Concern in CAIR Training and Government Outreach Efforts to CAIR

The July 10, 2008 CQ article reports on a Senate Homeland Security panel where the subject of homegrown terrorism was being discussed and testimony was being provided by expert witnesses. In the course of this panel discussion, questions were raised regarding CAIR training efforts to FBI employees. The Hudson Institute's Zeyno Baran was quoted as stating "for months now, FBI agents have been trained by CAIR to be sensitive to Muslims... this is completely self-defeating." Zeyno Baran is also quoted as stating that "the agents are going to be misinformed and they will be overly sensitive and they will not ask certain questions," and later stating that CAIR "does not reflect the Muslim community as a faith community, but as a political group."

Such CAIR efforts to "train" FBI employees were reported by Insight on March 18, 2008: "CAIR trains FBI agents across the country on Islam and how to treat Muslims. CAIR's archived press releases show numerous instances of CAIR representatives training the FBI, as well as the Marine Corps, local law enforcement and government employees."

Such CAIR training for law enforcement has been reported since 2004. In 2004, CAIR's Florida branch, CAIR-FL, was reported to issue a statement that "more than 150 law enforcement agents, including FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force supervisory personnel" attended a CAIR-led workshop.

In addition, such CAIR "training" has also been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper has stated that "representatives of CAIR chapters nationwide have met with TSA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials on issues related to cultural sensitivity and national security and the Department of Justice."

The IPT's Steven Emerson also provided the Senate panel with a written statement which concludes on efforts at outreach towards CAIR:

"Despite the known ties of the above mentioned organizations [CAIR, MAS, ISNA] to the Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. government insists on engaging in 'outreach' and dialogue with them. This has led to an almost comical situation in which one side of the Department of Justice labels CAIR as an unindicted coconspirator in what has been alleged to be the biggest case of terrorist financing in the history of the Republic while the other side of the Department of Justice meets with CAIR officials and attends CAIR conferences in an effort to perform outreach with the Muslim-American community. While it can be argued that outreach with the Muslim-American community is a necessary component to a successful counterterrorism strategy, there is absolutely no reason that this outreach has to go through organizations that ascribe to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Alternatively, outreach can be performed at the grassroots level and through individuals respected in the Muslim-American community, like doctors and local businessmen, instead of through groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and MAS."

To show the level of disconnect within the federal government on these groups, while this Senate hearing was being held, the July 11, 2008 New York Sun reports that federal prosecutors were submitting court filings defending the identification of such organizations as co-conspirators in the HLF terror trial.

CAIR Defended by Apologist Seeking Engagement with Islamic Supremacist Groups

George Mason University Professor Peter Mandaville was also present at this Senate panel and reportedly disputed such links between CAIR and such Islamic supremacist groups. For context, Peter Mandaville has also been advising the West Point military that America should "engage" with the Islamic supremacist international organization the Muslim Brotherhood, and has stated that he does not view that Hamas is really a terrorist organization.

In the June 2008 issue of the West Point Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) publication "Sentinel," Peter Mandaville argues that Islamic supremacists are not a threat, but should be engaged as allies. In the West Point publication, Mr. Mandaville criticizes the idea that "the default assumption still appears to be that Islamism of any kind is more likely to be part of the problem rather than a potential component of counter-terrorism solutions."

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Peter Mandaville would be arguing at the Senate Homeland Security panel that the outreach program to CAIR is something that the federal government should pursue.

The "Full-Spectrum" Outreach Strategy to Islamic Supremacism

At the same Senate hearing, National Counterrorism Center (NCTC) Director Michael Leiter referenced efforts to engage with groups such as CAIR, as part of a "full-spectrum" outreach strategy to engage with groups that disagree with U.S. policies. The July 10, 2008 CQ report quotes Mr. Leiter as stating that the hard line is "if a group espouses violence, it's quite clear that the U.S. government should not be associated with it."

In my May 16, 2008 article on Michael Leiter's confirmation hearing, I pointed out that Mr. Leiter views that one of his primary qualifications in fighting terrorist tactics is his legal experience and his "respect for civil liberties." Under Mr. Leiter's leadership, the NCTC has worked to do anything but engage in a "war of ideas," as vaguely promised during his confirmation hearing, but has instead promoted "terror lexicon" recommendations to avoid defining the enemy, such as "never use the term 'jihadist' or 'mujahideen'."

His "full-spectrum" outreach approach is basically to appease "non-violent" Islamic supremacism, which is quickly becoming the official policy of the current administration.

We saw such an appeasement strategy beginning last summer, when in the middle of the HLF terror trial, the Department of Justice (DOJ) decided to send representatives to the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), another unindicted co-conspirator in HLF terror trial, while DOJ prosecutors were actively engaged in the HLF terror trial.

ISNA conference speakers included supporters of terror groups and character witnesses for convicted terrorists attacking America. Moreover, ISNA conference speakers included individuals supporting Islamic supremacism as:
-- Muzammil Siddiqi - thanked by the Hamas Islamic supremacist organization for his support
-- Siraj Wahhaj - a man who reportedly called for replacing the American government with a caliphate
-- Ihsan Bagby: "we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country... because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country."
-- Zaid Shakir: "Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country"

In addition, we later learned that the FBI, U.S. Army, and the Department of Homeland Security attended the ISNA convention. The Department of Homeland Security booth at ISNA was located next to the Hizb ut-Tahrir organization's booth, a group dedicated to global Islamic supremacism.

During last summer's ISNA convention debacle, many of us made the tactical error of primarily arguing that it was inappropriate for DOJ members to offer legitimacy to an organization that was a co-conspirator in a terrorist trial. This argument was certainly correct. But the argument that then gets made by apologists for such groups is a factual debate over whether or not such groups are really linked to "terrorism" or not. This is essentially the same argument that Mr. Mandaville and Mr. Leiter made at the July 10 Senate hearing regarding CAIR. When we allow the debate to fall into the weeds of such details, the larger argument about defending our values gets lost.

