FIVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

[whichphilosophy]

I am only interested in the assertion that they are a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ditto MSA. Whether or not you like their priorities and rhetoric is a separate issue.

Some initial documents I read.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/919436/posts

MSA Figure Seized By FBI
By Paul Barrett
Wall Street Journal | May 29, 2003

See also WIKI as he was aquitted of 3 terrorism charges but deported as given below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Omar_Al-Hussayen

He was acquitted of three of the eight immigration charges. As the jurors deadlocked on the remaining charges, District Judge Edward Lodge declared a mistrial for those remaining charges.[9] The remaining immigration charges would have to be retried.
Deportation[edit]
After his acquittal at the criminal trial, Al-Hussayen was still held in custody by immigration authorities. A few weeks later, he agreed not to appeal his deportation order if the prosecution agreed not to retry him for the remaining immigration charges.

MUSLIM STUDENT'S ASSOCIATION:
https://www.investigativeproject.org/2118/the-muslim-students-associations-terror-problem

While it strives for respectability, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) has a dark side. For example, a 2007 report by the New York Police Department describes MSAs as "part of a growing trend of Salafi-based radicalization."
The report lists MSAs as an example of "Salafi Influences and Incubators," stating: "Extremists have used these university-based organizations as forums for the development and recruitment of like-minded individuals - providing a receptive platform for younger, American-born imams, to present a radical message in a way that resonates with the students."
But the organization's role in radicalizing other Muslims is just part of the problem. Patrick Poole shows how some of the organization's most senior members have been implicated in a variety of terror-related conspiracies:
"These include an MSA national president who was al-Qaeda's top financier in the U.S., as chapter president who was one of al-Qaeda's co-founders, and a former MSA faculty advisor who is currently the terrorist most wanted by the U.S. government," according to Poole. "Other MSA leaders have been recently identified in several domestic and international terror plots, and some currently are facing terrorism charges."
A few of the spotlighted by Poole include:
• Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who served as MSA national president in 1982 and 1983, is serving a 23-year prison sentence for his international terrorist activities. In 2005, the Treasury Department called his arrest "a severe blow to al-Qaeda, as Alamoudi had a close relationship with al-Qaeda and raised money for al Qaeda in the United States."
• Aafia Siddiqui was convicted in February of the attempted murder of a U.S. Army captain while she was incarcerated and being interrogated at a prison in Afghanistan. Siddiqui was active in the MSA while attending MIT. According to a 2005 story in Vogue, Siddiqui authored a guide published by the national MSA organization encouraging members not to water down Islamic doctrine on issues such as jihad.
• Ali Asad Chandia, convicted of terror charges as part of the Northern Virginia jihad network, was president of the Montgomery College (Maryland) MSA. He is serving a 15-year prison sentence.
• Al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, currently the U.S. government's most wanted terrorist, served as chaplain for George Washington University's MSA.
• Wa'el Hamza Julaidan, former president of the University of Arizona MSA, was one of al-Qaida's co-founders and its logistics boss.

CAIR (FROM COURT DOCUMENTS

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/423.pdf
ATTACHMENT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

III. The following are individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations
.......... 11. Council on American Islamic Relations, aka CAIR

https://www.investigativeproject.org/361/cair-identified-by-the-fbi-as-part-of-the-muslim

Dallas--In testimony Tuesday, FBI Agent Lara Burns reported before the jury in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee, right alongside HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). Agent Burns further testified that CAIR received money from HLF - a claim that Nihad Awad blatantly denied in a congressional testimony in September of 2003.
Burns also said that both Omar Ahmed and Nihad Awad, CAIR co-founders who today serve as CAIR's chairman emeritus and executive director, respectively, were also listed as individual members the Brotherhood's Palestine Committee in America

See also


http://www.islamicpluralism.org/documents/982.pdf
American Muslims Commend FBI for Rejection of CAIR

We, the undersigned American Muslims, have long known
the true character of CAIR and its allies. Therefore:
• We observe that they denounce “terrorism” in general terms but not the specific
actions of Islamist groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. They denounce violence but not the
ideologies behind it.
• We observe their commitment to radical aims, their attempts to chill free speech by
calling critics of radical Islam “Islamophobes,” and their false, ugly accusations against
moderate American Muslims who disagree with their agenda.
• We reject any claim that CAIR and its supporters are legitimate civil liberties advocates or
appropriate partners between the U.S. government and American Muslims.
• We congratulate the FBI for adopting a firmer attitude toward CAIR, as a defense
of Americans of all faiths from the menace of radical Islam, including Muslims of all
backgrounds—Sunni, Shia, Sufi, secular, etc.
• We call on the U.S. Department of Justice to affirm and continue this decision.
• We call on the entire United States government to follow suit in rejecting relations with
the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Dr. Kemal Silay, President, Center for Islamic Pluralism, www.islamicpluralism.org
Supna Zaidi, Assistant Director, Islamist Watch, www.islamist-watch.org
M. Zuhdi Jasser, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, www.aifdemocracy.org
Imaad Malik, Fellow, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, International Quranic Center, www.ahl-alquran.com
Khalim Massoud, reformislam@gmail.com
Nawab Agha Mousvi, American Muslim Congress and Center for Islamic Pluralism
Kiran Sayyed, Council for Democracy and Tolerance, http://cfdnt.com/
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, Executive Director, Center for Islamic Pluralism
Shia.Protest@yahoo.com
Dr. Jalal Zuberi, Southern U.S. Director, Center for Islamic Pluralism

