Buried Videos and Documents in Backyard of Co-Conspirator Show HAMAS Links

By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

Dallas, TX—The Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial resumed this Monday with hours of video evidence, some of which had been buried in the backyard of unindicted co-conspirator Fawaz Mushtaha, a former resident of a Northern Virginia suburb of Washington DC.

The videos show HLF fundraising festivals (involving singing, lectures and sermons, presumably for charitable purposes), including one in which defendant Muhammad El Mezain is sandwiched between two leaders of HAMAS at that time, Mahmoud al Zahar and Jamil Hamami. Along with Mezain, several other defendants in the trial are clearly visible.

Mufid Abdulqader, a member of the musical troupe al-Sakra can be seen performing at these festivals where crowds chanted slogans such as a "A peaceful solution is not acceptable!” and “Khaybar, Khaybar ya yahud. Jaish Muhammed soufa ya’oud!” (“O Jews of Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning!”) ***

Skits were performed on stage at the festivals, including one that portrayed Israeli soldiers shooting at Palestinian children as well a skit starring defendant Abdulqader as a HAMAS activist who chokes a Jew in one skit and stabs an Israeli soldier in another.

One such festival in Los Angeles shows clips of speeches from Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, the charismatic Palestinian cleric who was close with and greatly influenced Osama Bin-Laden in the 1980s. (Azzam was also a popular speaker at Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) conferences; IAP is an unindicted co-consopirator in this case).

What to Do about Tehran's Money Laundering

By Michael Jacobson

I had a piece in the Jerusalem Post yesterday on ways to ratchet up the financial pressure against Iran.

As the US presses for a stronger UN Security Council resolution on Iran, the Treasury Department continues its international outreach to highlight Iran's illicit financial activity. While the Treasury-led campaign has achieved considerable success, this initiative would be far more effective if the US was not the only voice decrying the risk that Iran's deceptive practices pose to the global financial system.

Over the past year and a half, senior Treasury officials have traveled the world, briefing their finance ministry counterparts and the private sector on the range of Iran's deceptive financial activity. This includes: Iran's use of front companies; frequent requests by Iranian state-owned banks to remove their names from financial transactions; and the involvement of these same banks in Iran's nuclear and missile programs and terrorist financing.

In light of this, the Treasury Department has argued that doing business with Iran is a risky endeavor, and could ultimately cause great reputational harm to those associated with the regime.

To read the rest of the piece, click here

Pakistan: Another Mosque Painted Red, Islamic Revolution Feared

By Animesh Roul

Embattled Cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz recently said “There are many Ghazis (His brother and Deputy who was killed during Op Silence at Red Mosque) living to be martyred” […] "God willing, Pakistan will have an Islamic revolution soon."

To predict or think of an impending Islamic Revolution in Pakistan is not at all a hard task now. Even keen observers of developments in Pakistan would agree what the cleric said. Self exiled leader Benezir Bhutto guessed it too sitting hundred miles away from the land. The fear of Islamic Revolution which might erupt from religious seminaries or madrassas, is gaining ground as things are shaping up in Pakistan, especially after the fall of Red Mosque. The military operation and subsequent fall of Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) early this month actually have galvanized radical sentiments in Pakistan. This has been fuelled and coupled by anti Musharraf and anti-US wave prevalent in the region including in neighboring Afghanistan. Though it had little effect on neighboring India so far.

In the latest turn of events, on July 28, hundreds of pro-Taliban militants have occupied Turangzai Sahib Mosque located in Lakaro, a tribal dominated area in northwest of Peshawar. The militants later painted the structure in red colour and renamed the Mosque as Red Mosque, similar to the besieged Islamabad mosque. The militants were reportedly vowed to continue the legacy of cleric Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi, deputy head of Red Mosque who died during the military operation in Islamabad and establish seminaries on the lines of Jamia Hafsa and Jamia Faridia soon at Lakaro. The move came following July 27 reopening of Red Mosque and subsequent suicide bombing near a restaurant where around 15 people got killed, mostly security personnel. The suicde attack took place after pro-Taliban elements tried to reoccupy the Lal Masjid (that time it was painted Yellow by government agencies) during evening Friday prayers.

Why the militant choose Turangzai Sahib Mosque? Militants knew that this is the appropriate place to start an Islamic revolution as Turangzai (Lakaro Mosque is named after him) known as “forbearer of Islamic reform in the Frontier Pakistan,” was a religious and nationalist leader who led Pashtun fighters against the British in early 1900s. A detailed study on Turangzai’s life and his revolutionary contribution would be imperative here to understand how and why militants drew inspiration from Turangza’si life and teachings. This is certainly a matter of concern that militants got their much needed martyrs in Turangzai and Maulana Ghazi. More religious seminaries will be under militant’s control soon. Pro-Taliban Militants will occupy major learning centers in Peshwar (e.g. Islamia college) and in Wazirstan and Tribal dominated areas near Afghanistan border. More difficult times for Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf (with or without Bhutto ) and his cohorts are certainly on the cards.

Muzammil the "Moderate"

By Steven Emerson

Continuing in its efforts to help sanitize radical Muslims and present them as mainstream voices, the Washington Post and Newsweek, in their “On Faith” blog, published a piece from long-time Imam of the Islamic Society of Orange County, Muzammil Siddiqi.

“On Faith” describes Siddiqi as involved in “inter-faith initiatives, including participation in an inter-faith prayer service with President George W. Bush” and as the “Chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, a body tasked with interpreting religious law throughout the continent.” (For more information on the pro-terrorism background of the Fiqh Council, read, “The American Islamic Leaders' 'Fatwa' is Bogus").

And speaking of that Fatwa, Siddiqi writes in his post:

Terrorism, suicide bombings or any other kind of bombings, shootings or violence that target civilians are totally forbidden in Islam and there is no justification for these acts. A body of Muslim jurists known as the Fiqh Council of North America has issued a strong Fatwa (religious ruling) against terrorism and suicide bombing. This Fatwa has been endorsed by hundreds of Islamic centers and mosques throughout North America.

If we are to trust that Siddiqi really believes what he writes, one would expect to find a string of denunciations by Siddiqi against terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who have specifically targeted civilians for murder. Yet not only has that never happened (nor does the Fiqh Council’s “anti-terrorism” fatwa name Hamas, Hezbollah or any Islamic terrorist group), but when Siddiqi was President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 1997, his organization received special thanks from Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who wrote that ISNA supported him through his jailing and extradition process, writing that such efforts “consoled” him. (That fact is likely one of the many reasons why federal prosecutors named ISNA an un-indicted co-conspirator in the current trial against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.)

And Siddiqi has made numerous pro-jihad statements in the past and has denied that 9/11 was carried about by Muslims.

In a video recording, made roughly 15 years ago, obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), Siddiqi exhorted the successes of violent jihad, proclaiming:

When people really carry on Jihad, they carry on the Islam in its peak in its totality. And that’s why in the hadith the Prophet (SAS) said (Arabic), ‘No people have ever neglected Jihad except they became humiliated.’ And people leave, renounce Jihad, they became humiliated. That means in order to gain the honor, Jihad is the path, Jihad is the way to receive the honor.

