in our national security establishment. Proof: the Koran is just about the opposite of a "book of peace": * Why most government and media analysts dare not even question the assumption that the Koran is peaceful * How sacred texts are not entirely determined by what the faithful wish to see in them * Infidels: why Allah hates them, and what he has in store for them -- straight from the Koran * The strange story of how the Koran was compiled -- and the explosive significance of the existence of alternate versions * The worst sin of all for Muslims: it's worse than murder, worse than rape, worse than genocide, and you're probably committing it * The Muslim claim that the Koranic text was never altered -- why it's false, and why this matters * Why it is so easy for non-Muslim readers reading English translations of the Koran to miss some of its most violent and worrisome passages * The passages of the Koran that mandate warfare against unbelievers: why in traditional Islam they take precedence over more peaceful passages * The little-noted and violent corollary to the Koran's famous passages forbidding the killing of innocent people * But doesn't the Koran promise salvation to Jews and Christians? The truth about this celebrated passage * How the Koran retells stories of the Biblical prophets but alters them to support Muhammad's claim to be a prophet * Moses: the Koran's frequent retellings of the Exodus story -- and the all-important element of that story that the Muslim book leaves out every time * The Islamic prophet Muhammad: why the Koran is essentially all about him * Telling signs that the Koran was not delivered from heaven in pristine form, but was compiled from earlier Jewish, Christian, and pagan sources * Koranic Jew-hatred: proof that Islamic anti-Semitism is not an import from Christianity, as many have claimed * Are the Koran's violent commandments are largely meaningless, since similar ones are found in the Bible? * The surprising and disquieting truth behind Islam's professed respect for other religions and reverence for their central figures * The extraordinary implications of the Koran's preposterous teachings about Abraham, Moses and Jesus * The alarming teachings of the Koran on women: how it reduces women to the status of commodities, and even teaches that women are deficient intellectually * The Koran: does it really contain miraculous prophecies and other evidence of divine origin? * The strange Islamic phenomena of "temporary wives" and "temporary husbands" -- and how justification for both comes from the Koran * Love your enemies -- and other things the Koran doesn't say * Barack Obama's June 2009 speech to the Islamic world: an object lesson in the hazards of not understanding the Koran * How mistakes and false assumptions about Islam and the Koran is today leading the U.S. to make serious foreign policy errors * What Infidels can and must do to defend free societies against those who take the Koran's message of violence and supremacism to heart "Meticulous, comprehensive, indispensable. 'I read the Koran so you don't have to,' Spencer writes, but even for those of us who have read the Koran, this is a richly illuminating work." -- Bruce Bawer, author of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom and While Europe Slept. "Governing officials and media spokesmen may ignore Spencer's warnings, but they do so at their own risk, because Islamic jihadists are not ignoring what's in the Koran, and are working to destroy our freedoms in obedience to Koranic dictates. In illuminating for Westerners exactly what the Koran teaches, Spencer has performed a valuable service in the defense of Western civilization against the Islamic jihad." -- Geert Wilders, Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV), the Netherlands "Unlike most of today's self-styled experts, Robert Spencer won't tell you that 'slay the idolaters wherever you find them' really means 'love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.' In The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, Spencer shows once again that he is America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism, insisting that we come to grips with the words behind the ideology that fuels international terror." -- Andrew C. McCarthy, senior fellow at the National Review Institute and author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. "Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate's New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty. In our epoch of intellectual jihadism, this honest book is essential to understand the challenges of the twenty-first century." -- Bat Ye'or, author of Eurabia; The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam and Islam and Dhimmitude "Tony Blair calls the Koran 'progressive [and] humanitarian' but Robert Spencer has actually read the scripture and begs to differ. In an informed, sardonic antidote to the usual soft-peddling of the Koran, he concludes that its actual contents should alarm infidels and prompt them to defend their 'freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the legal equality of all people.' " -- Daniel Pipes, director, Middle East Forum "For 1,400 years Muslim leadership spread misinformation and covered up what is in the Koran, even criminalizing exposing the truth or asking questions. The truth is too scary for many, both Muslims and non-Muslims. I thank Robert Spencer for bringing the truth of what is in the Koran to non-Muslims." -- Nonie Darwish, ex-Muslim and author of Now They Call Me Infidel "This book is an incisive analysis of how Islamic jihadists read the Koran and understand it to be commanding them to wage war against non-Muslims. Military and intelligence analysts, as well as all Americans interested in protecting our freedoms, will find The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran to be a valuable guide to the thought processes and core beliefs of Muslim terrorists." -- Steven Emerson, author of American Jihad Source: JihadWatch
 Steven Emerson 12 Aug 2009 This week's arrest of seven North Carolina residents, including Daniel Boyd and his two sons, on charges of supporting terrorism and conspiracy to commit murder abroad, showed how the problem of homegrown Islamic terrorism is far more rampant than the media or the public is aware of. Just look at the major cases in the past year alone: The Boyd case in North Carolina proves that radical Islamic ideology transcends economic class problems as has been claimed by pointy-headed sociologists. The Boyd family was white, had a middle-class existence, and had the economic opportunities afforded all Americans — just like most of the terrorists cited above — and yet chose to engage in jihad to the point that Daniel Boyd was willing to send his two kids on suicide missions to Israel. That the FBI stopped all these plots is amazing, but they will never continue to bat a thousand. One of these days, the jihadists will succeed. In the end, the mainstream media refuses to recognize that the "mainstream" Islamic groups are actually radical organizations that teach and imbue their followers with a hatred of the United States and Israel.
