Every sane human being should be an “Islamophobe”, a response to Taneeza Islam's propaganda

On the eve of Taneeza's Islam's next performance on the Muslim Brotherhood's propaganda dancing pole, we have this analysis regarding the use of "Islamophobe":

Here is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to say about my forthcoming book, Confessions of an Islamophobe (coming next week from Bombardier Books; pre-order here now):

No one has upset the Islamophobia cabal more than Robert Spencer. First, he knows more about Islamic doctrine than they do. Next, he has outed all the tricks they use in their taqiyyah bag to disinform the public. Finally and most importantly, Robert will not be cowed. Please read this important book and make sure you share it with as many people as possible.

I’ve denied being an Islamophobe for years, while the charge has been relentlessly thrown at me. In Confessions of an Islamophobe, I explain this dichotomy: Leftists and Islamic supremacists for years have conflated under the term “Islamophobia” two quite distinct phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are never justified or justifiable, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of the jihad threat. I reject the former, but if the latter is “Islamophobic,” then call me an Islamophobe. If it’s “Islamophobic” to note that the texts and teachings of Islam contain numerous exhortations to warfare against unbelievers, and that those exhortations are codified in Islamic law, and that women, gays, Jews, Christians, secular liberals and secular Muslims are threatened by those acting upon those teachings, then every sane human being should be an “Islamophobe.”

In Confessions of an Islamophobe, I explain why, with evidence that even the most hardened Antifa member would have difficulty dismissing (unless, of course, that Antifa member was completely irrational, which is likely to be the case).

This February 2008 analysis by Zeyno Baran provides us with an example of the Muslim Brotherhood's true motivation for using the term "Islamophobia":

Until the Holy Land Foundation trial, Muslim American Society leaders played word games regarding their connection with the Ikhwan. At the trial, it was revealed that a phone book was found at the home of Ismail Elbarrasse—an unindicted co-conspirator of the HLF and former assistant to Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook—listing the names and numbers of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the United States. On the first page of the phone book under the title “Members of the Board of Directors” were fifteen names. Among those names are Ahmad Elkadi, Jamal Badawi, and Omar Soubani—the founders of MAS.

In fact, in light of previous documents that became public in other trials, MAS leaders finally have admitted that the group was founded by the Brotherhood. Yet, they quickly add that it has since evolved beyond the Ikhwan to include greater ideological diversity. They maintain that MAS has no formal connection with the Brotherhood. Meanwhile, the Brotherhood is just as reluctant to acknowledge any ties with MAS. One senior Muslim Brotherhood official explained that he does not want to say MAS is a Brotherhood “entity” because doing so “causes some security inconveniences for them in a post-September 11 world.”

Esam Omeish, president of MAS, claimed that the documents introduced at the HLF trial were “full of abhorrent statements and are in direct conflict of the very principles of our Islam.” He said, “The Muslim community in America wishes to contribute positively to the continued success and greatness of our civilization … The ethics of tolerance and inclusion are the very tenets that MAS was based on from its inception.” He also firmly stated that “MAS is not the Muslim Brotherhood.” Omeish said that MAS “grew out of a history of Islamic activism in the U.S. when the Muslim Brotherhood once existed but has a different intellectual paradigm and outlook.”

In August 2007, Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine appointed Omeish to a state commission on immigration. Yet Omeish was compelled to resign less than two months later after a December 2000 video was released in which he praised Palestinians for knowing that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land;” in another video he congratulated Palestinians for giving up their lives for the sake of Allah. When confronted, Omeish engaged in a rhetorical dance over his intended meaning of “jihad.” But the 1991 Akram memo makes clear just what jihad means to Islamists. Moreover, Omeish’s comments were made at the height of the 2000 Palestinian intifada. In this context, it is clear that the type of jihad that Omeish praised as the way to “liberate” Palestine was the very same process that the Palestinians were engaged in—that is, violent jihad.

What is particularly worrisome in this example, like so many others before, was that Omeish’s accusers were automatically put on the defensive, while many others, including the governor, supported Omeish. It should be a concern to Americans that those who reveal the Islamists’ true nature are tarred as Islamophobes, McCarthyists, or part of some “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

The Baran analysis also covers the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), where Tanneeza Islam worked as National Youth Program Development Director:

While information has been available for several years now, the HLF trial clearly demonstrated the ISNA-Hamas connection. Marzook, the political leader of Hamas at the time, thanked ISNA for its support while he was in prison. This is not a surprise given that ISNA was effectively established by the Ikhwanis and almost all of ISNA’s founders have since remained active either in ISNA or in one of its affiliated organizations. Several key individuals who have been very active since the beginning—such as Sayyid Syeed—have tellingly omitted their early Islamist backgrounds from their “official” biographies.