[…]

The most first and foremost the most important effect of Jihad on Afghanistan on the Muslim Ummah at large because I do not see that Jihad of Afghanistan, only the victory of the Afghan people. Certainly it is the victory of the Afghan people, but I see it as the victory of the Muslim Ummah at large. I see it as the victory of Islam and in that sense it brings, aychsa, dignity and honor to the whole Muslim Ummah.

I can see that there is already some impact after Jihad in Afghanistan in the Intifada movement in Palestine. With this, more courage, more strength, more confidence and shall I even say that in a few years we will be celebrating with each other the victory of Islam in Palestine. Insh’allah, we shall be celebrating the coming of the Masjid al-Aqsa under the Islamic rule. We shall be celebrating insh’allah the coming of Jerusalem and the whole land of Palestine insh’allah and the establishment of the Islamic State throughout that area.

And as I first reported in American Jihad, at the Jerusalem Day Rally in Washington DC, October 28, 2000, Siddiqi said:

The people of Palestine, they were not given the right to return to their homes and to their land, like any refugees. Any people that you find that have occupied land, they have the right to return to their own land, they are not given that right. They are not given that right to go back. Jerusalem, which is the heart of the whole issue, Jerusalem has not been solved. There have been all types of accuses (sic) have been made. The land of Aqsa, the land of Jerusalem, is the land that belongs to Muslims.

The United States of America is directly and indirectly responsible for the plight of the Palestinian people. Our government is responsible for plenty of the injustice that is going on there. The United States is the greatest supporter of Israel – economically, militarily, and politically. We give billions of dollars to the State of Israel.

Our Congress and our media is blaming the victims, not the oppressors. The Palestinian demonstrators are not violent people. The violent people are those who are oppressing them day and night and for many years. We want to say to our government to respect the right of the Palestinian people. Do not be the blind supporters of oppressors. And al-Aqsa, my brothers and sisters, is our sacred mosque. It belongs to Islam. It belongs to all the Muslims of the world, 1.5 billion Muslims of the world, it belongs to them. We cannot accept any type to the al-Aqsa mosque. We cannot give up Jerusalem. Jerusalem belongs to Islam. We want justice and peace. We want justice for ourselves and as for everyone else. We do not want anyone mistreated. We want respect for all holy places and for all people.

We want our government to be on the side of justice and not on the side of oppression. We want our government not to be a blind supporter of Israel. We want our government to stop feeding the Israeli war machinery. We want to awaken the conscience of America. America has to learn that because if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please! Please all Americans, do you remember that, that Allah is watching everyone. God is watching everyone. If you continue doing injustice, and tolerating injustice, the wrath of God will come.

In the comments to Siddiqi’s post, he is asked whether he said the above (in particular, “America has to learn ... if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please, all Americans. Do you remember that? ... If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come.” By “injustice,” he meant U.S. support for Israel.”) and Siddiqi replied that the “statement is mutilated and distorted.”

Rather than being “mutilated and distorted,” Siddiqi said exactly that and more, calling for the destruction of Israel by “peaceful” means (the right of return), as well as violent means, supporting the violent jihad of the Palestinian terrorist groups and their suicide bombings, that Siddiqi euphemistically calls an “uprising,” and further stated that Jerusalem belongs to Muslims and Muslims alone, justifying violence to acquire it, which is all in contrast to his message of brotherly love and inter-faith relations that the Post and Newsweek uncritically published.

In a September 2002 speech at an ISNA convention, Siddiqi stated of 9/11, well after Osama Bin Laden took credit for the attacks:

It is, the point is that we said, whosoever did it, we condemn it. We did not say it is Muslims who did it. We did not say this and that. But the point is that whosoever did it, it was wrong. And this is a basic point … We cannot say in surety whoever did it or not. But the point is that if the name of Islam is taken, we have to clarify the name of Islam.

Yet Siddiqi’s radicalism is not limited to his own statements, but also to the company he keeps. In January of this year, the New Yorker published an article profiling a famous former congregant at Siddiqi’s mosque, Adam Gadahn (a.k.a. Azzam the American), which included the fact that Siddiqi had hosted the notorious Blind Sheikh to speak about jihad:

In December, 1992, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a prominent Egyptian cleric and Islamic radical also known as the Blind Sheikh, visited the Islamic Society to lecture about jihad, and Siddiqi sat beside him to translate. Abdel Rahman dismissed nonviolent definitions of jihad as weak. He stressed that a number of unspecified enemies had “united themselves against Muslims” and that fighting them was obligatory. “If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah,” he said. The opportunities for jihad were virtually everywhere, ranging from apostate Middle Eastern regimes to “those who are taking the wealth of Muslims from petrol or from oil.” As he spoke, a red toolbox, with a slit cut into its lid for donations, was passed around the room. Videotapes of the lecture were later offered for sale at the society’s bookstore. (emphasis added)

Several months afterward, Abdel Rahman was indicted for helping to plot the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. One of his fatwas, issued from prison in 1998, became central to Al Qaeda’s justification of mass violence. (When I asked J. Stephen Tidwell, the assistant director of the F.B.I.’s Los Angeles division, about Siddiqi’s association with Abdel Rahman, he said, “We have a very strong relationship with Dr. Siddiqi. You do have to put it into the context of back then.” Siddiqi told me that Abdel Rahman “was touring, and some people insisted that he should be there.”

Also of note is the FBI’s insistence, despite copious evidence of his radicalism, of partnering with Siddiqi. This problem of legitimizing radical Muslims goes far beyond the media's involvement: it extends right up through the highest levels of our top law enforcement agency.

Once again, sadly, we are left to come to the same conclusion: one must be very suspicious when the media and the FBI tell you they have found, or are dealing with, mainstream Muslim leaders, involved in “inter-faith” activities. They are often suckers for polite smiles and Western business suits, but pull back the covers, and the truth is, all too often, much more sinister.

« Close It

The Muslim Brotherhood and Tomorrow's Jordanian Municipal Elections

By David Schenker

Tomorrow, Jordanians go to the polls for municipal elections. The Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s political party—the Islamic Action Front (IAF)—boycotted the last local elections in 2003, but will participate tomorrow. The local elections are a tune-up for the November parliamentary elections in Jordan. In this regard, IAF performance tomorrow will be a harbinger of what’s to come in November.

Given regional trends--Hamas’ Gaza takeover a little more than a month ago, and last week’s landslide victory for the Islamist-leaning Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the Turkish national elections--these elections will be important to watch.

I have a longer article on the significance of these elections titled “Jordan's Islamists and Municipal Elections: Confirmation of a Problematic Trend?” published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In a related development, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas gave a press conference last week where he said he would be working on changing the Palestinian Election Law, eliminating the two vote system (one constituency vote, one national vote) in favor of a one-man one-vote system. Hamas’ 2006 landslide victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections was largely attributable to this law.

