Report: Islamist radicals find warm welcome in Obama White House

Neil Munro, The Daily Caller, 10/22/12

White House visitor records show that administration officials have hosted numerous White House meetings with a series of U.S.-based Muslim political groups that have close ties to jihadi groups and push to reduce anti-terrorism investigations.

The visits were discovered by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which compared the Obama White House’s visitor records with its database of Islamist advocacy groups.

For example, the records show that officials from the Council on American Islamic Relations have visited the White House 20 times, according to the organization’s report.

Members of CAIR were invited to the White House, even though an April 2009 FBI statement said the bureau “does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner” because of its ties to the Hamas jihadi group.

Read the White House Visitor Logs

Administration officials also invited Syrian-born Louay Safi to the White House twice in 2011, even though he had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two terrorism cases, and had been barred from Fort Hood following the 2009 jihadi attack by a Muslim U.S. Army major.

In contrast, White House officials have not invited Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona-based, American-born moderate Muslim and former Navy officer.

“We’ve never been invited and nether have any of [the 24 leaders in] our American Islamic Leadership Coalition,” Jasser told The Daily Caller.

The absence of invitations to real Muslim moderates allows White House officials to pretend that members of the well-funded, U.S.-based radical group are moderates, even when they’re linked to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, he said.

Jasser’s nonpartisan coalition includes left-wing and feminist Muslims who are frequently criticized by the groups invited to the White House, he said.

“The White House has selectively omitted genuine [Muslim] moderates and instead has picked radical Muslims to meet,” said a statement from Steve Emerson, founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

The closed-door White House meetings legitimize the radicals, but do not bring them into the mainstream, Emerson told TheDC.

“The American public has a right to know why the White House is meeting with Hamas front groups,” he added.

The visitor logs show that many of the Muslim advocates met with coalition-building officials in the White House, rather than with national security officials. The officials they met with include Paul Monteiro, the associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, and Amanda Brown, assistant to the then-White House director of political affairs Patrick Gaspard.

Gaspard is now the executive director of the Democratic National Committee.

The White House’s Secret Service guards do not veto invites from White House officials, but merely tell the officials if the guests will be arrested on existing charges if they arrive at the gates.

The meetings were likely intended to boost the president’s nationwide effort to bind often-rivaling constituency groups into the Democratic Party’s diversity coalition.

That disparate coalition already includes groups claiming to represent environmentalists, blue-collar workers, immigrants, African-Americans, Hispanics, gun-control advocates, Jews, gays, tort lawyers and many others.

In April, White House officials invited members of the National Network for Arab American Communities to a White House meeting.

“Our issues are American issues that affect our entire nation … and we will ensure that our community’s voice is at the forefront of public debates around healthcare, immigration and national security reform,” Linda Sarsour, NNAAC’s national advocacy director, said in an April press release.

Sarsour has been a White House visitor on seven different occasions. Her network includes 23 separate member associations, including the Illinois-based Arab American Action Network.

That group’s director, Hatem Abudayyeh, has been under criminal investigation at least since late 2010, when FBI agents raided his home as part of an investigation into terror-related financing.

Abudayyeh visited the White House in April 2010, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s study.


Muslim voters likely comprise less than one percent of the nation’s electorate. Many are in blue states, including California and Illinois, but a significant number of Muslims have settled in Michigan and Virginia, where every vote could potentially sway a close election.

Overall, 75 percent of Muslim Arab Americans support Obama, while 8 percent support Gov. Mitt Romney, according to a poll of 400 Arab Americans taken in September by the Arab American Institute.

In turn, Christian Arabs strongly favor Romney by 16 percentage points, reducing Obama’s overall support among Arab Americans to 52 percent, according to the poll.


In 2008, Obama won 67 percent of the Arab-American vote.

James Zogby, the Arab-American founder of the AAI, estimates there are a combined 833,000 Arab-American voters in Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The White House’s Muslim constituency group meetings are supplemented by additional meetings outside the White House.

In June, George Selim, the White House’s director for community partnerships, told TheDC that “there is [sic] hundreds of examples of departments and agencies that meet with CAIR on a range of issues.”