 

[Warpoet]

A few things. For one, you said you would be careful not to dive into hard-right sources, but that's essentially what you've done. I don't know why you linked to FreeRepublic at all, as it is a notorious right-wing cesspool - one of the worst to exist before the alt-right came into the picture. And the Investigative Project on Terrorism? A loony bin run by phony "terrorism expert" Steve Emerson, who torpedoed any credibility he had left a few years ago when he claimed that Birmingham in the UK was a Muslim-controlled "no-go zone." He's a nut; ditto the guy he's sourcing his info from.

I don't know anything about the Center for Islamic Pluralism and it doesn't seem anyone else does either. It looks to me like another do-nothing, irrelevant think tank with no substance beyond a Washington mailing address. Lots of Mooslim-sounding names signing on there, but Zuhdi Jasser is the only one I recognize, and that's because he's a notorious shill for right-wingers who need someone who calls themselves a Muslim to push their agenda - including Trump's abhorrent Muslim ban a few months ago. He's been paid a lot of money by the far right to preach that kind of crap, and he's a Clarion member too. Anything with him on the board is immediately suspect.

The only things you've found that have to be taken seriously are the reports from law enforcement, but even these have to be taken with a heaping spoonful of salt. Law enforcement, and the NYPD in particular, have a horrendous track record of dealing with the American Muslim community, and are still trying to settle in court because of it. So, I'm not particularly inclined to take their word about the extent of radicalization in Muslim organizations; they had a strong incentive to exaggerate in order to justify their absurd broad-brush surveillance programs. That program was disbanded after widespread controversy, the report you cite was eventually taken down and its author left the NYPD. Said author, while a legitimate scholar, appears to have been quite dishonest about the program in general.

Re CAIR and the Holy Land Foundation, there's quite a lot of dirt there and enough to tar their reputation, but this too falls far short of the threshold of labeling them a "front" for the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB may have had its name on the committee the agent described, and some CAIR members may have belonged to that committee, but as far as I can tell, the committee's purpose, and the entire focus of the trial, was support being given to Hamas. Material support for a designated terrorist organization is a charge you could level against some high-level members of CAIR and some other prominent Muslim organizations and possibly substantiate, but that's not the charge in question here. And it's also worth noting that this is something that's happened in America long before they came around (many Irish-Americans gave material support to the IRA, for instance, and it was not a secret). Put simply, the evidence you've laid out here doesn't satisfy my demand. It makes CAIR look bad and some of the MSA's members likewise, but it does very little to support the assertion I asked to see evidence for.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A few things. For one, you said you would be careful not to dive into hard-right sources, but that's essentially what you've done. I don't know why you linked to FreeRepublic at all, as it is a notorious right-wing cesspool - one of the worst to exist before the alt-right came into the picture. And the Investigative Project on Terrorism? A loony bin run by phony "terrorism expert" Steve Emerson, who torpedoed any credibility he had left a few years ago when he claimed that Birmingham in the UK was a Muslim-controlled "no-go zone." He's a nut; ditto the guy he's sourcing his info from.

I don't know anything about the Center for Islamic Pluralism and it doesn't seem anyone else does either. It looks to me like another do-nothing, irrelevant think tank with no substance beyond a Washington mailing address. Lots of Mooslim-sounding names signing on there, but Zuhdi Jasser is the only one I recognize, and that's because he's a notorious shill for right-wingers who need someone who calls themselves a Muslim to push their agenda - including Trump's abhorrent Muslim ban a few months ago. He's been paid a lot of money by the far right to preach that kind of crap, and he's a Clarion member too. Anything with him on the board is immediately suspect.

The only things you've found that have to be taken seriously are the reports from law enforcement, but even these have to be taken with a heaping spoonful of salt. Law enforcement, and the NYPD in particular, have a horrendous track record of dealing with the American Muslim community, and are still trying to settle in court because of it. So, I'm not particularly inclined to take their word about the extent of radicalization in Muslim organizations; they had a strong incentive to exaggerate in order to justify their absurd broad-brush surveillance programs. That program was disbanded after widespread controversy, the report you cite was eventually taken down and its author left the NYPD. Said author, while a legitimate scholar, appears to have been quite dishonest about the program in general.

Re CAIR and the Holy Land Foundation, there's quite a lot of dirt there and enough to tar their reputation, but this too falls far short of the threshold of labeling them a "front" for the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB may have had its name on the committee the agent described, and some CAIR members may have belonged to that committee, but as far as I can tell, the committee's purpose, and the entire focus of the trial, was support being given to Hamas. Material support for a designated terrorist organization is a charge you could level against some high-level members of CAIR and some other prominent Muslim organizations and possibly substantiate, but that's not the charge in question here. And it's also worth noting that this is something that's happened in America long before they came around (many Irish-Americans gave material support to the IRA, for instance, and it was not a secret). Put simply, the evidence you've laid out here doesn't satisfy my demand. It makes CAIR look bad and some of the MSA's members likewise, but it does very little to support the assertion I asked to see evidence for.