If Abbas succeeds in changing the law, the Palestinian Elections Law will look more like Jordan's. The Jordanian law was first adopted by King Hussein to limit Islamist success at the ballot box. It worked, so much so that in 2001 Salem Falahat, who now serves as secretary general of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, described this voting policy as a “black flag in the history of Jordanian democracy.” The IAF is still trying to convince King Abdullah to change the law, which they describe as "undemocratic."

The Muslim Brotherhood posted an article expressing concern about this prospective change in the Palestinian law on its website last week.

Lessons From the Past for Iraq and Afghanistan

By Douglas Farah

I recently spent a week in my old stomping grounds, El Salvador, from whence I covered the nearly-forgotten wars of the 1980s. I was able to talk to many of my friends from both sides of the bloody conflict about the war, tactics, intelligence and strategy.

For a brief refresher, the FMLN, Marixist-led and backed by the Sandinistas and Cuba, fought the US-backed government and army there for 10 years (although the rebel movements actually started several years earlier). The US was putting in $1.5 billon a year at the peak, not much by today's standards, but a significant amount in a country that is the size of Massachusetts.

The war ended with a negotiated settlement that fundamentally altered the political landscape, enfranchised the rebels as a political party and brought about basic reforms, but nothing like a revolution.

What I found striking were two things that ought to be kept in mind in the current irregular conflicts.

The first is that almost every one of the combatants on the different sides of the conflict took up weapons because someone they cared about was killed by the other side.

The leadership on both sides had clearly defined political agendas and strategies, but particularly the FMLN would never have gained the strength to almost win the war in the years if the civilian deaths had not driven thousands of people into their arms. There, they fought for revenge or self protection, far more than ideology.

The ranks of the military and paramilitary groups likewise grew when the FMLN began its campaign of selective assassination and the indiscriminate use of land mines. Again, the driving force is not the ideological decision to support the government or army, but the decision to strike back at people who had hurt one's family. My full blog is here.

Yet Another Group of British Homegrown Jihadists Sentenced to Jail

By Evan Kohlmann

In yet another landmark legal case in the United Kingdom regarding Internet-based terrorism, a judge in London has sentenced a group of five British-born youngsters to a total of 13 years in prison for conspiring to use the web in order to accumulate vast amounts of terrorist propaganda in hopes of eventually traveling to Pakistan and joining Al-Qaida's forces there. The convicted defendants--Mohammed Irfan Raja, Usman Malik, Aitzaz Zafar, Awaab Iqbal, and Akbar Butt--were all between the ages of 17-21 and had made contact with each other through an Internet chatroom. In explaining his decision, Judge Peter Beaumont admonished the defendants: "Each of you is British. You were born here, your families lived here, you went to school and university here, you hold British passports. You live under the protection of its laws, which give you freedom of speech and religious observance, yet each of you were prepared to break its laws. Why? Because in my judgment you were intoxicated by the extremist nature of the material each one of you collected - the songs, images and the language of violent jihad - and so carried away by that material were you that each of you crossed the line. That is exactly what the people that peddle this material want to achieve and exactly what you did... To stop them and you and to protect this country and its citizens abroad, a message has to be sent."

This past spring, I was formally requested by the United Kingdom Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to help identify and assess the swath of extremist material seized from defendants Raja, Malik, Zafar, Iqbal, and Butt. As a result of my analysis, I produced a 27-page expert report, in which I concluded:

"...The cached material is generally of fairly recent origin and thematically tracks the most extreme wings of Al-Qaida in Iraq and Saudi Arabia that have specialized in fringe tactics such as beheadings and suicide bombings. There is a specific, disturbing emphasis on rituals associated with suicide bombers and justifying such sacrificial actions, even when they result in the deaths of innocent civilians. It is not simply a matter of one or two items easily located via general searches on the Internet, but rather an extensive and impressive reference library of terrorist-related documents and videos that would require many concentrated hours of browsing and downloading to assemble... significantly more than one would expect from a mere curious websurfer with a 'passing interest'... The evidence... communicates the general aims and ideology of Al-Qaida and affiliated groups to a wide, global audience; it further communicates specific guidance on the use of Al-Qaida’s preferred military tactics such as suicide bombings; it fosters a sense of organization and purpose for isolated extremists living in Western countries who are drawn to Al-Qaida; and, finally, it encourages even those who have no direct connection to Al-Qaida to join its cause and execute military operations on its behalf around the world, including the use of suicide bombings."

My findings were based upon the presence of a number of specific items that I outlined in my report, including a vast quantity of material acquired from a shadowy online organization known as At-Tibyan Publications. In the wake of the demise of Azzam Publications in late 2002, At-Tibyan has gradually taken over as the premier source of English-language terrorist propaganda. The group maintained a popular English-language Internet discussion forum for jihad supporters living in the West which has been locked with user passwords since at least late 2005 in an attempt to evade law enforcement scrutiny. Mirroring the role of the now-absent Azzam Publications, At-Tibyan also produced its own original online content—primarily translations of mujahideen recruitment material obtained from Al-Qaida commanders in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Rather than merely translating news reports or offering background on particular military operations, At-Tibyan focused on distributing ideological material designed to convince likeminded individuals to sacrifice their lives in the cause of jihad. For instance, it was At-Tibyan Publications that was responsible for producing an English-language edition of the notorious Al-Qaida in Iraq propaganda video “The Battle of Omar Hadid”, a copy of which was found in the possession of the four jailed Britons. The men also had in their custody what appeared to be saved HTML web pages from the At-Tibyan online discussion forum, wherein “various members [are] discussing their religion. One, an Ibn El Sheikh talks about being famous when he has gone… [there are] long heated discussions between the following [users], Abu Dujanah, al-Muwahhid, c4explosive re: killing women and children.” No less significant was another At-Tibyan-translated document found with the defendants in this case: "The Islamic Ruling on the Permissibility of Self-Sacrificial Operations: Suicide or Martyrdom" originally written in Arabic by the founder of Al-Qaida's network in Saudi Arabia, the late Shaykh Youssef al-Ayyiri. Indeed, while Western analysts have been quick to latch on to the name of Abu Musab al-Suri (a.k.a. Mustafa Setmariam Nasar) when it comes to the process of Internet-based homegrown radicalization, terrorism cases such as this one demonstrate that the works of other competing figures within Al-Qaida--such as al-Ayyiri and Abdullah al-Rashood--have (thus far) had a much greater impact in influencing the recruitment of outsiders, especially those living in the West, thanks to the translations produced by At-Tibyan Publications.