These groups front as civil-rights groups, but in fact are radical Islamic groups whose constant message disseminated to the millions of Muslim followers is that the U.S. is an evil country engaged in a war against Islam.
Once that message takes hold — and after all, these groups control the mosques, the Islamic newspapers, the Islamic schools, and the Islamic leadership from which American Muslims and converts get their ideas about the world — it is not a huge leap for some of them to become committed to violent jihad. We are talking about a situation that is far more rampant than government leaders want to admit because the Islamic groups routinely throw the term "racist" at anyone who claims there is radicalism in the Muslim community.
Two years ago, a poll was taken of American Muslims: 29 percent of young Muslims approved of suicide bombings. And those 29 percent are the ones that admitted their views. How many more would not tell the pollsters what they really thought? The U.S. is becoming more like Europe, where homegrown Islamic terrorist plots get stopped (or sometimes succeed) nearly every week. It's because of the message that today's Islamic religious leadership hammers home: that the West is the enemy of Islam, that Christians and Jews are involved in a conspiracy to subjugate Islam. And so what is the logical result of these teachings? Many young Muslims hate the West. And of that number who hate the West, a certain smaller percentage — like the Boyds — are willing to take matters into their own hands and carry out jihad. Read more here,,, Source: IAN
By Jamie Glazov Frontpage Interview's guest today is Steve Emerson, terrorism expert and founder of The Investigative Project on Terrorism. FP: Steve Emerson, welcome to Frontpage Interview. There are some Congressional Democratic stooges operating on behalf of Islamist groups. Can you tell us what is going on? Emerson: We obtained a letter sent on July 24 by seven House Democrats to Attorney General Holder on behalf of 9 radical Islamic front groups relaying the complaints of the groups about law enforcement techniques in terrorist cases, including the use of informants. The Congressmen acted as virtual lobbyists for these militant groups, asking that the AG stop employing tried and proven counter-terrorist techniques and also echoed information that was blatantly false claiming the FBI was engaged in racial profiling. The Congressmen asked that the AG meet with these groups, which are almost all derivatives of the Muslim Brotherhood. Read more ...Source: FPMLoretta Sanchez
Adam Schiff
Mike Honda
Lois Capps
Mary Jo Kilroy
Dennis Kucinich
James Moran
Latest recipients of The Dhimmi Award
 The Stoning of Soraya M. is more than a movie about a wronged Iranian woman. The film's timing, writes Steven Emerson, can help a nation rally against its iron-fisted Islamic rulers.By Steven Emerson Director Cyrus Nowrasteh's new release, The Stoning of Soraya M. written by Cyrus and his wife Elizabeth, is one of the most compelling, stirring, and riveting films I have ever seen. Inspired by French journalist Freidoune Sahebjam's international bestseller of the same name, this compelling story sheds light on Islamist mob rule and the horrific honor killings associated with countries that follow Sharia law. Most importantly, the timing of the film's release - amid the largest popular Iranian uprising against the Islamo-fascist mullahs since they took over in 1979 - makes it one of the most relevant and important of our time. It, quite simply, serves as a brilliant exposition on the fanatics who control Iran and their willingness to kill their own people to maintain religious political power. This film should be required viewing not only for every American - nay, every citizen of the world - but for every Obama administration official and member of Congress, if they want to understand what is truly going on Iran and the need to firmly, unequivocally, and unambiguously confront the Islamist thugs, whether they be in Tehran, Gaza, or Lebanon. Read more ... Source: The Daily Beast