Selim’s office was formed in January to ensure cooperation by law enforcement and social service agencies with Muslim identity groups in the United States.

The CAIR meetings were arranged even though CAIR has extensive ties to jihad groups, including Hamas — the Palestinian affiliate of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

Top officials, including President Barack Obama, have participated in the Muslim outreach.

Obama has chosen to meet personally with leaders of several Muslim groups, including the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

That group’s co-founder, Iraqi-born Salem al-Marayati, visited the White House six times. He has denounced several successful convictions of jihadi terrorists, and has repeatedly called for Muslims to stop cooperation with the FBI except when it is mediated by MPAC or other Muslim groups.

The  Islamic Society of North America was declared an unindicted co-conspirator in a successful 2008 trial of a Texas-based Muslim group that smuggled funds to Hamas. In October 2011, Mohamed Magid, the Sudanese-born president of ISNA, told top Justice Department officials that “teaching people that all Muslims are a threat to the country …  is against the law and the Constitution.”

Some of Obama’s deputies, especially Valerie Jarrett and Tom Perez, who runs the civil-rights section in the Justice Department, have also been enthusiastic supporters of the outreach policy.

Jarrett spoke at ISNA’s 2009 conference, and Perez spoke at its 2012 event.

TheDC emailed or called the White House, MPAC, CAIR, Safi, Sarsour’s press secretary and Abudayyeh for comment. None responded.

American Islamic Forum for Democracy stands in support of the First Amendment



American Islamic Forum for Democracy stands in support of the First Amendment

AIFD condemns calls by Islamists from Kansas City to Egypt to limit our unalienable right to free speech


PHOENIX (October 1, 2012) – Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith” issued the following statement on behalf of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in response to growing calls by Islamists domestically and abroad to limit the reach of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:


“The American Islamic Forum for Democracy is appalled by recent calls by Islamists domestically and abroad to limit the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Their call for limits on the grounds that distasteful or “hateful” speech against Islam or the Prophet Muhammad is an “incitement to violence” is a flagrant insult to every American and especially every God fearing American Muslim.  The Islamic Society of Kansas City is currently circulating a petition that calls for the President and the Congress to bring forth legislation that outlaws any action that may insult one’s religion.’ The petition is put forth by their board of directors and signed by over 300 supporters. In Dearborn hundreds of Islamists gathered to call for similar legal limitations against the American understanding of free speech in order to pressure the U.S. government to enact their interpretations of blasphemy laws against Islam as they would want them under shar’iah which would prohibit any ridicule of Islam or the Prophet.


As American Muslims who deeply love the foundations of our country and our faith, we stand firmly against such calls for any speech limitations at all. We call the attention of all Americans to the paramount and revealing nature of this battle and how it is an unmistakable litmus test for Islamism in Muslim communities. Exposing which Muslims stand with the First Amendment and the freedom to denigrate all faiths and which Muslims ask for the special so-called “protection” of Islam or all faiths for that matter against any speech will better expose those Muslims who are guided by an Islamist (theocratic) or shar’iah based agenda versus those who are advocates for liberty and anti-Islamist reforms.


The attempts of groups like the Islamic Society of Kansas City to invoke “incitement to violence” language about criticism of Islam as an excuse which they deceptively attach to our First Amendment is an outright insult to every Muslim. To assume that harsh criticism or even hate of Islam or the Prophet Muhammad is akin to a direct incitement to violence is an attempt to infantilize Muslims and is the same language used by autocratic Islamist regimes from Iran to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in order to smother dissent, reform, and human rights.


Make no mistake. This fight within our Muslim communities between liberals and Islamists about free speech runs at the heart of defeating the greatest security threat to the West- the ideology of Islamism and its protean movements.