NEFA Series "Target America": KSM's Terror Plot to Collapse the Brooklyn Bridge

By Evan Kohlmann

On the heels of the foiled plots targeting Fort Dix and JFK Airport, the Nine Eleven Finding Answers (NEFA) Foundation announces the release of the eighth in a series of reports examining the multitude of threats directed at the United States since 9/11. This week's report focuses on the plot, directed by 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge. Columbus, Ohio truck driver Iyman Faris, who is currently serving a 20 year prison sentence, researched "gas cutters" on the Internet and traveled to NYC to assess the bridge's vulnerabilities before concluding that the plan would likely fail. Faris had been recommended to KSM by Al Qaeda operative Majid Khan, a Baltimore resident now being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Click to view NEFA Report on KSM's terror plot targeting the Brooklyn Bridge

Week of July 16, 2007: Hamas' Military Operations in North America
Week of July 9, 2007: Irhaby007's American Connections
Week of June 25, 2007: The PATH Tunnel Plot
Week of June 18, 2007: The East Coast Buildings Plot
Week of June 11, 2007: The Illinois Shopping Mall Plot
Week of June 4, 2007: The L.A. Plot to Attack U.S. Military and Jewish Targets
Week of June 4, 2007: The Miami Plot to Bomb Federal Buildings and the Sears Tower

Overlooked History: Islam, Warrantless Wiretaps, and Organized Violence

By Jeffrey Breinholt

As a legal researcher, I am constantly amazed at how many modern issues we think are unique to our time have been debated in the past and are discussed in old American court opinions. A few years ago, I wrote a law review article which described this phenomenon in relation to the then-hot debates on the USA PATRIOT Act. In it, I argued that the very same points then being made by critics of American counterterrorism efforts had been tried (and resolved) non-stop over the past 50 years, and that these critics should visit the law library before throwing around such words as “unprecedented.” Lately, in the course of my ongoing research on Islam in the U.S. courts, I stumbled on another set of cases that demonstrate this dynamic. These cases involve whether Islam is, doctrinally, a religion of peace, and the implications and consequences of warrantless wiretapping by the FBI. Sound familiar?

The remarkable thing about these cases is that they include a Supreme Court case and an American icon, Muhammad Ali (nee Cassius Clay), yet - to my knowledge - nobody has mentioned how they relate to modern counterterrorism debates. Here’s what I found:

Amazingly, unlike today, where Islam is mentioned in U.S. court cases on a daily basis, references to the religion did not appear in many American judicial opinions - either federal or state - until the 1960s. Prior to that time, I found one 19th Century case in which a rather ponderous judge engaged in some written philosophical (and irrelevant) musings on the development of law on whether the government should reimburse private parties for land that was destroyed when the government built a canal. Canal Appraisers of State of New York v. People ex rel. Tibbits, 17 Wend. 571, Lock. Rev. Cas. 51, 1836 WL 2823, N.Y., 1836. Then, in the 1950s, a couple of state courts issued opinions in cases where persons wanted to change their names to monikers more appropriate to their Muslim faith. In re Taminosian, 97 Neb. 514, 150 N.W. 824, Am.Ann.Cas. 1917A, 116 (Neb. 915); Application of Wing, 4 Misc.2d 840, 157 N.Y.S.2d 333 (N.Y.City Ct. 1956).

The issue of Islam in American courts started to take hold in the 1960s, mainly arising in two contexts: (1) the religious rights of Muslim individuals incarcerated in American prisons, and (2) the claim by American Muslims that they should be exempted from mandatory service in the U.S. military because of their religious beliefs. Each type of case involved courts struggling with Islamic doctrine, but only the second resulted in the Supreme Court entering squarely into the controversy.

The early Muslim prison cases, by and large, involved the growing popularity of the Nation of Islam (NOI) among incarcerated Americans, where courts tried to decide whether the Black Muslims, then led by Elijah Mohammad, qualified as a religion, as opposed to a nationalist cult. Although the military draft cases also involved the NOI, the courts’ focus was on the sincerity of the individual’s religious beliefs, rather than the relationship between the NOI’s brand of Islam and that practiced by Muslims in other parts of the world. This meant that these cases are more interesting to our current debates about Islam than the prison cases.

The claim of American Muslims to “conscientious objector” exemption from military service was undoubtedly hurt by the first controversy reported in American case books. Wallace Delaney Muhammad was granted contentious objector status in 1955, but he then proceeded to harm the cause of future Muslim-American claimants by informing his draft board in 1957 that he would refuse to participate in meaningful civilian alternative to national security at an Illinois hospital. On May 20, 1958, he was convicted of draft evasion and sentenced to three years in prison. U.S. v. Mohammad, 288 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1961).

The boxer formerly known as Cassius Clay registered for the draft in 1960. In 1964, he converted to Islam and became a member of the Nation of Islam, and thereafter became known as Muhammad Ali. On February 28, 1966, facing induction, he filed a conscientious objector status form with local draft board. Clay v. U.S., 397 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1968). Up to that time, including the Mohammad decision, there had been only four cases of Muslim-Americans claiming conscientious objector status resulting in court decisions. Moore v. U.S., 302 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1962); U.S. v. Taylor, 351 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1965), and U.S. v. Al-Majied Muhammad, 364 F.2d 223 (4th Cir. 1966). Six months later, Ali tried to decrease his odds of going to Vietnam by claiming to be a credentialed minister for the NOI. Clay v. U.S., 397 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1968).

The publicity surrounding his case meant that American courts were, more than in the prison cases, going to have to carefully delve into Islamic doctrine and what it says about the acceptability of violence. And yes, there would be wiretaps.

Ali's claim was used by several other would-be Muslim military inductees of the era. The wording in these claims was so consistent as to suggest either central planning by the NOI or an effort by other draft-eligible Muslims to copy Ali‘s example: he was a Muslim, and he and his fellows did not believe that they should be forced to take part in wars conducted by the United States, unless the Government would agree to give them their own territory, in which event they would have something to fight for. Clay v. U.S., 397 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1968). See also U.S. v. Al-Majied Muhammad, 364 F.2d 223 (4th Cir. 1966); Carson v. U.S., 411 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1969); U.S. v. Orr, 474 F.2d 1365 (2nd Cir 1973); U.S. v. Lemons, 480 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1973)

Ali’s claim did not impress his local draft board in Houston, where he had moved from Kentucky, nor the higher authorities. On March 6, 1967, the Presidential Appeal Board unanimously voted to classify him 1-A. Three weeks later, Local Board No. 61, Houston, Texas ordered Ali to report to it on April 28, 1967, for delivery to the induction station. He reported as ordered, for but declined to submit to induction on the grounds of his religious beliefs as a minister of the Islam Religion. He was indicted on May 8, and convicted June 20, 1967. Clay v. U.S., 397 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1968).

It was then that the wiretaps came into play. It turns out Ali was captured on warrantless FBI electronic surveillance years earlier, talking by phone to some people the FBI was interested in at the time - Elijah Mohammad and Martin Luther King. When this became known, the Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to re-open his case to see if the wiretaps either tainted his prosecution or were helpful to his defense, in which case they should have been turned over to him. Clay v. U.S., 400 U.S. 990, 91 S.Ct. 457 (Mem).