The larger, more critical argument is that such efforts at outreach to supremacist organizations are not legitimate "civil rights" outreach at all. Anyone who has "respect for civil liberties," as Mr. Leiter alleges, would not seek federal government outreach to supremacist organizations. Supremacist organizations, by definition, represent the antithesis of civil rights, the antithesis of civil liberties; supremacist groups are against equality.

Would NCTC's Leiter seek an outreach effort to the American Nazi Party Aryan supremacist group? Would DHS' Sutherland seek an outreach effort to the White People's Party white supremacist group? Would such efforts be viewed as "full-spectrum" outreach efforts to promote civil rights and liberties? Of course not.

Yet Mr. Leiter argues in favor of a "full-spectrum" outreach to Islamic supremacist organizations as CAIR, and Mr. Sutherland gives speeches at ISNA conventions where known Islamic supremacists are featured speakers. Both men are proud of their records in respect for civil rights and liberties; both are educated, dedicated men who do understand that civil rights and liberties are about equality, not supremacism. They are well aware that the FBI did not go to George Wallace for training on how to handle white supremacists during the 1960s and 1970s.

So clearly, these outreach efforts to CAIR, ISNA, MAS, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with promoting equality in civil rights and civil liberties. This is an important false argument that we need to shatter. This continuing false argument --  that such "full-spectrum" outreach to Islamic supremacist groups is designed to promote civil rights and liberties -- keeps us from having the necessary debate on what is really happening and on identifying the tough decisions that our nation needs to make about defending our values.
 

A Values Debate, Not A Tactical Debate

So if such outreach to Islamic supremacist groups is not about civil rights and liberties, what is it about?

The NCTC, DHS, FBI, and Department of Justice have enforcement-level operational responsibilities at the core of their mission. With a primary tactical focus on a "war on terror," these organizations' emphasis is on preventing additional terrorist attacks and in gaining intelligence sources on individuals and groups that may be planning such terrorist attacks, using any means possible.  At the same time, such organizations do not have a coherent strategy on understanding who and what we are fighting other than "extremists."

This is yet another disastrous symptom from the tactical-centric approach by the current administration in dealing with Jihad. The executive branch has focused exclusively on preventive measures and reactive tactics, rather than identifying the enemy and developing a comprehensive strategy, including identifying the ideology behind Jihad. Therefore, America's approach is one of growing appeasement and tolerance towards Islamic supremacist groups, if they appear "non-violent," despite the fact that Islamic supremacism provides the basis for Jihad actions. The basic concept is that such appeasement to "non-violent" Islamic supremacist groups will help avoid "incitement" of Muslims to join violent Jihadist groups.

It is the same failed "Gentlemen's Agreement" policy that the United Kingdom had with Islamic supremacists until the July 7, 2005 bombings, which the UK now seeks to reconstitute after having insufficient courage to battle the supremacist ideology itself.

But do such strategies represent America's identity and values? Do we want to become a country willing to appease and legitimize Islamic supremacist groups for potential short-term intelligence on terrorists? Will we sacrifice the concept that "all men and women are created equal" for tactical security maneuvers? Do we really believe that abandonment of our hard-won values in defending equality and rejecting supremacism will really work over time? Or will such a strategy effectively accomplish Islamic supremacists' goals in undermining who and what America is?

These are the questions that the nation and its future leadership must address. But to have this debate, we need to get out of the weeds in debating whether such "outreach" efforts are tainted due to details of whether or not a group or person was proven in a court of law to support a terrorist organization, and refocus the argument on condemning outreach to Islamic supremacist groups, simply because supremacist ideologies are against the values of equality that define who and what we are as a nation.

The Real FBI Values and Hope for the Future

In September 2007, after the ISNA conference debacle, the Senate Homeland Security commission once again had a panel to discuss domestic homeland security issues. As reported by the Washington Times, this panel was to address the "war of ideas." The DHS and NCTC leaders told Senator Lieberman that they had no such initiatives in such a "war of ideas," and clearly nothing has changed since. The Washington Times reported that "FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III revealed during the hearing that the FBI has no counterideology response other than its 'outreach' to Muslim-American communities so they 'understand the FBI' and address 'the radicalization issue'."

But it is important to understand that post 9/11-era FBI Director Mueller's comments do not represent the culture and the values of the FBI organization, but rather represent the failing tactical-centric whirlpool that has drained the creative thinking of executive branch agencies responsible for American security. The 100 year history of the FBI represents a different set of values altogether. In fact, the FBI has had a war of ideas against Communism, Nazism, and white supremacism. It is only in the present reactive administration that a war of ideas against Islamic supremacism is non-existent. Clearly the FBI and the country needs better leadership.

When you join the FBI, all employees (agents to clerks) are required to swear to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, specifically:

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

This oath is based on defending the values of equality and liberty that are the basis for our Constitution and our nation. It is complemented by the FBI's organizational values of "Fidelity-Bravery-Integrity" that form the FBI's motto.

I know this first hand, because I once made such an oath myself, and I remain proud of the values that the Bureau has inherent in its organization and in its many dedicated employees.

Unlike such new federal organizations as the DHS and NCTC, the FBI has a 100 year history of fighting for such values, and has a history in a war of ideas against supremacist ideologies. Americans who seek solutions in the fight against Islamic supremacism must consider the history of who has actually fought, understands, and defeated supremacist organizations. History shows this to be the FBI, in its efforts from the 1920s through today in fighting supremacist groups, especially in a war against white supremacism during the 1960s and 1970s.