ISNA also has deep links to well-known Islamists. One of the most prominent such individuals is Sami al-Arian, who helped establish ISNA in 1981 and founded the Islamic Committee for Palestine (an official ISNA affiliate) shortly thereafter. Al-Arian is also currently serving the remainder of a 57-month conviction for supporting the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Until he was arrested in 2003, he was considered to be one of the country’s leading civil rights activists and was often invited to meet top U.S. government officials, including Presidents Clinton and Bush. This was despite the fact that al-Arian had been the subject of an FBI investigation into his connections with the PIJ since 1996. After videotapes appeared in 2001 of al-Arian speaking at rallies calling for terrorist jihad in Palestine, he was suspended from his professorship at the University of South Florida. Al-Arian and a host of groups—including ISNA—immediately sprang to the defense, loudly proclaiming this to be nothing more than a “smear campaign” and an example of “anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry.” In February 2003, a federal grand jury served a 50-count indictment against al-Arian.

Until the trial, for over a decade, al-Arian denied any connection to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad—in a 1994 interview, he even pretended that he did not know what the initials PIJ stood for. In the trial, one piece of evidence was a videotape showing him declaring to supporters: “Let us damn America, let us damn Israel, let us damn them and their allies until death” and “Quran is our constitution …jihad our path …victory to Islam …death to Israel …revolution till victory.” The case eventually ended in a partial acquittal and mistrial but al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 to “conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a specially designated terrorist organization.” Moreover, the judge who presided over his trial had few doubts as to al-Arian’s true nature. During sentencing, the judge called him a “master manipulator,” saying to al-Arian “you looked your neighbors in the eyes and said you had nothing to do with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This trial exposed that as a lie …The evidence was clear in this case that you were a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”

Tanneza also worked for CAIR, which also has issues:

The HLF trial documents also proved that CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood linked network created to help Hamas in the U.S. Even though it has portrayed itself to be a civil rights group, and is often described as such by the mainstream press, its top leadership is made up of the IAP and the UASR principals mentioned earlier. Despite public denials, CAIR leaders have been heard expressing their support for Hamas both in public and on FBI surveillance tapes. CAIR has received support from, and lent support to, Hamas financial conduits in the United States. Several CAIR officers and employees have been indicted on terrorism-related charges.

A brief look at the men who founded CAIR, their objectives, and their deceptive methods make clear that this it is not just a civil rights group. As mentioned earlier, CAIR was created following the 1993 Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists where the need to engage in propaganda efforts was discussed. U.S. prosecutors named Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director, and Omar Ahmad, CAIR’s founder and chairman—both ethnic Palestinians—as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.

And...

Typically, when the Ikhwanis are confronted with extremist quotes they claim that they have been misinterpreted. Yet in many cases the directness of their rhetoric leaves little room for interpretation. On July 4, 1998, the San Ramon Valley Herald, a local California newspaper, published an article about an Islamic school study session entitled “How Should We Live as Muslims in America?” The article stated that at this gathering CAIR Chairman Omar Ahmed urged Muslims not to assimilate into American society but instead to deliver Islam’s message. He underlined that Islam is not in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant, and that the Quran should be the highest authority in America with Islam the only accepted religion on Earth. When Ahmed’s statements were highlighted in 2003, the CAIR founder flatly denied making these statements and said that he had sought and obtained a retraction from the newspapers that printed the article. Interestingly, as of December 2006, neither of the newspapers that ran the article received a retraction request from Ahmed and the reporter who wrote the article has adamantly stood by her account of the events.

It is time the people of South Dakota fully understand the role, tactics, and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sadly the South Dakota media has not done its job, and instead is acting as a propaganda tool for Taneeza Islam, along with Cory Heidelberger. Baran's analysis includes this retort to Heidelberger's charge that those exposing the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda in South Dakota are anti-immigrant:

What do I mean by “Islamist?” The term was coined by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, in an effort to politicize Islam. Broadly, the label Islamist applies to individuals or groups who believe that Islam should be a comprehensive guide to life. Islamists do not accept that the interpretation of Islam could evolve over the centuries along with human beings’ understanding, or that the religion could be influenced or modified by the cultures and traditions of various regions. Nor do they recognize that Islam can be limited to the religious realm, or to simply providing its followers with a code of moral and ethical principles. With this definition in mind, a nonviolent, American-born Islamist should not be considered an ally of the U.S. Yet a devout, conservative Muslim immigrant to Europe—one who does not even speak any Western languages but rejects Islamist ideology—could be.