It turned out the wiretaps, which were not court-authorized (this was before FISA), were not related to the issue of Ali’s guilt, though they are interesting historical artifacts.

On March 24, 1964, Ali spoke by phone to Elijah Muhammad. Elijah said he wanted to see Ali as he was going to make a minister out of him when he quit thinking of fighting all the time. Elijah told Ali would make a better minister than a fighter anyhow. Elijah then said he would contact him when he had time to talk to him. Elijah also told him to “keep quiet.” U.S. v. Clay, 386 F.Supp. 926 (S.D. Texas 1969)

On September 4, 1964, Ali spoke by phone to Martin Luther King. King wished him well on his recent marriage. Ali invited King to be his guest at his next championship fight, King said he would like to attend. Ali said that he is keeping up with King that King is his brother, and that he was with him 100 percent but can't take any chances, and that King should take care of himself, that King is known world wide and should “watch out for them whities,” adding that people in Nigeria, Egypt, and Ghani had asked about King. Id.

A federal judge in Houston, on July 14, 1969, found that the wiretaps did not taint the government’s evidence in the Ali prosecution, that he was not entitled to further discovery, and that he did not have the right challenge the legal or constitutional basis for the wiretaps. U.S. v. Clay, 386 F.Supp. 926 (S.D. Texas 1969). On July 6, 1970, this ruling was affirmed on appeal. U.S. v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). It was all set up for the Supreme Court. For the first time in American history, the justices would undertake analysis of Islamic religious doctrine and what it says about individual obligation to undertake or avoid organized violence, as this was relevant to Ali‘s case.

The Court, in another case, had recently determined that the Department of Justice had been using the wrong standard in ruling on conscientious objector claims: if the claims were “political or racial,” they were not religious. The Court concluded that the claimaint's beliefs need not emanate from an actual religioun to qualify, and the test was whether they were held sincerely and were religious-like, even if not styled as part of an organized system of a recognized religious tradition. Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970).

According to the Court in the Ali case, in order to qualify for classification as a conscientious objector, a registrant must satisfy three basic tests: (1) that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form; (2) that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief, as the term has been construed in Supreme Court decisions; and (3) that this objection is sincere. Under recent Supreme Court precedent, the Selective Service System must be concerned with the registrant as an individual, not with its own interpretation of the dogma of the religious sect, if any, to which he may belong.

In the Ali matter, the Department of Justice had had concluded that “the teachings of the Nation of Islam preclude fighting for the United States not because of objections to participation in war in any form but rather because of political and racial objections to policies of the United States as interpreted by Elijah Muhammad. * * * It is therefore our conclusion that registrant's claimed objections to participation in war insofar as they are based upon the teachings of the Nation of Islam, rest on grounds which primarily are political and racial.” However, the Court noted that the record shows that Ali’s beliefs are founded on tenets of the Muslim religion as he understands them, and there was no question that they were sincere. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, “the Department was simply wrong as a matter of law in advising that the petitioner's beliefs were not religiously based and were not sincerely held.” Ali’s conviction was reversed. Clay v. U.S., 403 U.S. 698, 91 S.Ct. 2068 (1971).

The more interesting part of the ruling, in terms of its description of Islamic doctrine, came from the concurring opinion of Justice William Douglas, who used the opportunity to dip into the Holy Koran.

“In the present case there is no line between ‘carnal’ was and ‘spiritual’ or symbolic wars,“ Douglas wrote. “Those who know the history of the Mediterranean littoral know that the jihad of the Moslem was a bloody war.”

Douglas noted that Ali had testified that he was:

sincere in every bit of what the Holy Qur'an and the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad tell us and it is that we are not to participate in wars on the side of nobody who-on the side of non believers, and this is a Christian country and this is not a Muslim country, and the Government and the history and the facts shows that every more toward the Honorable Elijah Muhammad is made to distort and is made to ridicule him and is made to condemn him and the Government has admitted that the police of Los Angeles were wrong about attacking and killing our brothers and sisters and they were wrong in Newark, New Jersey, and they were wrong in Louisiana, and the outright, every day oppressors and enemies are the people as a whole, the whites of this nation. So, we are not, according to the Holy Qur'an, to even as much as aid in passing a cup of water to the-even a wounded. I mean, this is in the Holy Qur'an, and as I said earlier, this is not me talking to get the draft board-or to dodge nothing. This is there before I was borned [sic] and it will be there when I'm dead but we believe in not only that part of it, but all of it.

Justice Douglas then got into the concept of jihad:

O ye who believe! Shall I guide you to a gainful trade which will save you from painful punishment? Believe in Allah and His Apostle and carry on warfare (jihad) in the path of Allah with your possessions and your persons. That is better for you. If ye have knowledge, He will forgive your sins, and will place you in the Gardens beneath which the streams flow, and in fine houses in the Gardens of Eden: that is the great gain.

Thus God propoundeth unto men their examples. When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them; and bind them in bonds; and either give them a free dismission afterwards, or exact a ransom; until the war shall have laid down its arms. This shall ye do. Verily if God pleased he could take vengeance on them, without your assistance; but he commandeth you to fight his battles, that he may prove the one of you by the other. And as to those who fight in defence of God's true religion, God will not suffer their works to perish: he will guide them, and will dispose their heart aright; and he will lead them into paradise, of which he hath told them. O true believers, if ye assist God, by fighting for his religion, he will assist you against your enemies; and will set your feet fast.

Justice Douglas noted that war is not the exclusive type of jihad, and that there is action by the believer's heart, by his tongue, by his hands, as well as by the sword. Regarding the military type, Douglas quoted again from the Islamic scriptures:

The jihad, in other words, is a sanction against polytheism and must be suffered by all non-Muslims who reject Islam, or, in the case of the dhimmis (Scripturaries), refuse to pay the poll tax. The jihad, therefore, may be defined as the litigation between Islam and polytheism; it is also a form of punishment to be inflicted upon Islam's enemies and the renegades from the faith. Thus in Islam, as in Western Christendom, the jihad is the bellum justum.

Far from harming Ali’s claim, this helped him, for Justice Douglas noted that “The jihad in the Moslem's counterpart of the ‘just’ war as it has been known in the West. Neither Clay nor Negre should be subject to punishment because he will not renounce the ‘truth’ of the teaching of his respective church that wars indeed may exist which are just wars in which a Moslem or Catholic has a respective duty to participate…. What Clay's testimony adds up to is that he believes only in war as sanctioned by the Koran, that is to say, a religious war against nonbelievers. All other wars are unjust.”

This wonderful concept meant, to Justice Douglas, that Muhammad Ali was entitled to avoid Vietnam by availing himself of conscientious objector status.

So we have the Supreme Court, in 1971 - a full 30 years before 9/11 - coming to terms with the Islamic concept of jihad, and worrying about the FBI's use of wiretaps (which Justice Douglas, in another opinion of the same era, described as “a dirty business” and a “disease.” Heutsche v. United States, 414 U.S. 898, 899 (1973)).