Americans need to revisit these historical lessons and learn what a total war on a supremacist ideology can achieve, without sacrificing our ideals, values, and integrity. Post-9/11 reactive organizations and leaders who lack the history or understanding of what it takes to fight supremacist ideologies are doomed to continue down the failed path of reactive appeasement. We can't count on them for leadership or strategies.

It is essential that we intervene in this vital national security debate and use our representative democracy to change our nation's direction on Islamic supremacism. We must not tolerate the transparent fraud that appeasement of supremacist groups is being done in the interest of "civil rights." The American people and its historical institutions committed to the values of equality must change the debate on Islamic supremacism from legalisms to ideas, from operations to strategy, and from tactics to values.

America's battle cry against Islamic supremacism must be a resounding, defiant commitment to defending the value that "all men and women are created equal."

Then we will have begun to fight.

Sources and Related Documents:

July 10, 2008 - Congressional Quarterly: Experts Debate Efficacy of FBI Outreach to CAIR
July 10, 2008 - Steven Emerson's Statement For Senate Committee Hearing on Extremism
March 18, 2008 - Insight: CAIR trains FBI agents as new report cites links to terror - by Rowan Scarborough
December 2, 2004 - Muslims train FBI in 'sensitivity'
CAIR-Chicago Meets with FBI 
CAIR-Chicago Conducts Sensitivity Training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers 
CAIR Welcomes TSA Hajj Sensitivity Training
CAIR: Penn. Muslims Seek 'Balance' in Police Training on Islam
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, CR NO. 3:04-CR-240-G, Attachment A - List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers
Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT): CAIR's Awad: In support of the Hamas Movement
March 28, 2008 - Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT): CAIR Remains Apologist for Terrorist Hamas, Seeks To Silence Critics - by Steven Emerson
April 2, 2008 - Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT): CAIR Has Backed Islamist Meetings, Denigrated Muslim Moderates - by Steven Emerson
August 8, 2007 - Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT): CAIR Identified by the FBI as part of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee
Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) Series of Reports on The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) full dossier "CAIR Exposed"
Hamas Covenant 1988
Wikipedia: Islamist call for Caliphate
May 7, 2008 - Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Web Site - "U.S. Officials Urged to Avoid Linking Islam, Jihad with Terrorism"
June 2008 - West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) Sentinel: "Engaging Islamists in the West" by Peter Mandaville (page 5)
"America at a Crossroads" veers to the right -- reporting on Peter Mandaville: "For him, Hamas is primarily a national liberation struggle of the Palestinian people against the foreign occupation of the state of Israel. It isn't terrorism for him."
July 11, 2008 - New York Sun: U.S.: Facts Tie Muslim Groups To Hamas Front Case
July 2, 2008 - Crossroads in History: The Struggle against Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
May 19, 2008 - Unresolved U.S. Strategy on Jihad and the War of Ideas - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
March 14, 2008 - National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) - Counterterror Communications Center (CTCC) Memorandum, Volume 2, Issue 10 - "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide to Counterterrorism Communication"
January 2008 - Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims
September 14, 2007 - The Washington Times: "No War of Ideas" - by Bill Gertz
August 30, 2007 - ISNA and Jihad: Why DOJ's Involvement in ISNA Conference Sends The Wrong Message - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
August 27, 2007 - US Justice Dept to Co-Sponsor Convention of ISNA - Unindicted Co-Conspirator in HLF Trial - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
August 17, 2007 - CAIR Cites Counterterrorism Blog in HLF Legal Filing - Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
Oath of Office
Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity—The FBI Motto
Federal Bureau of Investigation - World War II
History of the FBI - World War II Period: Late 1930's - 1945
History of the FBI - Postwar America: 1945 - 1960's
Cambridge University: To Ensure Domestic Tranquility: The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE and Political Discourse, 1964-1971 - by John Drabble
FBI: History of the FBI - Lawless Years: 1921 - 1933
FBI: Imperial Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Kustody - 1924
FBI: MIBURN Investigation (Mississippi Burning)
FBI: The Case of the 1966 KKK Firebombing
FBI: January 25, 2007 - Ex-Klansman Charged in '64 Slayings
Attack on Terror: The FBI Against the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi - by Don Whitehead

The Israeli saga began in 1979 when Kuntar, and three other members of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) landed on an Israeli beach and took hostage at a nearby house a young father and his four-year-old daughter. They fatally shot the father and afterwards Kuntar killed the girl by bashing her head against the rock. Her two year-old sister was accidentally smothered when her mother tried to quiet her while hiding in their apartment.

In October, 1985 a group of four PLF terrorists led by Abu Abbas boarded the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro with the intention of disembarking in an Israeli port and seizing Israeli hostages to trade for Kuntar. Their game plan was quickly changed when a ship’s steward discovered the men with guns in their cabin. The terrorists then seized the ship. Before the passenger liner eventually docked in Alexandria Egypt, Abu Abbas brutally threw overboard Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American who was confined to a wheel chair.

The Klinghoffer murder prompted the U.S. Justice Department to propose a so-called “long arm statute” that makes it a crime punishable in American courts to commit an act of terrorism against American persons or property overseas. A Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Vicki Toensing spearheaded the effort and Senator Arlan Spector (R-Pa) sponsored it in the Senate. On the House side, Justice Department officials and I, in my State Department counterterrorism legislative hat, persuaded the House Foreign Affairs Committee to tag it onto a pending State Department Bill. Congress enacted the measure (18 U.S. Code 2332) as part of the Omnibus Antiterrorism Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. (Public Law 99-399.)

The law requires the Attorney General to first make a determination that the attack on American persons or property was a terrorist act rather than one of ordinary crime or financial gain. The 1986 legislation also opened the way for the FBI and Justice Department to permanently post large numbers of agents and legal attaches overseas in order to more effectively conduct investigations. Currently there are posts in 58 countries.