The Islamic Society of Kansas City and the protesters in Dearborn are not alone. They are a product of a far more reaching global Islamist leadership that echoes the same Islamist concerns. Free speech is but one fault line in the attempt of Islamists to advance their interpretations of shar’iah upon the West and separate Muslims out of the consciousness of freedom. Since 1999, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, a Saudi based neo-Caliphate like organization of 56 Muslim majority countries) has annually tried to attack the protections of our First Amendment by putting forth resolutions at the UN to condemn the ‘defamation of religion’. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish secretary general of the OIC calling for “an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material,” demanded that the international community “come out of hiding from behind the excuse of freedom of expression.” The Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Ahmed al-Tayyeb summarily condemned the West telling Egyptians in reference to the film condemning Islam and the Prophet Muhammad that “the West throughout history has not treated Islam with respect, but showed hostility [against it], and chosen the path of conflict, rather than understanding.” We have now also seen calls for the U.S. to “revisit its First Amendment” from the Islamist regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Iran and Pakistan.


It is disgraceful that Islamists from Iran to Kansas City have the temerity to tell the freest nation on earth to curtail our freedoms in order to protect Islam when it is countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran that propagate truly genocidal speech against Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims in the form of state sponsored hate films like the Protocols, Wahhabi texts that compare Jews to apes and pigs in the name of Islam, and the President of Iran who denies the Holocaust in addition to calling for the end of the state Israel.


History shows that the banning of speech results in tyranny and that faith is best served in an environment that protects each individual’s right to accept or reject whatever practices they choose.


We wholly reject any attempt by our government to protect belief systems. We have not had a problem identifying speech that incites violence in the United States. It is the Islamists who are attempting to subvert our first amendment by conveniently broadening the definition of incitement. The reactions of Islamists should not be allowed to dictate the free expression of faith around the world or the opinions of free Muslims.


The right to redress any faith is a hallmark of our freedoms in the U.S. To limit speech of any kind is to limit the free exercise of our basic liberty.  These calls are in fact blasphemous to the very ideals that built the United States.  Religious freedom cannot exist without the unencumbered right to critique and criticize religion.


At AIFD we fully condemn and reject these calls for limiting the First Amendment and instead call on the Administration to aggressively make the case for liberty and advocate a Liberty Doctrine for the Middle East. The only way to truly eliminate the violence that we have seen is to empower the people of the Middle East with the principles of liberty and freedom- the same principles that our Founding Fathers came to enjoy in their escape from theocracy.


We must stand on principle and reject concepts that are borne from the intolerance of ideas and diversity of thought.”


About the American Islamic Forum for Democracy

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. AIFD’s mission advocates for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. For more information on AIFD, please visit our website at


MEDIA CONTACTS:        Gregg Edgar

Gordon C. James Public Relations



Forced Marriages Alleged for Syrian Refugees

Michael Rubin, Colunbia Tribune, 10/14/12

Read article at Columbia Tribune

This may not be a big story in the West, but it is getting a lot of play on the Arabic satellite channels and here in Iraq:

Akram, a long-time Syrian resident of Jordan, says that in the Zaatari camp, which houses some 30,000 Syrian refugees in the desert near the border town of Mafraq, a new social phenomenon has spread that has come to be termed sutra or “cover” marriage, where refugees marry off their daughters, even at a very young age, to the first person who asks for their hand, under the pretext of “covering” their honor. He says he knows of one case in which a 70-year old Jordanian man wed a Syrian child of 12… “Cover” marriages started becoming more numerous and exploitative as a direct result of the atrocious living conditions in the camp, according to Nidal. Desperate refugees began looking for any way to extricate their children from impoverishment and misery. At the same time, Jordanian men seeking to marry increasingly took advantage of their dire situation.

There has never been any love for Saudis either among Shi’ites or among Sunnis throughout much of the Middle East. Rumors that the Saudi embassy and Saudi bureaus now facilitate the marriages of young Syrian girls to Saudis are spreading outrage. Self-righteous explanations that such marriages save girls and women from prostitution or being forced into other immoral behavior carry little water, as the same Saudis who allegedly are taking such children could just as easily provide charity to assist families who have fled the Syrian crackdown without seeking to exploit the situation.

King: Obama must move beyond political correctness to fight Islamists, October 14, 2012

While the Obama administration and many members of the elite news media appear confused as to the true nature of the national security threat posed by al-Qaeda, and its offshoots Al Shabaab, Boko Haram and al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, Congressman Peter King (R-NY) appears to be the “go-to” lawmaker for all things involving Islamic terrorism. As evidenced by his appearances on CNN, Fox News Channel and interviews with reporters in the print media on Wednesday, King presents an alternative to the touchy-feely, politically-correct anti-terrorism of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, many within the law enforcement and intelligence communities told the Law Enforcement Examiner on Wednesday.