Islamists are strenuously opposed to secular governance. Instead, they believe that Islamic rules and laws based upon the Quran and the sharia code must shape all aspects of human society, from politics and education to history, science, the arts, and more. Islamic jurisprudence developed and codified over the course of the 8th and 9th centuries and has not changed since then. In wholly sharia-based countries such as Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, there is little distinction between religion and state, leaving no room for liberal democracy. The institution of elections might be maintained, but this will inevitably be an illiberal system without dissent, individuation, or critical thinking.

Today’s Islamists adhere first and foremost to the works of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most famous ideologue, Sayyid Qutb, and are not necessarily concerned with Islam’s spiritual or cultural aspects. Qutb, like his ideological predecessors Ibn Taymiyya and Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was preoccupied with the relative decline of the Muslim world. All three believed this deterioration was a result of Muslims having strayed from pure Islam. Qutb argued that Islam’s crisis could be reversed only if “true” Muslims, emulating the ways of the Prophet Muhammad, worked to replace existing governments in the Muslim world with strictly Islamic regimes. Accordingly, followers of Qutb desire the overthrow of their current governments and declare armed jihad against non-Muslim states. It is important to underline that this step is often viewed as “defensive jihad,” an interpretation which has broad acceptance among many Muslims. This logic has been be used to justify attacks in Spain (which was ruled by Muslims for several hundred years) and any other Western countries that are deemed to be waging a war against Islam, either militarily or culturally. The next step is the establishment of the caliphate. Islamists believe that bringing about such changes is an obligation for all Muslims. They are not bound by constraints of time—they have been fighting this war for many decades already and will continue as long as it takes. Nor are they hindered by location—the new caliphate can be established anywhere.

Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood are engaged in a long-term social engineering project. The eventual “Islamization” of the world is to be enacted via a bottom-up process. Initially, the individual is transformed into a “true” Muslim. This Islamization of the individual leads that person to reject Western norms of pluralism, individual rights, and the secular rule of law. Next, the individual’s family is transformed; then the society; then the state; and finally the entire world is expected to live, and be governed, according to Islamic principles. This ideological machinery is at the core of Islamist terrorism and it works to promote separation, sedition, and hatred. The tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood may be nonviolent in the West and less violent than other groups in the Muslim world, but the ideology behind those tactics remains fundamentally opposed to the Western democratic system and its values.

Cory Heidelberger is clearly on the wrong side of this issue, as Taneeza Islam's agenda is in contradiction to his own worldview.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

Bishops Paul Swain, Bob Carlson, Charlie Chaput and many others have been covering up sexual violence committed against at least three generations of South Dakotans and you're using hate speech to chastise Cory Heidelberger for his personal view.

You're a sociopath, Steve.

[KM]

At this point, Islamophobia is idiotic and those crying about it are manipulative or willfully blind.

When you point out sharia law and jihadist terrorism it's not like Muslims are trying to hide it. It's in their books, they openly say they want the shocking thing in sharia law as if it's nothing. They don't see whats wrong with it when you're shocked. They celebrate in the streets over terrorist attacks and when they kill an Israeli.

Moderate Muslims do not exist. There's no such thing as Islamophobia; a phobia is an irrational fear.

SD media outlets are too scared to report on what is happening and connections with the MBH. That's why we need new outlets and people with balls to investigate and report; thanks Sibby Online.

[larry kurtz]

It's no secret this interested party would like to see Israel rolled back to 1917 borders and its Jewish inhabitants moved to Utah or Nevada.

Recall former South Dakota state senator Dan Lederman, now chairman of the earth hater party in the state, along with fellow Jewish-American Joel Arends teamed up with Islamophobe and whackjob of the nth order, Frank Gaffney, for an event in Sioux Falls.

No Middle East leader is more unstable than Bibi Netanyahu.

President Harry Truman failed the United States by recognizing the illegal creation of Israel. Even Donald Trump believes Israel is guilty of war crimes and would use nuclear weapons in the Middle East with Israel as collateral damage.

It's not like Philip Giraldi is wrong:

"Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it." [America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars]

Sibby has apparently forgotten that the ground he lives on was seized from aboriginal cultures by President Thomas Jefferson through an executive order that even he believed was unconstitutional.

As christianity circles the global drain it's simply evolution that Islam would swell to fill the void.

http://southdakotaprogressive.blogspot.com/2017/11/islam-addresses-south-dakotas-culture.html