The law has been used to good effect by the Justice Department. High profile cases, including Moussoui Zacarias for the 9/11 attacks, Richard Reid the shoe bomber and John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban, and earlier this month, Abd al Al-Rahim for the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemen port of Aden.

If and when the Colombian terrorists who captured and held the three American contractors are caught and are not tried in Colombian courts, they could be tried in the U.S. under 18 US.2332 which was prompted by the Achille Lauro hijacking and the Abu Abbas efforts to free a captured terrorist who kidnapped and killed Israelis.

There are major differences of course between the Colombian and Israeli situations. The Colombians and Americans were held for five years in deep jungles. The two Israeli hostages, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were captured by Hezbollah forces who staged an unprovoked cross border raid into Israel two years ago. The attack touched off major fighting between Israeli and Hezbollah forces, causing significant casualties on both sides, major damage in Lebanon and Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel.
It is not known how soon the two reservists died after they were captured.

The Colombian rescue attempt was widely applauded. The planned Israeli swap of live prisoners for bodies of killed servicemen is controversial. It has divided the country between those who feel that fallen soldiers should be brought home and those who feel such deals will encourage even more hostage taking. Long standing U.S. policy is not to make such deals that reward hostage takers. I believe it is a sound one in the long run even though it is painful for the families involved as well as government officials.

It also is disgusting to see Kuntar being hailed as a hero by some Arabs, with banners reportedly decorating Sidon, Lebaon declaring: " Freedom to the hero." Some hero. He brutally murdered a toddler and indirectly prompted passage of a law that has been used against other terrorists.

Hostage taking is a despicable act, cruel to the hostages and to their loved ones. As the G8 summit said in its counterterrorism summit statement, which I reported in a blog item yesterday:
“Abductions and the taking of hostages are repugnant practices to be strongly condemned.”

Mr. Nawaz also described three types of Islamists:
1. Political Islamists, nonviolent "5th columnists" who work behind the scenes;
2. Revolutionary Islamists, such as Hizbut, which seek to overthrow secular Arab regimes but are peaceful in the West;
3. Militant Islamists, such as Al Qaeda, who use armed struggle at all points.

He described these as the historical order of progression from the founding of Hizbut and the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s and in order of the degree of commitment. He also described Hizbut's influence inside the prison in Egypt in which he was held. For instance, Ayman al-Zawahiri was held in that same prison, was exposed to Sheikh an-Nabhani's writings and ideas there, and expresses virtually the same ideas as those an-Nabhani wrote of in 1953.

Mr, Nawaz explicitly agreed with a statement by Zeyno Baran in her testimony that nearly all individuals involved in Islamic terrorism start out as non-violent Islamists.

I will post the transcript of Mr. Nawaz' oral statement as soon as it is available. Here is a CQ Homeland Security story on the hearing made available to us with my appreciation.

Introduction:

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the security apparatuses of United States have dedicated themselves to combating Islamist terrorism and countering its roots. These efforts have been met with varying levels of success. Operationally, the U.S. has been largely successful - thwarting terrorist attacks against the homeland and hardening American targets abroad. However, the primary driver of the violence - ideology - has not been successfully countered or even sufficiently understood. The roots of this ideology are diverse and diffuse, but the primary root of Sunni Islamist violence in the modern era is the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun)[1] was founded as an Islamic revivalist movement in the Egyptian town of Isma’iliyaa in March 1928 by school teacher Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949).[2] The vast majority of Sunni terrorist groups - including al Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad - are derived from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood’s goal has been to promote the implementation of Shari’ah (Islamic law derived from the Quran and the Sunnah).[3] Early in its history, the Brotherhood focused on education and charity. It soon became heavily involved in politics and remains a major player on the Egyptian political scene, despite the fact that it is an illegal organization. The movement has grown exponentially, from only 800 members in 1936, to over 2 million in 1948, to its current position as a pervasive international Sunni Islamist movement, with covert and overt branches in over 70 countries.

“I did not want to enter into competition with the other orders,” al-Banna once said. “And I did not want it to be confined to one group of Muslims or one aspect of Islamic reform; rather I sought that it be a general message based on learning, education, and jihad.”[4] According to al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”[5] That helps explain the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto: “Allah ghayatuna Al-rasul za'imuna. Al-Qur-'an dusturuna. Al-jihad sabiluna. Al-mawt fi sabil Allah asma amanina. Allah akbar, Allah akbar.” (“God is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes. God is great. God is great.”)[6]

The Brotherhood has reached global status, wielding power and influence in almost every state with a Muslim population. Additionally, the Brotherhood maintains political parties in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Jordan, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and even Israel. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood attempted to overthrow the Syrian government in the 1980s, but the revolt was crushed. Aside from the Muslim Brotherhood in Israel proper, the terrorist organization Hamas was founded as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Article II of the Hamas charter states:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterized by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgment, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.[7]

Since its founding, the Muslim Brotherhood has openly sought to reassert Islam through the establishment of Sunni Islamic governments that will rule according to the strict and specific tenets of Shari’ah. To the Brotherhood, this is the correct primary endeavor of human civilization, with the ultimate goal being the unification of these regimes under the banner of the Caliphate - or universal Islamic state.