Thanks for your interesting reply. It always better when people of different views investigate the same issues.

FEDERAL REPUBLIC
Actually in this case it was relevant in that it simply showed the first stage where the trials took place. I don’t think this part is too far off and not particularly relevant.

However if you check Wiki which I quoted, the FreeRepublic article was a half truth. This is because the person was not actually found guilty though the others were. He was acquitted of 3 charges with a hung jury on the other 5. He agreed to deportation in lieu of charges being filed.

CENTRE FOR ISLAMMIC PLURALISM
These people are Muslims. I think if you worked in the UAE most local Muslims will have similar views. Some Muslims may well support a ban on Muslim immigration on the basis that they will be the first targets of extremism. However better security measures is always better than a ban.
Muslims can have views which are right of centre, given that we are often given the impression that this is not the case.

See Here http://www.islamicpluralism.org/

There is one which you would be interested in is that Stephen Schwartz a very Jewish sounding name. He converted to Sufism in 1997. It’s not an unknown organisation and I don’t agree with a lot of its views (e.g. Syria).

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE SECRET SERVICES
Law enforcement, the FBI and also the CIA can be very unreliable and can generalise hence the expression ‘Couldn’t find a hooker in a whorehouse.’) Nonetheless, there are convictions of MSA members and CAIR and the MSA have strange bedfellows. I don’t see Hamas as a problem in that we can ask how US citizens how they would act in a similar situation. Civilian deaths caused by Hamas and Israel are of course not excusable under any circumstances.

In similar manner there were Americans who supported the IRA, though while historically it had issues with the UK, atrocities on both sides were equally abhorrent.

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
CAIR was formed by 3 people. Two of them, Omar Ahmad and Niwad Awad worked for the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) The IAP was formed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas and that it is percolating into US Society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam...liation_with_Hamas_and_the_Muslim_Brotherhood
I’m not sure that the MSA is recruiting people directly into the Muslim Brotherhood as I think this is simply an extension arm of it

CAIR and the MSA is actively lobbying to prevent speakers who disagree with their views from being heard instead of engaging more in debate. If it were interested in progressing the rights of all Muslims it would also review the activities of those actually engages in places like Syria, Pakistan,Saudi, Afghanistan and Iran for instance its new allies could consider removing the Clarion Project and also the Muslim Brotherhood.

The first targets of Islamic extremism are frequently Muslims.

 

[Warpoet]

Whether or not CAIR/MSA have the right priorities is a wholly separate issue. This is akin to arguing that because a large socialist, or simply left-wing organization, had individual members with ties to Russia, the entire organization was merely an extension of the Soviet Union. Logic such as this was used often and loudly during the Cold War, usually without any sound evidence behind it, and it ruined the livelihoods and reputations of a lot of people unjustly.

That was the '50s and '60s; it's 2017 now and there's even less excuse to be doing the same. As I said before, the standards of evidence don't change because we're talking about Muslims, and you haven't met them. Your evidence does not indicate that either MSA or CAIR are Muslim Brotherhood front groups. The evidence re: MSA doesn't come within a mile of that, and you've only shown that individual members of CAIR have connections mostly as a means to send money to Hamas, which is different. Everything else you've pointed to is either heavily biased, poorly researched, outright wrong or all of the above. Including your wiki link, which is drawing off of a 25-year-old document of dubious authenticity that doesn't really mean much of anything. If this is the best you can come up with we should probably just stop this now.

So I'm sorry, but I say you need to either retract your claim or at the very least acknowledge that you aren't able to substantiate it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Whether or not CAIR/MSA have the right priorities is a wholly separate issue. This is akin to arguing that because a large socialist, or simply left-wing organization, had individual members with ties to Russia, the entire organization was merely an extension of the Soviet Union. Logic such as this was used often and loudly during the Cold War, usually without any sound evidence behind it, and it ruined the livelihoods and reputations of a lot of people unjustly.

That was the '50s and '60s; it's 2017 now and there's even less excuse to be doing the same. As I said before, the standards of evidence don't change because we're talking about Muslims, and you haven't met them. Your evidence does not indicate that either MSA or CAIR are Muslim Brotherhood front groups. The evidence re: MSA doesn't come within a mile of that, and you've only shown that individual members of CAIR have connections mostly as a means to send money to Hamas, which is different. Everything else you've pointed to is either heavily biased, poorly researched, outright wrong or all of the above. Including your wiki link, which is drawing off of a 25-year-old document of dubious authenticity that doesn't really mean much of anything. If this is the best you can come up with we should probably just stop this now.

So I'm sorry, but I say you need to either retract your claim or at the very least acknowledge that you aren't able to substantiate it.

There are very clear links for both CAIR and the MSA to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood via its Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) formed CAIR. The founding members were members of the IAP. That is to say CAIR was formed as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.