These cases are more reason, if there were any doubts, that people concerned with the violent underpinnings of Islam and the efficacy of American counterterrorism efforts should renew their library cards.

« Close It

The Growing Saudi Conundrum

By Douglas Farah

Well, six years after 9/11, the Saudis continue to be a major obstacle in the fighting radical Islam, while remaining a necessary partner because of the oil reserves.

Two recent stories shed a clear light on the huge damage the Saudi royal family and business elite continue to do in hindering meaningful progress is shutting down the hate speech, bigotry and twisted theology that drive the _jihadist_ movement, financed by these actors.

The first was in the Wall Street Journal by Glenn Simpson, outlining the role of the al Rajhi family and banking institutions in funding radical Islamists, and what the U.S. knew about the activities.

In every case when U.S. officials could and should have been raising the issue publicly to force action, the administration opted for "quiet diplomacy," resulting in nothing.

While there is only circumstantial evidence the Al Rajhi network directly aided terrorists, it is clear that Islamic banks, while mostly doing legitimate business, are the institutions extremists rely on. Why? In part because they are _sharia_ compliant, and in part because the Islamic banks are largely exempt from Western (pagan) banking regulations, and have virtually no transparency requirements.

The article drops another interesting tidbit in the middle: That Saudi Arabia has never set up the commission, promised several years ago, to oversee Saudi charities, the lifeblood of many Islamist groups.

And, my sources tell me, they never set up the Financial Intelligence Unit either, and there has been virtually no cooperation on the financial side at all. My full blog is here.

Buried Videos Surface in HLF Trial

By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

A Northern Virginia man’s home landscaping chore became evidence Thursday in the terror-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation and five of its officials in Dallas. Marcial Peredo told jurors how he was leveling the yard at his new Falls Church home when he stumbled into a stash of videotapes buried in the ground.

Jurors were not told what was on those tapes, but Peredo testified that he bought the house from Fawaz Mushtaha, an unindicted co-conspirator in the case and the Washington, D.C. representative for the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), an organization with intimate links to HAMAS. (More on Mushtaha below)

The Holy Land Foundation and the five defendants are charged with providing material support to HAMAS, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Jurors also were told that burned videotape cases, cellular telephones, money, and maps were later found in Peredo’s backyard barbeque pit.

FBI Agent Lara Burns also testified Thursday, describing an interview she had with defendant Mufid Abdulqader on April 5, 2002. Abdulqader claimed that, before moving to Dallas in 1995, he didn’t know anybody at HLF except his cousin, co-defendant Akram Mishal. But records seized from HLF offices contradicted Abdulqader’s claim. Prosecutors offered into evidence a 1990 American Express bill in the name of defendant Shukri Abu Baker and the Occupied Land Fund. The bill included travel charges for Abdulqader, who performed in a musical troupe, known as Al Sakra, at fundraisers for HLF throughout the country. The same credit card bill listed identical itineraries for other members of the band.

The Occupied Land Fund was an earlier name for HLF.

Abdulqader also claimed that he was merely a volunteer for HLF and sometimes served as a fundraiser, but that he was never compensated anything more than for travel expenses. Again, documentation from HLF offices seemed to contradict him. Prosecutors presented checks written from HLF to Mufid Abdulqader for “services.” To emphasize the distinction, the government also included checks made out to Abdulqader for “travel.”

The testimony of Agent Burns is expected to last for the next several days. The trial resumes on Monday.

Who is Fawaz Mushtaha?
In addition to his IAP work, Mushtaha was also the president of Light Star Travel Agency in Virginia and contact for The Dar El-Eiman Tour Group which share an address and phone number. Dar El-Eiman identifies itself as a Hajj agency--planning trips to Saudi Arabia. According to their 2002 brochure:

Dar El-Eiman announces that the following well-respected imams and scholars will be accompanying this year’s Hajj Trip.

Among the 4 scholars listed:

**Muhammad al-Hanooti: A former IAP president who gave a speech in 1998 in his capacity as an imam stating:

At the moment, Dar al-Hijra [the name of the mosque he is addressing] is the greatest example in sacrifice, execution and in carrying out the Jihad that Allah calls for. Allah will give us the victory over our tyrannical enemies in our country. Allah, the infidel Americans and British are fighting against you. Allah, the curse of the infidel Americans and British are fighting against you. Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.

**Anwar Aulaqi: Spiritual advisor to two of the 9-11 hijackers (Nawaf Al Hazmi and Khalid Al Mihdhar) both in San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.

**Dr. Salah Sultan: Whose "vision", according to his online resume, is: "To live happily. To die as a martyr." On May 17, 2006, on al-Risala TV, Dr. Sultan praised Yemenite sheikh Dr. Al-Zindani, who has been categorized by the U.S. government as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" for "his support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda."

« Close It

Somalia Still Bleeds

By Douglas Farah

Somalia is still bleeding, and in critical condition. My sources working the region say the Union of Islamic Courts leadership is safely operating from bases in Eritrea. They are being armed by Russian planes with Ukrainian or Tajik crews, flying from Moldova (sound vaguely familiar??) and preparing a major offensive.

The transitional government has proven to be almost completely incapable of moving toward true reconciliation, and the inability to control the sporadic violence in the capital, while simultaneously failing to provide the basic services the Islamists were providing, is a corrosive combination.

The dependence on the Ethiopians has further weakened its position, as has the almost complete lack of interest in trying to construct a true, new national government that includes most of the clans and sub-clans.

So, we (the broader international community) is giving a defeated Islamist force the chance to regroup and wreak havoc and not holding the facilitating governments accountable at all. My full blog is here.

Another "Ambassador of Peace" Underlies Thailand's Cluelessness

By Zachary Abuza

Once again Thailand has brought in another Muslim dignitary in the hopes that they will be able to miraculously quell the violence in the restive south, in which nearly 2,400 people have been killed since the start of 2004.

In late June, the head of the quasi-official Saudi agency, the Muslim World League, Abdullah bin Abdul Mohsin Al-Turki, came and white washed any religious or ideological affinity of the insurgents. The MWL is one of the primary means that the Saudi government exports their virulent and intolerant version of Islam, often termed Wahhabism. Yet the Thai government is in denial that there is any correlation between the current outbreak of violence and the spread of Salafi/Wahhabism into the region. Southerners repeatedly tell me that the current generation of militants is comprised of ideological hardliners, completely intolerant of non-Muslims and moderate Muslims who seek accommodation with the Thai state. To wit, roughly 55 percent of the victims of the insurgent have been their co-religionists.

Yesterday’s visit of Din Syamsuddin, the head of Indonesia’s second largest Muslim organization, the Muhammidiyah, and the Vice Chairman of the Ulama’s Council of Indonesia, came to Thailand. The Thai government would have done itself a great service if they had done their homework on this “moderate” Muslim. Yes, the American-educated Din can be charming and to the English language media and audiences; but if you look at what he says and does in Indonesia, you would see that Din is part of the problem, not the solution to sectarian woes.