According to al-Banna, the Caliphate must govern all lands that were at one time under the control of Muslims. He stated:

We want the Islamic flag to be hoisted once again on high, fluttering in the wind, in all those lands that have had the good fortune to harbor Islam for a certain period of time and where the muzzein’s call sounded in the takbirs and the tahlis. Then fate decreed that the light of Islam be extinguished in these lands that returned to unbelief. Thus Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, the Italian coast, as well as the islands of the Mediterranean, are all of them Muslim Mediterranean colonies and they must return to the Islamic fold. The Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea must once again become Muslim seas, as they once were.[8]

Once that is accomplished, the Caliphate is to be expanded to cover the entire globe, erasing national boundaries under the flag of Islam. This concept was elucidated by the Brotherhood luminary, Sayyid Qutb, who wrote in his seminal work, Milestones (1964), that Muslims are not merely obliged to wage jihad in defense of Islamic lands, but must wage offensive jihad in order to liberate the world from the servitude of man-made law and governance.[9]

Organizational Structure:
The Muslim Brotherhood used activism, mass communication, and sophisticated governance to build a large support base within the lower class and professional elements of Egyptian society. By using existing support networks built around mosques, welfare associations, and neighborhood groups, the Brotherhood was able to educate and indoctrinate people in an Islamic setting. The organization is headed by a Supreme Guide or Secretary General and is assisted by a General Executive Bureau (Maktab al-Irshad), and a constituent assembly known as the Shura Council. There have been six Secretaries General of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood,[10] which is widely seen as the leading branch of the worldwide organization.

Ideology:
The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to restore the historical Caliphate and then expand its authority over the entire world, dismantling all non-Islamic governments. The Brotherhood aims to accomplish this through a combination of warfare - both violent and political.

The Muslim Brotherhood has provided the ideological model for almost all modern Sunni Islamic terrorist groups. When discussing Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Richard Clarke - the chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush - told a Senate committee in 2003 that “The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood - all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”[11]

The leadership of Al Qaeda, from Osama bin Laden to his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed all were influenced by Muslim Brotherhood ideology.[12] In fact, al-Zawahiri was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as a young man, but he broke with them when his terrorist career began. He later wrote a book called The Bitter Harvest in which he condemned the Brotherhood for neglecting jihad in favor of participating in elections.[13]

The Brotherhood’s ideology was formulated by its two main luminaries: its founder, Hassan al-Banna - who was assassinated by agents of the Egyptian government in 1949 - and Sayyid Qutb, hanged in 1966.

Al-Banna once described the Brotherhood as, “a Salafiyya message, a Sunni way, a Sufi truth, a political organization, an athletic group, a cultural-educational union, an economic company, and a social idea.”[14] While studying in Cairo, al-Banna had become immersed in the writings of Rashid Rida (1865-1935), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905) and Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897), who formed the backbone of the Salafiyya Movement.[15] Al-Banna agreed with their ideas that Islam provided the solution to the afflictions plaguing Muslim society. Specifically, in accordance with Salafism, he called for a return to what he perceived to be true Islam.

Salafism is an austere form of Islam within the Sunni sect that attempts to return to what its adherents believe to be unadulterated Islam as practiced by Muhammad and his companions. In order to achieve this, Salafists strip out what they see as bida, or innovations, from the practice of Islam as it has developed over the centuries. According to Salafists, only pure Islam can solve the political, economic, social, domestic, and external issues of the Muslim nation (ummah). As such, Muslim societies should be governed according to Shari’ah.

While al-Banna drew almost exclusively on early Islamic doctrine in his works, it is also important to understand the strong anti-colonialism sentiments driving his ideology. Al-Banna was writing and working at a time when European powers had colonized the Middle East.

Jihad, death, and martyrdom have been lauded throughout the history of the Brotherhood, not only as a means to achieve the above goals, but as an end unto itself. In his seminal work, The Society of Muslim Brothers, Robert P. Mitchell the late University of Michigan Professor of Near Eastern History, quotes and paraphrases al-Banna:

The certainty that jihad had this physical connotation is evidenced by the relationship always implied between it and the possibility, even the necessity, of death and martyrdom. Death, as an important end of jihad, was extolled by Banna in a phrase which came to be a famous part of his legacy: “the art of death” (fann al-mawt). “Death is art” (al-mawt-fann). The Qur’an has commanded people to love death more than life. Unless “the philosophy of the Qur’an on death” replaces “the love of life” which has consumed Muslims, then they will reach naught. Victory can only come with the mastery of “the art of death.” In another place, Banna reminds his followers of a Prophetic observation: “He who dies and has not fought [ghaza; literally: raided] and was not resolved to fight, has died a jahiliyya [ignorance of divine guidance] death.” The movement cannot succeed, Banna insists, without this dedicated and unqualified kind of jihad.[16]

Jihad is a central tenet in the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. In a booklet entitled, “Jihad” and in other works, al-Banna clearly defines jihad as violent warfare against non-Muslims to establish Islam as dominant across the entire world. He wrote:

Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward.[17]

To support his assertions about jihad, al-Banna quotes extensively from the Quran, the Hadith, and great Islamic scholars. These quotes either define jihad as fighting and/or emphasize the obligatory nature of jihad. On the specific subject of “fighting with People of the Book [Jews and Christians],”[18] al-Banna quotes Quran 9:29 - the infamous sword verse:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor in his Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the Religion of Truth (i.e. Islam), from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Al-Banna quotes a Hanafi scholar:

Jihad linguistically means to exert one’s utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee’ah it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols.[19]

Al-Banna continues:

Islam allows jihad and permits war until the following Qur’anic verse is fulfilled:

“We will show them Our signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur’an) is the truth” (Surat al-Fussilat (41), ayah 53)[20]

In conclusion, al-Banna writes:

My brothers! The ummah [Islamic community] that knows how to die a noble and honourable death is granted an exalted life in this world and eternal felicity in the next. Degradation and dishonour are the results of the love of this world and the fear of death. Therefore prepare for jihad and be the lovers of death.[21]

To ensure that the Shari’ah would be the “the basis controlling the affairs of state and society,”[22] al-Banna laid out a seven-step hierarchy of goals to be implemented by the Brotherhood for the Islamization of society. The first step is to educate and “form” the Muslim person. From there the Muslim person would spread Islam and help “form” a Muslim family. Muslim families would group together to form a Muslim society that would establish a Muslim government. The government would then transform the state into an Islamic one governed by Shari’ah, as voted by the Muslim society. This Islamic state would then work to free “occupied” Muslim lands and unify them together under one banner, from which Islam could be spread all over the world.