3 Founding members of CAIR were members of the Islamic Association of Palestine a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood

https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/423.pdf

See Page 5 of ATTACHMENT A

List of Un indicted Co-conspirators - Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
III. The following are individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations
11. Council on American Islamic Relations, aka CAIR

Taken individually:
RAFEEQ JABBER
Rafeeq Jabber in 1994 Founding member and executive director of CAIR
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=677
• Former president of the Islamic Association for Palestine
• Former president of the Mosque Foundation
• Founding board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

NIHAD AWAD
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=755
• Founding member and executive director of CAIR
In 1994, then-IAP president Omar Ahmad convened a meeting with Rafeeq Jaber and Awad to discuss the possibility of branching IAP out in another direction. As a result of that meeting, in June of 1994 these “IAP three” incorporated the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
ALSO
http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/lonk.pdf
See the issue of 'The Link 2000.
Mainstream America By Nihad Awad
After the Gulf War was over I was offered a job with the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) as their Public Relations Director.
.............I worked closely with IAP president Omar Alunad......
In June 1994, we used a modest donation as a starting budget to open THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS (CAIR) in Washington, D.C.

OMARA AHMAD
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=967
Former President of the Islamic Association for Palestine
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

By weight of evidence that puts CAIR as an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood at its inception. Nothing suggests this relationship is over.

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND THE MSA


MUSLIM STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
The MUSLIM STUDENTS ASSOCIATON (MSA) goes back to 1963 so in this instance the 1960's is relevant..

See
http://web.archive.org/web/20060118061004/http://www.msa-national.org/about/history.html

It was in January 1963 that now some of the most respected personalities in the Islamic movement came together at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and formed the MSA of the United States and Canada.

Over seventy people from across the country, including Brs. Ahmad Sakr, Mahdi Bhadori, Ahmad Totonji, Ilyas Ba-Yunus, and others, then all students, met in what would be the first of a number of historic gatherings to discuss the state of Muslims in North America.

and

The very same year 1963 the first MSA of the US & Canada National Convention was held in Urbana-Champaign. Every year since then, MSA has held some form of national convention without failure. It was not until at least 1982 that the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) an off-shoot of MSA held their first major convention in place of the MSA National Convention.

See Court Documents

https://www.scribd.com/document/433...Land-Foundation-unindicted-coconspirator-list

......... The Government listed CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT as entities who are or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.(Attachment A at 5; Mot. 6.)The first trial of this case commenced on July 16, 2007.


In the 2007 https://www.scribd.com/document/433...d-Foundation-unindicted-coconspirator-listthe United States Department of Justice named ISNA, along with Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the North American Islamic Trust, as an unindicted co-conspirator and one of a number of "entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood."[19][20][21] ISNA, along with NAIT and CAIR, filed motions seeking to be removed from the UCC listing, and the District Judge found that the government had violated the organizations' rights by listing them as Unindicted Co-Conspirators.[22]

Judge Solis, as affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held that the government should not have listed CAIR and ISNA, but that "the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas".[23]



See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Society_of_North_America

ISNA traces its origins to a meeting of several Muslim student organizations in 1963, at which the Muslim Student Association of the U.S. & Canada ("The MSA") was formed in January 1963. ISNA regards the MSA's 1963 convention as its first one, held at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Present-day ISNA was founded in 1982 through a joint effort of four organizations:
AND

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6178


ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA (ISNA)
Established by U.S-based members of the Muslim Brotherhood who also had a background as leaders of the Muslim Students Association
Largest Muslim organization in North America

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was established in July 1981 by U.S-based members of the Muslim Brotherhood who also had a background as leaders of the Muslim Students Association (MSA). As author and terrorism expert Steven Emerson puts it, ISNA “grew out of the Muslim Students Association, which ... was founded by Brotherhood members.” Indeed, Muslim Brothers would dominate ISNA's leadership throughout its early years, when the Society was highly dependent upon Saudi funding. ISNA's founding mission was “to advance the cause of Islam and serve Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life.”


.............. A prominent founding member of ISNA was Mahboob Khan, also an early founder of MSA.

The test applied is the weight of evidence to show (as also referenced in court docs that CAIR and the MSA are an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[Warpoet]

There are very clear links for both CAIR and the MSA to the Muslim Brotherhood.

No there aren't. There's evidence that the former has members who raised some money for Hamas, but that's totally different. You have a confirmation bias, made up your mind long before you found the evidence to support your view, and are now just throwing shit at the wall hoping some of it sticks.

The Muslim Brotherhood via its Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) formed CAIR. The founding members were members of the IAP. That is to say CAIR was formed as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I already dealt with this. Your evidence re: the IAP is a 25+ year old document that doesn't mean anything. This article does a good job explaining why:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/pamela-geller-and-the-anti-islam-movement

Virtually all the alarm over the coming Islamic takeover and the spread of Sharia law can be traced back to an old document of questionable authority and relevance, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Dated May 22, 1991, it was found in 2004 by the F.B.I., buried in one of a large number of boxes uncovered during a search of a house in northern Virginia. (I reported on the discovery and the use of the document for my book “Freedom of Speech: Mightier than the Sword.”) It is cited on numerous Web sites, and in articles, videos, and training materials, which quote one another in circular arguments. Its illusion of importance was enhanced by federal prosecutors, who included it in a trove of documents introduced into evidence in the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization ultimately convicted of sending money to Hamas.