“Islamic terrorism is the most diabolical threat facing our nation today. No American ever wants to relive the attacks of 9/11. This is particularly true on Long Island where hundreds of our friends and neighbors were murdered on that horrific day,” stated King in a statement on his web site.

In his statement, King noted that he and his Homeland Security Committee conducted a series of hearings on the extent of radicalization in the Muslim-American Community. “We must move beyond political correctness and address the root causes of how and why certain individuals are being radicalized here in the United States and participating in terrorist attacks against Americans,” Rep. King noted.

On Mar. 10, 2011, King’s House Homeland Security Committee held the first of several hearings that focused on the extent of radicalization in the Muslim-American Community and that community’s response to these homegrown Islamists.

“At the hearing we heard from two individuals whose relatives became radicalized and were encouraged to commit jihad. We also heard from noted Islamic expert Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy,” stated King.

That hearing was followed by three subsequent ones dealing with the threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in U.S. Prisons (Jun. 15, 2011), Recruitment and Radicalization within the Muslim-American Community by Al-Shabaab (Jul. 27, 2011), and a joint-hearing with the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee regarding the threat to military communities inside the United States as well as the threat from radicalized Muslims within our military (Dec. 7, 2011).

King concedes that he was heavily criticized by special interests and their allies in the media for conducting these and other hearings, but most Americans supported him according to polls.

“I stood by them because I knew they were the right thing to do to publicize and discuss this grave threat to Americans. That is why I have held additional hearings this year on the Hezbollah threat in the U.S. (Mar. 21, 2012) and the response of Muslim Americans to the radicalization hearings (Jun. 20, 2012). The outstanding witnesses at the June hearing were Dr. Jasser, Asra Nomani and Dr. Qanta Ahmed,” King said.

As Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, King pushed both sides of the aisle to pass legislation securing U.S. ports, chemical plants, and airports. He said he also reached across the aisle to pass legislation protecting the nation’s rail and transportation systems.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Read the article at
October 26, 2012

By: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Diary)

Mr. President,

What could you possibly have been thinking? The ad you have launched featuring a young actress equating voting for you to a sexual act is offensive to me, to millions of women and to the stature of the office you hold. As a father of two beautiful girls, how could you possibly have allowed this to be aired? Did you approve this? Did someone on your campaign staff actually think this was a good idea? It is offensive, repulsive and should be removed immediately. It is beneath the dignity of the office you hold. Mr. President, are you and your Democrat colleagues so focused on sex and reproductive rights that you really think that is the single motivator for women? Are you not aware that women in 2012 are focused on jobs, the economy, economic opportunity? Women are running companies, serving as the human resource director of companies and helping employees solve problems. Women are doctors, lawyers, teachers, sales managers, marketers. They handle problems in the workplace by day and manage their families by night. They are concerned about the healthcare of their families and are the drivers in healthcare decisions, making 85% of all healthcare decisions. Many women are heads of households. Many are the primary wage earners for their families.

Do you know that many women are voting this year because they have $16T reasons to go to the polls? Debt and out of control spending are at the top of their list. They are concerned that you don’t want to pass a budget. They are concerned that the future for their children is being capped and traded to the countries that own our debt. How can you possibly look these moms in the eye when you have equated their vote to ‘the first time’? Are you really serious?

I find it ironic that you have time to approve such a message but you don’t have time to find out what happened in Benghazi . By the way, we are still waiting to hear directly from you when you were told of the attacks. Did you know before you put your head on the pillow that evening that you had an Ambassador and staff that were in danger? Did you know it was a terrorist attack? When you hob-nobbed in Las Vegas, did you know it was not a video? Was getting out on the campaign trail, seeing your Hollywood friends and raising campaign cash more important that fighting terrorism and defending those who are giving their lives to defend us?