As Mitchell explains, quoting original Brotherhood sources, these goals would be carried out in three stages. Starting with “the first stage through which all movements must pass, the stage of ‘propaganda, communication, and information.’”[23] In this stage, the Brotherhood would recruit and indoctrinate core activists. The next stage consists of “formation, selection, and preparation.”[24] In this stage, the Brothers would endear themselves to the population by creating charities, clinics, schools, and other services. More importantly, they would prepare for the third and final stage: the stage of “execution.”[25] Of this stage, al-Banna stated:

At the time that there will be ready, Oh ye Muslim Brothers, three hundred battalions, each one equipped spiritually with faith and belief, intellectually with science and learning, and physically with training and athletics, at that time you can demand of me to plunge with you through the turbulent oceans and to rend the skies with you and to conquer with you every obstinate tyrant. God willing, I will do it.[26]

Qutb and Jahiliyya
In addition to al-Banna’s founding philosophy, the works of Sayyid Qutb (1909-1966) also had a major impact on the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. Beyond that, Qutb’s books sent shockwaves throughout the entire Islamic world. His most influential works were Fi zilal al-Qur’an (“In the Shade of the Quran”)[27] and Ma’alim fi al-Tariq (“Milestones”). Milestones has come to be Qutb’s most popular work and has influenced Islamic extremists such as Ayman al-Zawahiri,[28] Dr. Abdullah Azzam, [29] and Osama bin Laden.[30]

Written while Qutb was in prison in Egypt,[31] Milestones’ central thesis was that the world had degraded into a state of ignorance (as existed before the Prophethood of Mohammad) or jahiliyya.[32] He proposed that the overthrow of apostate rulers and the establishment of Islamic societies worldwide though offensive jihad is the only way to solve this state of affairs. In addition to Hassan al-Banna’s ideas, Qutb was heavily influenced by the writings of Indian Islamist Sayyid Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi (1903-1979)[33] and the medieval scholar Taqi ad-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328). However, Qutb expanded on their ideas of jahiliyyah and jihad.

As the 9/11 Commission Report found, Qutb came to the U.S. to study in the late 1940s:

Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.” Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims—as he defined them—therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.[34]

While both Maududi and Ibn Taymiyyah used jahiliyya to describe some contemporaries, Qutb described the whole of the Muslim community to be in jahiliyya, as “the Muslim community has long ago vanished from existence.”[35] Since Arab secular leaders did not follow the Shari’ah, they were considered to be in apostasy for violating God’s sovereignty (al-hakimiyya) on earth. In fact, “any place where the Shari’ah is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the Abode of War (Dar-ul-Harb).”[36] Jahiliyyah now included all states, whether ruled by Muslims or not.

To achieve his vision, Qutb advocated for the creation of a vanguard (tali’a), whose members would model themselves after the Prophet Muhammad’s companions. This vanguard would then fight jahiliyya and its influences through

methods of preaching (daw’a) and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs; and it uses physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords instead of the Almighty Lord.[37]

According to his vision, the vanguard would not “compromise with the practices of jahili society, nor can we be loyal to it,” Qutb wrote. “Jahili society, because of its jahili characteristics (described as evil and corrupt), is not worthy to be compromised with.”[38]

Qutb’s jihad against Dar al-Harb (Abode of War),[39] was not only to protect the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) but also to enhance it and spread it “throughout the earth to the whole of mankind.”[40] Adherence to Shari’ah would free mankind from the jahiliyyah influences. This war would not be temporary, “but an eternal state, as truth and falsehood cannot co-exist on this earth.”[41]

The Brotherhood Today:
While many Muslim Brotherhood branches around the world claim to have embraced democracy, the philosophies developed by Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb still carry great influence within the organization. The Brotherhood continues to be driven by al-Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate the world. The Brotherhood’s declared principles remain steadfast even today. According to their website, the Brotherhood seeks, “the introduction of the Islamic Shari’ah as the basis controlling the affairs of state and society” and “unification among the Islamic countries and states…liberating them from foreign imperialism.”[42] This includes “spreading Islamic concepts that reject submission to humiliation, and incite to fighting it” while “reviving the will of liberation and independence in the people, and sowing the spirit of resistance.”[43]

Some have contended that there is a “moderate” wing to the Muslim Brotherhood that can and should serve as a bridge between the Islamic world and the West,[44] but this claim has been much disputed in academia and the media. Proponents of this theory claim that beginning with Hassan al-Hudaybi - al-Banna’s immediate successor as Supreme Guide - the Brotherhood took a moderate turn.