• Last year during the Israeli-Hezbollah war, Din Syamsuddin, was quoted in the Jakarta Post as saying, “There is no need to send [Indonesian] men there. I think we should donate more money to help Hezbollah and Hamas fighters buy more weapons.” Din Syamsuddin claimed that the Muhammidiyah had already donated money to Hamas and delivered it to the PLO “Embassy” in Jakarta. Not withstanding their popular support among certain segments of the population, Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations.

• In 1998-2001, Din Syamsuddin used his position in the MUI to call for recruits to travel to the conflict zones in Indonesia to engage in sectarian conflict against Christians and Hindus. Din was one of the leading voices for the jihad in Maluku, which he saw as part of an international conspiracy to carve out a Christian republic in the heart of Indonesia and “Christianize” the nation. Some 6,000 people were killed in that conflict, which still simmers to this day. It should also be noted that the terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah was leading the sectarian bloodletting in this period, through its two paramilitaries, the Laskar Jundullah and Laskar Mujihidin. He explicitly encouraged the Laskar Jihad to fight on behalf of the Muslims in the Malukus.

• Din Syamsuddin has publicly supported defended many militants and radical Islamists. These include Ja’far Umar Thalib, who was arrested, not for leading some 3,000 machete wielding Islamist thugs to the Malukus to fight Christians, but for leading the stoning of an adulterer in an area that he had unilaterally implemented Sharia law. Din has also repeatedly defended Abu Bakar Ba’asyir the convicted Amir, or spiritual leader, of Jemaah Islamiyah, including high profile visits to prison when Ba’asyir was incarcerated.

• Din is exceptionally janus-faced about his support for an Islamic state, and he tailors his remarks to each constituency. While not explicitly supporting sharia, he has repeatedly stated that he is all for “internal debate” on the possibilities of Indonesia adopting Islamic law. He likewise counsels against confronting radicals, preferring to accommodate them: “It is unwise to confront the radicals—better to keep them inside.”

• In July 2005, Din oversaw the quadrennial meeting of the MUI that saw the issuing of 11 unequivocally hardline fatwas. These fatwas amongst other things banned “liberal Islamic thought,” secularism, religious pluralism, inter-faith marriage, inter-faith prayers led by non-Muslims and women leading prayers attended by men. As Ma’aruf Amin, chief the MUI's Fatwa Commission, warned, “This is a reminder for Muslims to follow the religion in a correct way and not to try to deviate from the principles.” The fatwas had three specific target groups: Christians, the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) and a Muslim sect, the Ahmadiyah.

This is Thailand’s newest “ambassador for peace” in the south? No wonder the situation has only gotten worse since the coup. If the government and Council on National Security can’t even do basic due diligence, can we really expect them to come up with a viable counter-insurgency strategy?

Counterterrorism Blog Expert, Matthew Levitt, Takes the Stand in Dallas HAMAS Trial

By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

This afternoon, government expert Dr. Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow and director of the Washington Institute’s Stein Program on Terrorism, Intelligence, and Policy, and Counterterrorism Blog contributor,continued his testimony. During his direct examination Wednesday afternoon, jurors were shown a videotape from a HAMAS graduation ceremony in the Gaza Strip. Children were dressed in army fatigues holding toy weapons and, in some cases, wearing suicide belts. Several of the children were dressed as well known figures including Sheikh Yassin, a founder and spiritual leader of HAMAS.

Prosecutors used the video to show how HAMAS indoctrinates its followers at the youngest ages. Levitt referred to the ceremony as “typical of HAMAS run schools.”

Levitt, the prosecution’s first witness, testified as a HAMAS expert about the group’s methods of recruitment and their violent attacks. In contrast to descriptions by defense attorneys in Tuesday’s opening statements, where the first Intifadah was described as occasional rock throwing by children, Levitt explained to jurors that “HAMAS’ role in the first Intifadah was much more violent then rock throwing.” “They were involved in shooting attacks,” he said.

Levitt also spent considerable time discussing the charitable Zakat Committees. He called them “HAMAS’ most effective tool… they build grassroots support for the organization…(and) provide a logistical support mechanism to the terrorism wing by providing day jobs to HAMAS terrorists.”

In her cross examination, Nancy Hollander, defense attorney for Shukri Abu Baker, focused on Levitt’s employment with the Washington Institute, which was founded by Martin Indyk, as a way of questioning his objectivity. Indyk previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Hollander also asked Levitt a series of questions about his relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Jewish Federation, both of which have hosted Levitt as a speaker

Earlier that day, prosecutors in the terror-support trial against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) had opened their case Wednesday morning by calling Dr. Levitt, an expert witness to explain HAMAS structure to jurors and detail its operations in the United States.

Levitt walked jurors through HAMAS history, explaining how it broke off from the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and rose to power in the Palestinian Authority in January 2006.

HLF and seven of its top officials are charged with channeling material support to the Palestinian terrorist group. Five of those officials are on trial in a Dallas courtroom while two others live abroad and are considered fugitives.

Levitt previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the US Department of Treasury and as a Counterterrorism Intelligence Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His latest book “HAMAS: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad,” directly speaks to the charges facing HLF. He has testified in other criminal trials in the United States including US v Marzook et al in Chicago and US v Al-Arian et al in Tampa.

His morning testimony focused on delineating HAMAS’ origins, and beliefs as spelled out in the group’s charter and identifying some of its key players. "Hamas seeks to establish an Islamic Palestinian state in all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank," he said.

The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization with representation throughout the world, “is very active in the United States,” Levitt said. It is represented in the United States as the Muslim American Society (MAS) which was founded in 1993 in Illinois and maintains branch offices throughout the United States in at least 27 cities.

In an extensive Chicago Tribune story on the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S [free registration required], the origins are described:

...the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members. Some wanted the Brotherhood to remain underground, while others thought a more public face would make the group more influential… When the leaders voted, it was decided that
Brotherhood members would call themselves the Muslim American Society, or MAS,
according to documents and interviews. An undated internal memo instructed MAS
leaders on how to deal with inquiries about the new organization. If asked, "Are you the
Muslim Brothers?" leaders should respond that they are an independent group called the
Muslim American Society. "It is a self-explanatory name that does not need further
explanation. And if the topic of terrorism were raised, leaders were told to say that they
were against terrorism but that jihad was among a Muslim's ‘divine legal rights’ to be used
to defend himself and his people and to spread Islam.

It should also be noted that the 1993 Articles of Incorporation for MAS, states that "Upon dissolution of the Society, and after paying or making provisions for payment of all liabilities of the Society, and in furtherance of the purposes of the Society, all assets should be distributed to the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a non-for-profit, charitable, and religious federally tax exempt organization under section 503 (c) (3)..."

NAIT was named by the HLF prosecutors as a Muslim Brotherhood group and as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the case.