Serving as President of the United States is a privilege that is afforded to few in our country. When you became the 44th President, you accepted the responsibilities of preserving this nation and protecting us from foes, foreign and domestic. Sir, you need to reign in the inappropriate behavior, retract your Rolling Stone comments and get this First Time ad off the air. You should be conducting yourself like the American people expect their President to conduct himself.

Marsha Blackburn

Member of Congress

P.S. I can guarantee that I am working my hardest and doing my best to build a victory for my side of the aisle and my candidate, Governor Mitt Romney. And, yes, on November 6, I fully believe that you will find that “we the people” have decided to “be the people.” We are building this victory and will look forward to looking back at this election victory and saying, “Yes, we did build that! We have built this country and it is here to stay!”

“The Right Kind of Jihad”

by Karen Lugo, Gatestone Institute, October 17, 2012

‘Even though the Syrian-American artist was disinvited and the award cancelled, his parents in Homs, Syria, were beaten and their home was later ransacked. Jasser points to extortionist campaigns to force on Americans policy that does not have popular support and calls on liberty-minded Muslims publicly to criticize such tactics.’

The Iranian Green Revolution had brave Neda Agha-Soltan, and the Pakistanis have the stubbornly courageous Malala Yousufzai. At fourteen, when the Taliban tried to assassinate Malala for promoting education for girls, she had been defying the Taliban for years. Whether these girls are catalysts for sustained revolutions may well depend on how many in the West champion their heroism.

Russian dissident Natan Sharansky tells Westerners that demonstrators would rush to the streets for minutes, risking the gulags, in hope that “at least one foreign journalist was present so that, the next day, at least one Western news source would come out with a story that could in turn elicit a chain reaction of more and greater press attention and, we hoped, a vocal Western response.” The Russian dissidents knew that a vocal response from the West would lend a megaphone to their cause. How devastating it would have been if President Reagan and Americans had failed to rally with them.

One of the insistent voices currently calling on Americans to champion liberty in the face of aggressive “Shariahites” — Shariah is hardline religious code whether pushed under Shia, Sunni, Salafist, or Wahhabist banner — is self-described devout Muslim, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser. At a time when the West is asking how to identify and trust moderate Muslims; wondering what to do about insular Islamist communities that are burrowing into city surrounds; and, calculating how to block Islamist political infiltration, Dr. Jasser suggests that moderate Muslims can play a pivotal role in exposing and discrediting the Islamist agents.

In his first book, A Battle For The Soul Of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith, Dr. Jasser demonstrates that his devotion to preserving American ideals against aggressive Islamism has required that he pledge of his own sacred honor as did the founding-era freedom fighters. Close observers would say he has also committed much of his life-energy and fortunes to speaking, writing, and organizing for the cause of American-style individuals’ rights.

Dr. Jasser was born to immigrant Syrian parents in Canton, Ohio. His parents, taking stock of their recent flight from Hafez Assad’s oppressive regime, taught Jasser reverence for the American model of consensual government based upon the rule of law created by elected representatives of the people. He wrote that he also learned what he calls an “intense love” for the American military and the symbolism of democratic alliances that the troops represent around the world.

Jasser’s maternal grandfather was head of the Syrian Shariah Supreme Court from 1975 to 1985; and his paternal grandfather was a journalist-turned-dissident, who ultimately lost his business and his home as exaction for his outspoken criticism of Baathist fascism. Inspired by his grandfathers, Jasser spent many hours with his father re-interpreting Islamic text to provide contexts based on reason and a modern perspective.

The record shows that Jasser, in a society that offered opportunities, excelled in scholarship, and served with distinction in the US Navy. Trained as in internist, he served as a physician on a Charlie-class amphibious cargo ship. Although the Black Hawk Down debacle occurred at this time, Jasser was not singled out as a Muslim for persecution or “hate” messages. He says he comported himself as “an American officer who happened to be Muslim.”

Before entering the private sector with a medical practice in Phoenix, Arizona, Dr. Jasser’s public service culminated with his selection to the highly competitive position of Attending Physician for Congress and the Supreme Court.