Detractors[45] note the proponents’ lack of background in the subject matter. They also cite the Brotherhood’s persistent support of violence, under the rubric of resistance against occupation, and the greater popularity of decidedly immoderate figures like Sayyid Qutb over al-Hudaybi in the modern Brotherhood (Qutb’s books can be found in a variety of languages all around the world. The same cannot be said for al-Hudaybi’s). One scholar has questioned whether al-Hudaybi even penned the moderate volume, Preachers, Not Judges, that has been credited to him, raising the possibility that the Egyptian intelligence service played a role in its production.[46]

In the fall of 2007, the Brotherhood issued its first official platform in decades. The platform explains, in plain terms, the agenda of the Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic world. It calls for: “Spreading and deepening the true concepts of Islam as a complete methodology that regulates all aspects of life.” Here are some other notable excerpts from the platform:

- “The intentions of the Islamic Shari’ah which aim for the realization of the important aspects and needs and good achievements in the realm of religion and spirit and the self and property and intellect and wealth represent the ruling policy in the defining of the priorities of the goals and strategic policies.”
- “Islam has developed an exemplary model for a state.”
- “The Islamic methodology aims to reform the state of limited capabilities to make it into a strong Islamic state…”

Whatever moderating stance the platform takes, in August 2004, the Brotherhood issued a public appeal of support for those fighting coalition forces in Iraq,[47] and the following month, spiritual guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa deeming it a religious duty for Muslims to fight America in Iraq.[48]

The Brotherhood also plays an active role today in promoting terrorism against American interests. The Brotherhood actively supports Hamas to “face the U.S. and Zionist strategy” in the Occupied Territories and supports their “legitimate resistance.”[49]

A November 2007 interview with Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Akef shows the group remains committed to violence against those it views as occupiers.

Akef, the Supreme Guide, pledged 10,000 fighters for Palestine but said it was up to a government to arm and train them. In the same interview, Akef denied the existence of Al Qaeda:

“All these things are American Zionist tricks,” Akef said. “The Shi'ites attack one another, the Sunnis attack one another, and the Shi’ites attack the Sunnis. But the Muslim Brotherhood has a principle, which I declared from day one: The Shi’ites and Sunnis are brothers.”
[...]
“I'd like to go back to the issue of Al-Qaeda. There is no such thing as Al-Qaeda. This is an American invention, so that they will have something to fight for...”

Interviewer: “What about Osama bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and the Islamic State of Iraq?”

Akef: “When one man, or two or three, fight this tyrannical global superpower - is it worth anything?”[50]

Interviewer: “Thousands have carried out attacks in the Iraq in the name of Al-Qaeda...”

Akef: “That is a lie. Who says so?”

Interviewer: “They do.”

That argument fits with a theory offered by Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He argues that Al Qaeda and the Brotherhood share the same final goal - the establishment of a global Caliphate - but the Brotherhood fears “that an Al-Qaeda attack against the West at this time might hamper the Islamic movement’s buildup and focus the West on the threat implicit in Muslim communities.”[51]

Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood and spiritual guide al-Qaradawi condemned al Qaeda’s actions in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

However, in an interview on May 23, 2008 with the online Arabic news service Elaph,[52] Akef seemed to change his approach. He was asked: “Regarding resistance and jihad, do you consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist or an Islamic Mujahid?” In response, Akef said, “In all certainty, a mujahid, and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, close to Allah on high.”[53] He was then asked about his previous denial about the existence of al Qaeda, and said, “The name is an American invention, but al Qaeda as a concept and organization comes from tyranny and corruption.”

The interviewer followed with this question: “So, do you support the activities of al Qaeda, and to what extent?” Akef said, “Yes, I support its activities against the occupiers, and not against the people.”

Two days later, in another interview the Saudi-owned pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat, Akef tried to clarify some of his comments about al Qaeda after receiving criticism from religious and political leaders about his remarks in the May 23 interview. He said:

We (the Brotherhood) have nothing to do with al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden... we are against violence except when fighting the occupier...When he [bin Laden] fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, and when he attacks civilians, then this is rejected. The word al Qaeda is an American illusion...Bin Laden has a thought ...his thought is based on violence, and we do not approve of violence under any circumstances except one and that is fighting an occupier. We have nothing to do with al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden...we condemn any thought that leads to violence. When bin Laden fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, when he attacks the innocent and citizens then this is rejected.[54]

Al-Qaradawi’s condemnation of 9/11 was based on his assertion that the passengers in the plane and the people in the World Trade Center were civilians. However, in an interview on Al-Jazeera in 2004, al Qaradawi elaborated on the concept of the civilian:

When I was asked, I said that I forbid the killing of civilians. I said that it is permitted to kill only those who fight. Islam forbids killing women, youth, and so on. I said so openly, but I asked, “Who is a civilian?” When engineers, laborers, and technicians enter [Iraq] with the American army, are they considered civilians? Is a fighter only the one inside the tank or also the one servicing it? I am speaking of the interpretation of the word “civilian”.[55]

By this logic, it can be argued that anyone providing support to a military force in a Muslim country - whether it be a tank mechanic, a worker at a defense factory, or even an American taxpayer - is no longer considered a civilian.

In June 2008, Mohammad Habib, the first deputy chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, sat down with an interviewer from Al Ahrar, an Egyptian daily. In the long interview, Habib spoke to the international Muslim Brotherhood:

Al-Ahrar: But what about the view that the Muslim Brotherhood will perish in the coming twenty years?

Dr. Habib: On the contrary, I see that the future is ours, and we will reach our aspirations. The group is gaining every day more territories and a depth in the consciousness of the Egyptian people. Add to this, the group is not confined to Egypt, it has offshoots in various countries all over the world, it continuously grows, achieves more successes at all levels.

Al-Ahrar: What about the international Muslim Brotherhood?

Dr. Habib: There are entities that exist in many countries all over the world. These entities have the same ideology, principle and objectives but they work in different circumstances and different contexts. So, it is reasonable to have decentralization in action so that every entity works according to its circumstances and according to the problems it is facing and in their framework.
This actually achieves two objectives: First: It adds flexibility to movement. Second: It focuses on action. Every entity in its own country can issue its own decision because it is more aware of the problems, circumstances and context in which they are working. However, there is some centralization in some issues. These entities can have dialogue when there is a common cause that faces Arabs or Muslims over their central issues like the Palestinian cause. At that time, all of them must cooperate for it. I want to confirm that while some see that Palestine caused rifts among the Arabs, we see that this cause is the one for which all Arabs unite.[56]

The Brotherhood in the West
In the United States, the Brotherhood has had an active presence since the 1960s. They have been represented by various organizations such as the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) founded in 1963, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) 1971, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) 1981, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) 1981, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) 1981, the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) 1989, the American Muslim Council (AMC) 1990, the Muslim American Society (MAS) 1992, the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) 1994, and others. In fact, nearly all prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood.