Tuesday, representatives of the MAS Dallas chapter protested outside of the Earle Cabell Courthouse against the trial, which they dub a witch hunt brought on by post-September 11 Islamophobia. Mahdi Bray, the Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation, headquartered in Washington DC, flew to Dallas for a press conference which took place during the lunch break. During the trial proceedings yesterday, Bray sat in the courtroom with family and friends of the defendants.

The Government’s questioning of Dr. Levitt will continue this afternoon.

« Close It

The Changing and Expanding al Qaeda Threat

By Michael Jacobson

A piece I wrote today on last week's NIE

On July 17, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell released declassified key judgments from a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland." According to the NIE -- which represents the intelligence community's collective view on a given issue -- al-Qaeda still has both the capability and intent to conduct an attack inside the United States and will increase its efforts to place operatives in the country. Terrorists coming from Europe pose a particularly serious risk. Yet, in addition to remaining a major threat to the United States, al-Qaeda has made clear through recent statements and actions that it poses a serious threat to many U.S. allies as well -- and that its definition of success is no longer limited to an attack on U.S. soil.

To read the rest of the piece, click here

Criminal Trial Begins for US Charity Accused of Funneling Money to HAMAS

By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

In a packed Dallas courtroom yesterday, 18 jurors including 6 alternates listened to the opening statements given by the Government and Defense Attorneys in the case of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). Assistant United States Attorney James Jacks told jurors that the defendants in the case knowingly sent millions of dollars to HAMAS linked charities called Zakat Committees.

While none of the men are accused of engaging in violent terrorist activities, the material support charge stems from financial transactions which, according to prosecutors, defendants intended to further HAMAS’ goal of destroying Israel. Jacks asked the jury “Are the organizations that received money from Holy Land Foundation controlled by and work on behalf of HAMAS and if so did the defendants know that?”

The defendants, according to Jacks, even went as far as using codes in a second set of bank records they maintained in an attempt to hide their conspiracy. The Government claims that the monies sent to HAMAS by HLF freed up funds that the terrorist organization used to finance their violent activities.

U.S. News Media and Terror Group Figure Editorials

By Jeffrey Imm

In the battle against global Jihadist organizations, the challenge of how to effectively deal with Jihadist terror group propaganda remains a national issue that needs to be addressed.

Individuals who are either members of or supporters of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) (as designated by the U.S. State Department), are increasingly being represented in the U.S. news media's editorials, op-ed pieces, and other columns. FTO's Hizbullah and Hamas terrorist group figures are gaining unfettered access as columnists in major American newspapers, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Hizbullah "Supporter" Column in Washington Post
The Washington Post and Newsweek today has provided an online column for Hizbullah terrorist group supporter and religious leader Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah to discuss the nature of Jihad as a "defensive" struggle. The Washington Post column clearly describes Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah as a Hezbollah "supporter", stating that he is "a controversial figure known primarily for his support of the armed Shi’ite resistance movement, Hezbollah".

Hizbullah is a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and "Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah" is on the US Department of Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN). As reported by Newsweek itself, "In 1983, U.S. officials accused him of issuing a religious edict, or fatwa, that condoned the devastating truck bombing of the Marine headquarters in Beirut ."

Today's Washington Post online column from Hizbullah "supporter" Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah is part of a series of Washington Post-Newsweek columns "On Faith" to discuss religious issues. On July 23, Douglas Farah provided a blog posting addressing a recent Washington Post outlook section by Islamic scholars which failed to address push factors key to radicalization of Jihadists.

While both the latest National Intelligence Estimate warns Americans of potential attacks by the terror group Hizbullah, and the US Treasury announces more financial sanctions on Hizbullah's support organization, the Washington Post provides an online column for a Hizbullah "supporter", promoted on the front page of its website.

Hamas Figure Column in Washington Post and New York Times

A month ago, both the Washington Post and the New York Times provided op-ed columns to "Hamas figure" Ahmed Yousef.

Reuters reported "Shunned by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, the Islamist group Hamas scored a publicity coup this week by defending its policies in Gaza with opinion pieces in two of the country's most influential newspapers on the same day. The New York Times and The Washington Post gave space to Ahmed Yousef, a senior Hamas figure, on Wednesday to argue that the United States should not interfere in Gaza".

The Washington Post clearly knew of Ahmed Yousef's relationship with Hamas by the very title of the op-ed piece June 20, 2007 op-ed piece "Engage With Hamas - We Earned Our Support".

This is not the first time that Hamas figure Ahmed Yousef has written editorials for such news media. A year ago, on November 1, 2006, the New York Times had another Ahmed Yousef editorial: "Pause for Peace" by Ahmed Yousef.

The U.S. Moves on Hezbollah Charities

By Douglas Farah

The U.S. Treasury Department today announced the sanctioning of Hezbollah-funding organizations, including one with a branch operating inside the United States.

The first is the Martyrs Foundation, including the Goodwill Charitable Organization in Dearborn, Michigan. The Treasury statement says the GCO is a "fundraising office established by the Martyrs Foundation...a Hezbollah front organization that reports directly to the leadership of the Martyrs Foundation in Lebanon."

The second is the Al-Qard al-Hassan, described as "cover to manage (Hezbollah) financial activity," and a conduit to the international banking system.

What is ironic about the sanctions is that they come as one of Hezbollah's leading theologians, in an article written for the Washington Post web site, offers an unapologetic and straightforward defense of violent jihad. My full blog is here.

Tribune’s Former Public Editor: Hamas Operative Is An Asset To Chicago Community

By Steven Emerson

Many have noted the fairly recent trend of Hamas leaders taking to the op-ed pages of major American newspapers. (Side note: Hamas is not the only terrorist group with access to the op-ed pages of American newspapers. Just this morning, the Washington Post, in its Muslims Speak Out section, has a piece from Hizballah spiritual leader Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, extolling the virtues of violent jihad).

But another equally insidious phenomenon has been occurring for much longer: American newspaper editors advocating on behalf of Hamas. One of the worst offenders is Don Wycliff, former Public Editor and Editorial Page Editor of the Chicago Tribune.

On July 11, 2007, Hamas operative Muhammad Salah was sentenced to 21 months in prison, fined $25,000 and ordered to do 100 hours of community service on charges of obstruction of justice related to his lying under oath in a lawsuit concerning his time as a money courier for the terrorist group.

Prior to sentencing, Salah’s attorneys orchestrated a letter writing campaign to U.S. District Court Judge Amy St. Eve on behalf of their client. One of the letters came from Mr. Wycliff, who wrote:

I write on behalf of Muhammad Salah, who shortly will come before you for sentencing. I cannot claim to know Mr. Salah well. However, I can tell you that what I do know of him suggests to me that he is not a danger to the community—on the contrary, he is an asset—and that if ever there was an ideal candidate for leniency, for probation, Mr. Salah is that candidate.

For Wycliff, this letter represents only the latest in a years-long advocacy campaign for Salah and his family. In 2003, on the editorial pages of the Tribune, Wycliff made a