The memo, however, is far from probative. It was never subjected to an adversarial test of its authenticity or significance. Examined closely, it does not stand up as an authoritative prescription for action. Rather, it appears to have been written as a plea to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership for action, by an author we know little about, Mohamed Akram. He is listed elsewhere as a secretary in the Brotherhood, but he writes in the tone of an underling. Islam watchers do not quote his appeal that the recipients “not rush to throw these papers away due to your many occupations and worries. All that I’m asking of you is to read them and to comment on them.” These lines reveal the memo as a mere proposal, now twenty-four years old. No other copies have come to light.

You don't have anything of any substance here. I am not going to bother reading anything other than primary source documents if it's on Steve Emerson's website. He's a nut. discoverthenetworks.org is another loony bin which I don't need to bother with. That you've wasted so much of your own time, and by extension, mine, trying to prove these silly claims by using such crappy sources is rather sad in and of itself.

Essentially, you are grasping at straws using the analysis of fringe nutters, and vague pronouncements from law enforcement that don't mean what you want them to mean. CAIR certainly has some times to Hamas, but that's not appreciably different in my view than the number of Irish-American organizations with ties to the IRA. It's a wholly different charge than that of being a covert agent for the Muslim Brotherhood secretly trying to take over America. None of your evidence supports this view.

And you're digging back to the '60s to try and tie the MSA to the Brotherhood? It's a highly decentralized organization, really just a set of largely autonomous groups that share the same name. That some MB members were involved at the outset means it's a MB front 50 years later makes about as much sense as arguing that every business, and all affiliates of said business, that the mafia was somehow involved in 50 years ago are all fronts for the mob in 2017. It's lazy reasoning.

It's impossible to take you seriously at this point. You are taking evidence that reflects poorly and suggests, but doesn't prove, one thing, and claiming it proves another thing that's totally different. As I said, you're obviously filling your head with shit from the likes of Steve Emerson and have made your mind up sans evidence, and are now just tossing out as much crap as you can. This whole thread has clearly just been a platform for you to push your agenda, not to have any kind of serious engagement.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No there aren't. There's evidence that the former has members who raised some money for Hamas, but that's totally different. You have a confirmation bias, made up your mind long before you found the evidence to support your view, and are now just throwing shit at the wall hoping some of it sticks.

The Muslim Brotherhood via its Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) formed CAIR. The founding members were members of the IAP. That is to say CAIR was formed as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I already dealt with this. Your evidence re: the IAP is a 25+ year old document that doesn't mean anything. This article does a good job explaining why:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/pamela-geller-and-the-anti-islam-movement

Virtually all the alarm over the coming Islamic takeover and the spread of Sharia law can be traced back to an old document of questionable authority and relevance, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Dated May 22, 1991, it was found in 2004 by the F.B.I., buried in one of a large number of boxes uncovered during a search of a house in northern Virginia. (I reported on the discovery and the use of the document for my book “Freedom of Speech: Mightier than the Sword.”) It is cited on numerous Web sites, and in articles, videos, and training materials, which quote one another in circular arguments. Its illusion of importance was enhanced by federal prosecutors, who included it in a trove of documents introduced into evidence in the 2007 trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization ultimately convicted of sending money to Hamas.

The memo, however, is far from probative. It was never subjected to an adversarial test of its authenticity or significance. Examined closely, it does not stand up as an authoritative prescription for action. Rather, it appears to have been written as a plea to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership for action, by an author we know little about, Mohamed Akram. He is listed elsewhere as a secretary in the Brotherhood, but he writes in the tone of an underling. Islam watchers do not quote his appeal that the recipients “not rush to throw these papers away due to your many occupations and worries. All that I’m asking of you is to read them and to comment on them.” These lines reveal the memo as a mere proposal, now twenty-four years old. No other copies have come to light.

You don't have anything of any substance here. I am not going to bother reading anything other than primary source documents if it's on Steve Emerson's website. He's a nut. discoverthenetworks.org is another loony bin which I don't need to bother with. That you've wasted so much of your own time, and by extension, mine, trying to prove these silly claims by using such crappy sources is rather sad in and of itself.

Essentially, you are grasping at straws using the analysis of fringe nutters, and vague pronouncements from law enforcement that don't mean what you want them to mean. CAIR certainly has some times to Hamas, but that's not appreciably different in my view than the number of Irish-American organizations with ties to the IRA. It's a wholly different charge than that of being a covert agent for the Muslim Brotherhood secretly trying to take over America. None of your evidence supports this view.

And you're digging back to the '60s to try and tie the MSA to the Brotherhood? It's a highly decentralized organization, really just a set of largely autonomous groups that share the same name. That some MB members were involved at the outset means it's a MB front 50 years later makes about as much sense as arguing that every business, and all affiliates of said business, that the mafia was somehow involved in 50 years ago are all fronts for the mob in 2017. It's lazy reasoning.

It's impossible to take you seriously at this point. You are taking evidence that reflects poorly and suggests, but doesn't prove, one thing, and claiming it proves another thing that's totally different. As I said, you're obviously filling your head with shit from the likes of Steve Emerson and have made your mind up sans evidence, and are now just tossing out as much crap as you can. This whole thread has clearly just been a platform for you to push your agenda, not to have any kind of serious engagement.