Dr. Jasser’s character was most vividly revealed — they say that adversity does not create character, but simply reveals it — in 1995 when he confronted an Islamist “Muslim brotherhood legacy group” head on. After presenting a paper at a medical convention, Jasser stayed an additional day for the opening of the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) annual convention to see what 15,000 Muslims — some in military uniform — had gathered to discuss. One of the headliners, Imam Siraj Wahhaj made claims about replacing the US Constitution, a suggestion that enraged Lt. Col. Jasser to the point where, in his dress whites, Jasser took to the microphone at the close of Wahhaj’s tirade to confront the sedition-like statements. Jasser encouraged military personnel who were in the audience to leave. However, even the most supportive of those who approached Jasser told him he was overreacting.

Americans ask why there are not more Zuhdi Jassers speaking out against outrageous Islamist pronouncements and plans generated by mega-conventions and mosque co-operatives. One reason, often overlooked by those impatient to see greater anti-Sharia-law activism coming from the moderate Islamic community, is the monitoring by “minders,” who threaten economic and physical retaliation against family members back in the homeland for what is said by Muslims in America.

The U.S. has been complicit in this coercion: it has created conduits between petro-dollar rich Middle Eastern power centers and American universities, publishers, media outlets, mosque developers, and community groups. With just one example, Dr. Jasser illustrates how efficiently American interests can be influenced: in 2011 a Syrian-American classical pianist and composer was selected for an Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee award; but the honor was withdrawn when the honoree refused to change song selections in deference to demands that Syrian freedom lyrics were provocative. Even though the artist was disinvited and the award cancelled, his parents in Homs, Syria, were beaten and their home was later ransacked.

Beyond these syndicate-like controls, Jasser explains, residual tribalism is an even stronger force. For many Americans this is a tough sell, as it is all but impossible to imagine a community morality so restrictive that everything familial, social, and political is judged according to generational customs. Although Dr. Jasser does not ask Westerners to accept this mentality as an excuse for passivity in the face of Islamist oppression, this real syndrome does handicap efforts to reform Islamic thinking — including Muslims who are substantially Westernized, such as Jasser’s own family.

The question is whether, in light of the Muslim reluctance to defy establishment Islamists, it is worth making overt efforts to recruit Muslims to the campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political activists. If Dr. Jasser calls these passive, or currently undeclared, Muslims “indispensible to countering Islamism,” then what do Americans have to lose in standing with them?

If the number of Muslims congenial to American constitutionalism does indeed constitute a sizeable majority, it makes good sense to try to understand their predicament and to engage them as allies in the cause of liberty. Complaining that there are not enough moderate Muslims to make a difference is self-defeating; this is resignation before a sound strategy has even been developed. In fact, the very assertion that a certain number is required before the effort is credible discounts the value of leaders capable of reaching this community from within and it deprecates the courageous efforts of current reformers.

Some doubt the fidelity of so-called moderate Muslims to American constitutional standards of equal rights for women, uncensored speech, freedom of religious choice, and separation of civic life from religious oversight. On these issues Dr. Jasser asks Muslims for clarity to the degree that they note and oppose politico-religious codes. Citing examples of the “lawfare” tactics — the use of subversive lawsuits to create privileged status for Muslim rights in the courts — behind stunts such as the “flying imam” demonstration and the teacher who demanded excessive time off to go on a hajj, Jasser points to extortionist campaigns to force on Americans policy that does not have popular support and he calls on liberty-minded Muslims publicly to criticize such tactics.

Modern Muslim reformers such as Irshad Manji, Dr. Tawfik Hamid, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, and now young Malala Yousufzai are looking for more dissidents to join them in the public square and they also desperately need the material aid and support that freedom-loving Westerners bring to the cause.

Dr. Jasser recently spoke for the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia where a reporter summarized that Jasser’s “American Islamic Forum for Democracy is engaged in the right kind of jihad.” This columnist said that Jasser’s organization “deserves the support of anyone worried about what kind of American Muslims emerge to lead that community.” The writer closed with this simple and prescient warning for the West: “Their jihad is our jihad.”

Liberal political movements call for protest Friday

Egypt Independent


Read at Egyprt Independent

Mohamed ElBaradei’s Constitution Party and the Popular Current movement, a coalition of several civilian parties, called for peaceful marches on Friday, 19 October to protest last Friday’s violence in Tahrir Square.