 It is quite annoying to hear Islamofascist rants like "behead those who insult Islam" or "America deserved 9/11." It is just as annoying to hear Islamophobic rants like "kill the Muzzies" or "Nuke Mekkah." But it's twice as annoying when this kind of a sentiment emanates from public figures. Muslims Against Sharia proudly consider ourselves to be members of anti-Islamist community. As Muslims, some of have a first-hand experience of living under Islamist oppression. And we know all too well what the stakes are in the fight with Islamofascism. However, some anti-Islamists are so consumed by hatred, that Islamofascists do not present a large enough target for them; they hate all Muslims. They rationalize their hate by claiming that all Muslims are the same and there are no moderate Muslims. " Bill Warner, an Islamophobe from Florida (not to be confused with Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam) sums it up pretty well: " I (Bill Warner) totally agree with Debbie Schlussel , she hit the nail right on the head again, it is all a fraud, a Muslim fraud, there are no Moderate Muslims." The good thing is that nobody really listens to Bill Warner, especially after he became a laughing stock when this self-proclaimed anti-Gihadist teamed up with CAIR lackey Jim Sutter and Islamofascist MT Akbar in a pathetic attempt to defame Khalim Massoud of MASH and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs. The bad thing is that people listen to Debbie Schlussel. I used to listen to her too. Debbie has done some great work exposing government's ties with Islamofascists. Unfortunately, this is not all she has done. Putting aside her tendency to defame other anti-Islamists who don't see eye-to-eye with Debbie (she regularly calls Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, John Loftus, and Walid Shoebat liars and frauds) or her tendency to think that she is the only true conservative diva (she nearly bit the head off one of her commenter's head, because she dared to say that Laura Ingraham is a conservative; Monica Crowley, according to Debbie, is a no-talent phony,) Debbie doesn't see any difference between Muslims and Islamofascist. May 25, 2009 was a dark day for anti-Islamist Muslims. Dagestan's Deputy Mufti, Akhmed-khadzhi Tagayev was murdered, presumably by Wahhabi terrorists. Ahmed Tagaev was known for his anti-extremist stance. He has repeatedly written about problems of Islamic extremism in his articles in local media and online. But Debbie doesn't see it that way. In her demented rant, " Your Day in "Religion of Peace" Intra-"Peacefulness"," Debbie writes: "Don't kid yourself and believe--as claimed by the Interfax news agency in this artic--that Tagayev, the Deputy Chief Mufti of Dagestan, was some sort of moderate merely because he opposed Wahhabist Islam and was shot by them. The guy was extremist as most Muslim clerics are, just not on the same extremist side as the Wahhabis are." I wonder how well she knew Ahmed Tagaev. I knew him, and he was no extremist. He was fighting extremists and he paid the ultimate price, but for Debbie he's just another dead Muslim. Shouldn't the thought that CAIR and ISNA are probably quietly rejoicing the death of their enemy at least give her a pause? I doubt that. For people like Debbie, the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. Commenting on "The Coordination Center of North Caucasus Muslims will soon hold a meeting, where it will raise the issue of how to protect Islamic clergy from extremists," Debbie writes: "Correction: Islamic clergy are extremists." Granted, vast majority of Islamic clergy in America are extremists. Extremists paid for by Wahhabi petrodollars. The same Wahhabi petrodollars that Ahmed Tagaev was fighting against. Would Debbie also characterize Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi, an Islamic cleric who is more pro-Israel than most American Jews, as an extremist? Suppose Debbie is seething with Islamophobia so much, she can't help herself, but rejoice every time a Muslim dies. But how about some common sense? Will attitude like hers make on-the-fence Muslims think, "hey, those anti-Islamists are not that bad, they are against Islamism, not against Muslims" or would they think, "Osama is right; they hate all Muslims and we have to defend ourselves"? Doesn't she understand that she may be doing more harm than good when it comes to the War on Terror? Or does she care as long as her self-righteousness is satisfied? I.A.