A variety of sources including court documents and the Link Magazine thus even quoting Nihad Awad which by weight of evidence has shown:

Muslim Brotherhood--IAP--CAIR
Muslim Brotherhood--IAP--MSA

3 Founding members of CAIR were members of the Islamic Association of Palestine a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood

Apart from what the New Yorker claims it is not relevant to whether or not the MSA and CAIR are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

I will quote from the New Yorker as follows:

The memo, however, is far from probative. It was never subjected to an adversarial test of its authenticity or significance. Examined closely, it does not stand up as an authoritative prescription for action. Rather, it appears to have been written as a plea to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership for action, by an author we know little about, Mohamed Akram. END OF QUOTE

The memo in question is on a few websites in Arabic translated to English.
See here
http://australian-news.net/uploads/kcfinder/file/An Explanatory Memorandum.pdf

Mohamed Akram is also known as Mohamed Adlouni for the Shuria Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, The New Yorker should have known this

This I recall was an introductory letter referring to a long term plan approved and adopted by the Shuria Council in 1987.
See page 4 of the English translation


The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.




I have no comment as to whether this is genuine or not because this is not the issue.

Whether they are autonomous or as one group they clearly link to each other. The MSA is loosely managed in a number of chapters but that does not break the link between the stated organisations or the ideology though there would be differing views as with any groups.

 

[Warpoet]

Again, you see what you want to see and manipulate the evidence to reflect that. You have no evidence that CAIR or MSA are part of the Muslim Brotherhood. The document you are citing was a wet dream written up by some guy with no real authority to dictate anything. It's certainly not evidence, of any sort, that CAIR or the MSA are working to replace democracy with Sharia. The only sources of who view it as such are the sort of batshit crazy, right-wing nutjobs whose warped worldview you've allowed yourself to be sucked into - only you don't even realize that's what's happened.

I asked you to meet a very clear standard of evidence to match a very serious and specific set of claims. You've roundly failed to do so. You have next to nothing regarding one organization you've smeared, and on the other, you've shown that some may have been involved in Hamas financing and the MB may have played a part there, but nothing close to proving that they're a "front" for the MB.

You've failed to back up your claim, WP. But, like I've said several times now, you aren't being rational and certainly aren't likely to acknowledge this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Again, you see what you want to see and manipulate the evidence to reflect that. You have no evidence that CAIR or MSA are part of the Muslim Brotherhood. The document you are citing was a wet dream written up by some guy with no real authority to dictate anything. It's certainly not evidence, of any sort, that CAIR or the MSA are working to replace democracy with Sharia. The only sources of who view it as such are the sort of batshit crazy, right-wing nutjobs whose warped worldview you've allowed yourself to be sucked into - only you don't even realize that's what's happened.

I asked you to meet a very clear standard of evidence to match a very serious and specific set of claims. You've roundly failed to do so. You have next to nothing regarding one organization you've smeared, and on the other, you've shown that some may have been involved in Hamas financing and the MB may have played a part there, but nothing close to proving that they're a "front" for the MB.

You've failed to back up your claim, WP. But, like I've said several times now, you aren't being rational and certainly aren't likely to acknowledge this.

The documentation is very clear. They were formed by the Muslim Brotherhood Offshoot. The link is direct and it would hold up in any court of law as they did but this in itself does not lead to conviction for we have free speech


What I did say is these groups are linked and per some of the records and even one Muslim publication these groups don't have a problem.

The evidence of their actions has come in the form of censorship.

I haven't checked to see if any of these groups are trying to replace US or Western Law with Sharia. That does not exclude me ruling out any possibilities. In my own view I believe if I dig further this could be possible.

However on one thread in 2008, I supported the right of Muslim groups to use Sharia for the purpose of arbitration, just like the Christian, Jewish and working courts. Sharia is legal in the UK under the 1996 Arbitration Act. I've also worked with Sharia Law (Contracts for construction and for employment) when I was in the Middle East.

The laws were okay but there was a lack of enforcement.


Here is one reply from MAT(Muslim Arbitration Tribunal)

You are right to point out nothing is written about whether the lawyer sitting as a panel member has to be a Muslim. In this respect, what we have decided is that any lawyer (Muslim or non-Muslim) has to be approved to be on our panel.

What we did not want is an individual who may wish to undermine the whole process, and this would apply equally to a lawyer who is from a different sect of Islam. Providing the individual is committed to the aims of MAT, we see no problem with their personal religion. Indeed we already have one non-Muslim lawyer from Scotland who is interested in helping and has contacted us, but we cannot perform our service there as the Arbitration Act 1996 does not yet apply to Scotland.

He is very knowledgeable about Islamic matters and is very sincere in his intentions, thus we see no problem with him sitting.

I agree with your observation about keeping a record of decisions and allowing other arbitrators to see them with a view to seeking guidance or research. We were not keen to publicise decisions through means such as the internet.

Also, just to let you know, some non-Muslims use MAT because of low costs and speed of proceedings.

However Sharia courts operating outside UK Law would be a problem.