The protest, labeled, “Egypt is for all Egyptians,” would call for immediate investigations into the violence so that the perpetrators may be punished.

Several political parties had organized a protest on Friday, 12 October to condemn President Mohamed Morsy’s failure to address critical issues during the first 100 days of his term, while the Muslim Brotherhood called for a protest against the Battle of the Camel acquittals. Morsy supporters and opponents clashed during the rally and more than 100 people were injured, according to news reports.

The Constitution Party and the Popular Current issued a joint statement on Sunday saying that they hold the president responsible for obtaining information about the violence and sending those responsible to trial.

The statement added that the clashes Friday occurred because “some of the members of the ruling party could not recognize the opposition’s right to express its opinion peacefully” and added that the Brotherhood tried to disrupt their protest and change its name.

The statement accused the ruling party of repeating the mistakes of the former regime rather than working to achieve national consensus, and held Morsy and the Muslim Brotherhood responsible for violence during the clashes.

The Friday protest will also demand social justice, a minimum wage tied to the price of goods and the restructuring of the Constituent Assembly to better represent all Egyptians.

Rise of Islamists in Middle East increases Middle East Threat



Rise of Islamists in Middle East increases Middle East Threat

Attack on NY Federal Reserve and killings by Al Qaeda in Libya reveal what’s to come with empowered Islamist ideologues in control


PHOENIX (October 18, 2012) – Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith” issued the following statement on behalf of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy on the current threat from the Middle East:

“Americans were shocked to hear of the latest attempted attack against the United States yesterday at the NY Federal Reserve Building. It came just a little over one month after elements of Al Qaeda successfully attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya killing four Americans and mobs of inflamed Muslims throughout the Middle East attacked American embassies in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. The mob successfully put a salafi flag over the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

These attacks come in the wake of the Obama Administration presumptively claiming for weeks in campaign speeches that Al Qaeda “is on the run” and “on its heels.”  This clearly is not the case and in fact the Islamist regimes that have come to power, and that the administration has embraced, are fueling extremist ideologues in the region.

All of this points again to the failure of this administration to connect the dots of extremism.  Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis attack at the Federal Reserve was not done in a vacuum.  The mobs that attacked our embassies were not spontaneous actions in response to a movie.

It begins with the ideology of Islamism that breeds the supremacist mindset by its adherence that they are divinely inspired.  Islamism is the fertile ground for fascists to control the masses.  The administration has finally admitted that the attacks in Libya had nothing to do with the film. In Egypt the mobs were not spontaneous, but rather fueled by Islamists state run TV which increased its coverage of the English language Innocence of Muslims that ultimately drove the protests. Those small Islamist mobs were not the millions of the Egyptian “Arab Spring” of 2011. The Islamist establishment of Egypt from the Muslim Brotherhood to al-Azhar University seized on the film to push an anti-western narrative against freedom of speech and liberty domestically and abroad. The direct link to militant Islamists was revealed Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, a former member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood praised the protestors in Cairo as “honest and zealous.”

The Simon Wiesenthal Center reported last week that Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie had made anti-Semitic statements in the Egyptian state run al Ahram newspaper, calling for a “Holy Jihad” against Israel and stating Jews spread “corruption on earth, spilled the blood of believers and in their actions profane holy places, including their own.” Badie is the spiritual leader of The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist party in power.

In a written letter taking responsibility for his attack, Nafis, like the Times Square bomber and so many others before him, stated he wanted to “destroy America.” This mindset is fed by comments like Badie’s.  It is nurtured in a narrative that America is at war with Muslims and Islam.

By empowering Islamist regimes and movements, the administration has at best appeared weak and at worst facilitated movements that espouse a virulent hatred of America. Unless we change our policy, our natural allies of secular liberals in the region will turn far away from American influence and our real enemies the Islamists will only gain in strength as they invoke more acts of irrational violence and direct attacks on our home soil.”


About the American Islamic Forum for Democracy

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. AIFD’s mission advocates for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. For more information on AIFD, please visit our website at


MEDIA CONTACTS:        Gregg Edgar

Gordon C. James Public Relations