An internal Brotherhood memorandum, released during the terror-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial in July 2007 shows that the Brotherhood’s jihad can take more subtle and long range approaches. Dated to May 22, 1991, the memo states:

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.[57]

That theme was picked up four years later by a Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader attending a conference in Toledo, Ohio. Al-Qaradawi has been offered the post of General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood twice, but has turned it down in favor of building and managing several Islamist organizations in the West and the Middle East associated with the Brotherhood.[58] At the Ohio conference hosted by the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), he said, “Our brothers in Hamas, in Palestine, the Islamic resistance, the Islamic Jihad, after all the rest have given up and despaired, the movement of the Jihad brings us back to our faith.”[59]

He later added:

What remains, then, is to conquer Rome. The second part of the omen. “The city of Hiraq [once emperor of Constantinople] will be conquered first,” so what remains is to conquer Rome. This means that Islam will come back to Europe for the third time, after it was expelled from it twice… Conquest through Da'wa [proselytizing], that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.
…

But the balance of power will change, and this is what is told in the Hadith of Ibn-Omar and the Hadith of Abu-Hurairah: "You shall continue to fight the Jews and they will fight you, until the Muslims will kill them. And the Jew will hide behind the stone and the tree, and the stone and the tree will say: ‘Oh servant of Allah, Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him!’ The resurrection will not come before this happens.” This is a text from the good omens in which we believe.[60]

Prominent Brotherhood organizations in Europe include the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations, the Muslim Association of Britain, the European Council for Fatwa and Research, the Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland (IGD), and the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF).

Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations in the West have successfully, but disingenuously, positioned themselves as gatekeepers to the Muslim-American community. The underlying goal of these groups is to redefine moderate Islam and to oversee a separation between Western Muslim communities and their secular host societies in order to promote Islamism reinforce loyalty to the global ummah. Inherent in these goals is a strategy to weaken Western resistance to Islamism. Presenting themselves as the moderate voices of Islam, they have created a narrative to their community that the US government’s campaign against terrorism is, rather, a generalized “war against Islam” that must be shunned, discouraged, and monitored. This characterization serves to demonize the efforts of the U.S. government and the West, which ultimately serves to radicalize and alienate Western Muslims.

To a large degree, the narrative propagated by these organizations is a corollary of the primary message of radical Islam at large: That there is a conspiracy by the West to subjugate Islam. This self-victimization fuels paranoia that Muslims are being selectively targeted for racist reasons, because of “special interests,” or due to anti-Muslim bias in Western foreign policy. This, in turn, inflames self-alienation and degrades any positive connections between Western Muslim communities and their host state. The foundation and histories of these intertwined organizations in America, as well as their actions in the West, should be examined in an effort to shed a light on the radicalizing effect on the local Muslim communities.

Over the last forty years, the movement that began in 1963 with the MSA has transformed itself into a network of like-minded organizations most commonly identified by a wide array of acronyms. ISNA grew directly out of MSA. According to Muslim activist Ihsan Bagby who has long been involved in ISNA leadership, “ISNA has always sought inspiration and guidance from the intellectual leaders of the modern Islamic movement (Maududi, Sayyid Qutb, Hasan al-Banna, etc.)”

NAIT serves as the financial arm of ISNA and holds the deeds to numerous ideologically compatible mosques and Islamic institutions. Groups such as ISNA attract Muslims of all backgrounds to their conferences. Yet, the leadership has remained committed to uphold the values of conservative Islamism, which looks to Islamicize society within the confines of a very specific interpretation. These organizations have been supported by funding from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In 1993, there was a meeting of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America on how to advance the cause of Hamas. As a result of those discussions, three officials from the pro-Hamas, Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) founded the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s stated mission is “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.” By observing the Washington, D.C. based leadership of CAIR, and some of CAIR’s local branch leaders throughout the United States for twelve-years, it has become clear that CAIR has branched out beyond their stated mission. CAIR resources have consistently been utilized to block any action against radicalism. Since its inception, CAIR has intimidated and silenced critics - even fellow Muslims - while spreading disinformation about any who attempt to oppose or compete with them. Personal attacks on reporters, government officials and others who address issues of radical Islamism are dispatched in lieu of responding substantively to allegations. Almost every time there is a terrorist prosecution or an asset forfeiture of an Islamic charity linked to a terrorist group, CAIR, and other groups such as the Muslim American Society (MAS) - an organization that has been identified by a top Muslim Brotherhood leader as one of their own - condemns it as a fishing expedition meant to demonize Muslims. CAIR does indeed also work to protect the civil liberties of Muslims, an important endeavor, but does so in a way that projects an “us vs. them” mentality to American Muslims, purposefully fomenting isolation from the rest of the country.

Despite the known ties of the above mentioned organizations to the Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. government insists on engaging in “outreach” and dialogue with them. This has led to an almost comical situation in which one side of the Department of Justice labels CAIR as an unindicted coconspirator in what has been alleged to be the biggest case of terrorist financing in the history of the Republic while the other side of the Department of Justice meets with CAIR officials and attends CAIR conferences in an effort to perform outreach with the Muslim-American community.

While it can be argued that outreach with the Muslim-American community is a necessary component to a successful counterterrorism strategy, there is absolutely no reason that this outreach has to go through