However, while these groups are covered under freedom of association and free speech my understanding is they are also censoring the speech of others.
I quoted a reference on this earlier on.

 

[Warpoet]

The documentation is very clear. They were formed by the Muslim Brotherhood Offshoot. The link is direct and it would hold up in any court of law as they did but this in itself does not lead to conviction for we have free speech

And yet, you are forced to go digging through nutty, unreliable right-wing blogs and websites to source this information. The only evidence you've come up with that deserves any attention comes from law enforcement, but virtually all of it deals with something other than what you claimed, and more than one judge has reprimanded law enforcement over its handling of said evidence. You've not shown any "direct link" to the MB for either group. All you've shown is that some members of CAIR may have given money to Hamas, and the MB may have helped facilitate it. Totally different than proving that they're both "fronts."

I'm sick of repeating myself and of your constant attempts at changing the subject away from your claim. This isn't about either group's attempts at "censorship." You made a serious accusation, produced shoddy evidence to back it up, ignored the problems with said evidence and now pretend you've validated your claim. That's what you're here for, clearly: to preach your worldview, and ramble on endlessly, not engage seriously.

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and you've had many chances to salvage your credibility here, but you've wasted them all.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Also, just to let you know, some non-Muslims use MAT because of low costs and speed of proceedings.

However Sharia courts operating outside UK Law would be a problem.

Are those tribunals not basic arbitration where both sides mutually pick an arbiter that happens to follow Sharia law, and whose decisions must then go through approval by real legitimate courts? If so, it seems weird to me that anybody who is not muslim would want a muslim sharia arbiter instead of just another arbiter who isn't.

Are they getting public funding or something? Why are they cheaper? Are they subsidizing through mosques? Working at lower rates for religious reasons?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Also, just to let you know, some non-Muslims use MAT because of low costs and speed of proceedings.

However Sharia courts operating outside UK Law would be a problem.

Are those tribunals not basic arbitration where both sides mutually pick an arbiter that happens to follow Sharia law, and whose decisions must then go through approval by real legitimate courts? If so, it seems weird to me that anybody who is not muslim would want a muslim sharia arbiter instead of just another arbiter who isn't.

Are they getting public funding or something? Why are they cheaper? Are they subsidizing through mosques? Working at lower rates for religious reasons?

The arbitration must not violate (UK) Law as covered under the Arbitration Act. It covers work disputes, community, religious and business. It is possible for 2 non Muslims to attend arbitration over a business dispute.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Whether or not CAIR/MSA have the right priorities is a wholly separate issue. This is akin to arguing that because a large socialist, or simply left-wing organization, had individual members with ties to Russia, the entire organization was merely an extension of the Soviet Union. Logic such as this was used often and loudly during the Cold War, usually without any sound evidence behind it, and it ruined the livelihoods and reputations of a lot of people unjustly.

That was the '50s and '60s; it's 2017 now and there's even less excuse to be doing the same. As I said before, the standards of evidence don't change because we're talking about Muslims, and you haven't met them. Your evidence does not indicate that either MSA or CAIR are Muslim Brotherhood front groups. The evidence re: MSA doesn't come within a mile of that, and you've only shown that individual members of CAIR have connections mostly as a means to send money to Hamas, which is different. Everything else you've pointed to is either heavily biased, poorly researched, outright wrong or all of the above. Including your wiki link, which is drawing off of a 25-year-old document of dubious authenticity that doesn't really mean much of anything. If this is the best you can come up with we should probably just stop this now.

So I'm sorry, but I say you need to either retract your claim or at the very least acknowledge that you aren't able to substantiate it.

CAIR has set up Chapters. Just like a company with branches or franchise organisations individuals will be charged and not always the head office. The individuals I mentioned were the head of CAIR who were members of the IAP. This is in their own magazine which I quoted.


If you think the US courts I mentioned are poorly researched I don't think so. There may be incomplete information but certainly not poorly researched in all cases.

It isn't established beyond a shadow of doubt but it is by weight of evidence.

Have you applied the same standard of proof for the Clarion Project?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are those tribunals not basic arbitration where both sides mutually pick an arbiter that happens to follow Sharia law, and whose decisions must then go through approval by real legitimate courts? If so, it seems weird to me that anybody who is not muslim would want a muslim sharia arbiter instead of just another arbiter who isn't.

Are they getting public funding or something? Why are they cheaper? Are they subsidizing through mosques? Working at lower rates for religious reasons?

The arbitration must not violate (UK) Law as covered under the Arbitration Act. It covers work disputes, community, religious and business. It is possible for 2 non Muslims to attend arbitration over a business dispute.

Yes, same as here in Canada. But you said that some non-muslims were using these "Sharia Courts" (they are not courts) because they are quicker and cheaper. I am curious if this is true or why this would be. The system here is that you can pick whoever you mutually agree on as an arbiter, be it somebody versed in sharia law or somebody who decides based on flipping a coin or any other mechanism you all agree on. So why go to sharia if you are not muslim? And why say it is cheaper and quicker that way? Are the Sharia arbiters subsidized by public money? Are they funded by mosques? Are they given special leniency from courts on what will be acceptable or fast tracked by courts int he approval process?