 By Steve Emerson Prosecutors have secured their seventh conviction in the Hamas-financing case against the defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). On Wednesday, 54-year-old Akram Abdallah pled guilty to lying to federal agents about his HLF involvement during interviews in 2007. According to his indictment, Abdallah told FBI agents he had nothing to do with HLF, when, in fact, "between approximately 1994 and 1997, defendant was involved in fund raising activities" in the Phoenix area. Abdallah faces up to eight years in prison when he is sentenced in August. In November, five former HLF officials were convicted on 108 counts related to illegal Hamas financing. Jurors agreed that HLF routed more than $12 million to Hamas through a series of charities, or zakat committees, after U.S. law made such support illegal. They are scheduled to be sentenced May 27th in Dallas and face sentences ranging from 15 years to life in prison. In 2006, a Georgia imam named Mohamed Shorbagi pled guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization. Shorbagi agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in hopes of reducing his prison sentence and testified at the HLF trial last fall. He told jurors he knew money given to HLF would make its way to Hamas. Read more ...Source: FSM
By Steve Emerson The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not "an appropriate liaison partner" for the FBI because of evidence linking the organization and its founders to Hamas, an FBI assistant director said in a letter to a U.S. Senator. "In light of that evidence, the FBI suspended all formal contacts between CAIR and the FBI," Richard C. Powers, an assistant director in the FBI's office of Congressional Affairs, wrote in a letter to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Today, the FBI is unsure whether the relationship between CAIR and Hamas ever was severed, Powers wrote. In February, Kyl was joined by fellow senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) in writing FBI Director Robert Mueller to praise the FBI's policy toward CAIR. The senators said they believed it "should be government-wide policy," and asked whether there were exceptions to it and whether it applied to field offices as well as FBI headquarters. Read more ...Source: FSM
 By Steven Emerson Is repeatedly badmouthing the United States and fabricating an environment of a war against Muslims by the U.S. government a qualification for being sent on overseas travel at the taxpayers’ expense? The State Department and a U.S. university seem to think so. Consider the case of Christina Abraham, Civil Rights Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Chicago chapter. It is an affiliate of the national CAIR group that was described by an FBI agent in trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development as a front for Hamas. CAIR had also been declared an unindicted co-conspirator in that same trial, that resulted in sweeping terrorist convictions for all defendants last year. For the past 14 years, CAIR has defended Islamic terrorism, sponsored anti-Semitic conferences and has consistently attacked nearly all U.S. prosecutions of Islamic terrorists and asset forfeitures of Islamic terrorist charitable front groups as racist. Late last year, the FBI severed its relationship with CAIR because of its ties to Hamas. In early 2008, CAIR’s Abraham participated in a program on “Building the National Identity and Civic Participation in the Philippines” conducted at Northern Illinois University (NIU) -- an event funded by the U.S. State Department’s Office of Citizen Exchanges in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. She served as what the program’s training manual described as a “resource person” who “provided…materials for the program,” which ran from May 31 to June 28 under the auspices of NIU’s International Training Office & Center for Southeast Asian Studies. But that wasn’t the end of Abraham’s involvement in the government-funded program. This past January -- again with the State Department picking up the tab -- she traveled to the Philippines to join in a follow-on week-long seminar at the Vistamar Resort in Mactan, Cebu. CAIR was so proud that it issued a press release on February 11, 2009 entitled “Civil Rights Director Participates in State Dept. Delegation to Philippines.”[1] CAIR-Chicago reported that Abraham “headed to the Philippines this January as a part of a delegation to the International Visitor’s [sic] Program (IVP) Conference in Cebu, Philippines.” From January 2-13, the release reported, she gave presentations “on civil rights workshops based upon CAIR-Chicago’s work for victims of discrimination.” And the reported noted: “Each of the U.S. delegates was chosen for their respective expertise in methods for constructive civic engagement.” What was Abraham’s special expertise in “civil rights discrimination” and “constructive civic engagement” that merited her to be selected as an emissary of the United States to underdeveloped nations? Curiously, her record in the United States and that of her employer, CAIR, shows that she and CAIR have publicly issued fabricated allegations against the United States for its supposed massive and rampant racism against the majority of U.S. Muslims. Read the Rest....Steven Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (www.investigativeproject.org) and the author or co-author of 6 books on the terrorism and the Middle East.Source: Hudson New York
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 The cover of "Jihad Recollections," a magazine about Al Qaeda
that impels Americans to join in jihad.By Eric Shawn It's been likened to Al Qaeda's "Vanity Fair," a new English-language Internet magazine called "Jihad Recollections" that focuses on the terrorist group, its founder, Usama Bin Laden, and how to commit jihad. It also predicts the demise of the United States. “This is designed for Americans,” says noted terrorism expert Steven Emerson, founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism in Washington, D.C., and author of the book "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us." “It’s not for Brits, not for Germans, not for jihadists in the Middle East. It’s designed for Americans and it’s designed to get them to convert to Islam or to carry out jihad acts of terror,” he said. “What started off as some angry kids in their basement has transformed over the past several years into a robust Al Qaeda propaganda outlet right here in our backyard,” says Jarret Brachman, an Al Qaeda specialist and author of the new book, “Global Jihadism.” Brachman says “it raises the bar for pro-Al Qaeda propaganda in English. Its presentation is flashier than any English language Al Qaeda propaganda that we’ve seen to date.” He also says “the publication shows how deeply embedded in the global Al Qaeda movement its editors are.” Read more ...Source: Fox News
By Steve Emerson A potentially significant terrorist case in California is being exploited by radical Islamist groups to mount a campaign against FBI efforts to collect intelligence on suspected terrorists. The case involves Ahmadullah Niazi, who has been indicted on immigration charges. His brother-in-law has served as Osama bin Laden's security coordinator. During a February bond hearing, an FBI agent testified that Niazi referred to bin Laden as "an angel" and provided an informant with taped sermons from an imam considered to have been a spiritual advisor for two September 11th hijackers. Read more ...Source: FSM
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Editor's note: Steven Emerson is the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the largest archival storehouses of open source intelligence on radical Islamic networks, and the author or co-author of six books on terrorism and national security.
Posts