 

[Warpoet]

CAIR has set up Chapters. Just like a company with branches or franchise organisations individuals will be charged and not always the head office. The individuals I mentioned were the head of CAIR who were members of the IAP. This is in their own magazine which I quoted.

Already dealt with. Flimsy guilt by association argument, built off of even flimsier evidence with little to no substance.

It isn't established beyond a shadow of doubt but it is by weight of evidence.

No it's not. You've got your thumb on the scale, because you clearly decided that both groups were MB fronts long ago, based primarily on the "analysis" of the junk sources you've been reaching for, not the facts.

Have you applied the same standard of proof for the Clarion Project?

Yes. The Clarion Project actively engages in the dissemination of Islamophobic propaganda, is funded by known Islamophobes and has board members who openly believe insane, conspiratorial shit and make virtually no effort to hide their disdain for Muslims as a group. Hence, my characterization of them as a loony bin with no credibility is accurate and borne out by the evidence. Your characterization of two prominent American Muslim groups as Muslim Brotherhood fronts is not borne out by the evidence.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Already dealt with. Flimsy guilt by association argument, built off of even flimsier evidence with little to no substance.

It isn't established beyond a shadow of doubt but it is by weight of evidence.

No it's not. You've got your thumb on the scale, because you clearly decided that both groups were MB fronts long ago, based primarily on the "analysis" of the junk sources you've been reaching for, not the facts.

Have you applied the same standard of proof for the Clarion Project?

Yes. The Clarion Project actively engages in the dissemination of Islamophobic propaganda, is funded by known Islamophobes and has board members who openly believe insane, conspiratorial shit and make virtually no effort to hide their disdain for Muslims as a group. Hence, my characterization of them as a loony bin with no credibility is accurate and borne out by the evidence. Your characterization of two prominent American Muslim groups as Muslim Brotherhood fronts is not borne out by the evidence.

It is not guilt by association if those from the Muslim Brotherhood branch (IAP) would found and actively involve in the MSA and CAIR.
By their own statements including an Arab Muslim magazine which I quoted further forwards this.

It has Muslims on its boards and rightly shows atrocities in Islamist states which the MSA and CAIR have avoided. MSA and CAIR as I quoted earlier have tried to censor the Honour Diaries as I mentioned.

Your statements about the Clarion project are too generalised to forma views. . There may be Islamophobia on the part of some and a lack of Islamophilia on the part of others. It would be better if CAIR and the MSA extend more than an occasional condemnation of such atrocities (recently in meetings) and participate with others in reforms rather than censorship.

There is no evidence the Clarion project is against Islam but that it is against radical Islam and supports Muslims who are
This is the original website at the beginning of the thread

https://clarionproject.org/five-americans-who-are-standing-up-against-radical-islam/
Five Americans Who Are Standing Up Against Radical Islam

CAIR and the MB are They are free to associate with the MB and Hamas; it's a free society but their attitudes regarding censorship are not acceptable. In fact they are rooted in Hamas and the MB and share the same trough but also we have the Arab saying: أول الشجرة بذرة A tree starts with a seed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They would certainly gain more ground and garner more empathy if they didn't speak against free speech. It seems to be working against their own stated objectives.

 

[whichphilosophy]

They would certainly gain more ground and garner more empathy if they didn't speak against free speech. It seems to be working against their own stated objectives.

There are a lot of Muslims who are seeking reforms in the Islamic world but I tried to find out if

CAIR states it has issued more than 100 releases that condemn terrorism

https://www.cair.com/about-us/cair-anti-terrorism-campaigns.html

The only issue is that CAIRand MSA are going against it's policies where it is seeking to suppress free speech (showing of the honour diaries)

While claiming it is not protesting the content the film it is against the backers. However it seems to be more concerned about the Clarion Project rather than the content.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKV9TDXU9EI

There are two against the CAIR representative but I think shooting the messenger rather than the message is an error.




http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/muslim-campaign-against-domestic-violence-kicks-off-1.1387448

 

[Warpoet]

It is not guilt by association if those from the Muslim Brotherhood branch (IAP) would found and actively involve in the MSA and CAIR.

I already explained, in great detail, the problems with your sources regarding all three groups. I'm not going over them again because you didn't listen the first three times.

There is no evidence the Clarion project is against Islam but that it is against radical Islam

Nope. I conclusively demonstrated otherwise, several pages ago, far further back than anybody is willing to go read.

I'm tired of going around in circles with you about this. You can't defend the source you quoted in the OP, and you can't back up your accusations against prominent Muslim organizations. And you aren't interested in doing so. Like most of the people who start hobby horse threads here, particularly about Islam, you've got an agenda and aren't about to let pesky things like facts get in the way of it.

There are a handful of people on this board who possess the intellectual honesty to approach issues rationally, and to admit when they are wrong, even if it takes them awhile. If nothing else, this discussion has made it crystal that you don't belong to that group.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There are two against the CAIR representative but I think shooting the messenger rather than the message is an error.

It is kind of weird seeing people explicitly admit that they are doing that, as the lady in that first vid you posted does. Adhom is all this is? They seek to discredit not because of anything said but because of who says it?