FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR
The Muslim Brotherhood and the ACU
There’s been a lot of debate going on these days about CPAC. Some people are opting not to attend as they are not sure they feel comfortable with the direction it is going, while others are of the opinion that the big tent of Republicanism and the accompanying debate are best suited to be had at the conservative gathering.
This article is not about those debates. This is about the influence of radical Islam over the organization that puts CPAC together, the American Conservative Union’s (ACU) board of directors. Unfortunately, it has become apparent that there are Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, apologists, and fundamentalists sponsoring and speaking at the conference this weekend.
At 1:00 pm on Friday in the Jackson Room, there will be a panel discussion called The Importance of Faith & Religious Liberty in the U.S. & Abroad. It is sponsored by a group called Muslims for America which was founded by the Hasan Family Foundation and runs a blog at muslimsforamerica.us.
It’s at this blog that Muslims for America co-founder Muhammad Ali Hasan, a self-proclaimed “proud democrat” and supporter of the DREAM Act, described the controversy around Park51 Muslim Community Center otherwise known as the Ground Zero Mosque:
Anyone who opposed the Mosque/Islamic Center was clearly being a bigot. These people have not cared for the last 9 years what was happening at Ground Zero.
Under the auspices of “caring,” the writer has labeled any reasonable opposition to the construction of the GZM as intolerant towards Islam. This is not the only time that the group has taken this position as Ali Hasan made similar accusations on the O’Reilly Factor.
As has been discussed often by the opposition to the mosque, if Park51′s stated purpose is to improve Muslim-American dialogue, not ignoring the concerns of a populace that was attacked by the evangelists of your religion would be a great start. But this presupposes that the writer in any way holds followers of Islam responsible for the attack.
He does not.
Elsewhere in the editorial, the writer says this:
The religion of Islam had nothing to do with 9/11. As far as I am concerned, people say the hijackers were Muslim but I don’t believe that.
This is a profoundly naive or perhaps even disingenuous statement especially for an organization that claims that understanding Islam as vital to improving our foreign policy.
From the website “about us” section:
Bipartisan in nature, Muslims For America deeply believes that our best foreign policy plans can mature from both the Republican Party and Democratic Party, which is why it remains the group’s greatest goal to forever unite American Muslims with both parties. Should both parties claim the strongest understanding and insight into the world of Islam, then they will continually produce the best foreign policy decisions possible.
To claim that 9-11 was perpetrated by non-Muslims raises the question, is this even a philosophically defensible position? I solicited a quote from Thomas Howe, Ph.D*, a Professor of Philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC, to find out if this is a position that a devoutly religious person can intellectually defend:
A person can certainly believe what he chooses, but one can believe a lie as easily as the truth. Not to believe that the hijackers were Muslim does not make this a fact. They were Muslim by association and by confession. A person may choose at any time to act outside of the dictates and requirements of his confession, but such does not dissociate that person from his association. Only a willful choice to leave or separate from an association issues in this result. The hijackers, by their actions, may certainly have been contrary to the dictates and requirements of Islam, but this did not disassociate them from their own confession. They claimed to be Muslim, and this is the fact. Choosing not to believe they were Muslim demonstrates only that people can choose to believe what they want, and sometimes people choose to believe what is patently not true.
So-called moderate Muslims are a necessary component to rooting out enemies. Not owning up to their own brothers and sisters that commit these heinous crimes is detrimental to understanding the enemy we face abroad and counterproductive to “maturing” our foreign policy.
Furthermore it is counter to the additional claims of the organization which purports to promote understanding between us and them. If they aren’t going to admit the truth when it faces them, then how can we trust that they are really interested in good relations? They seem to be acting like the Great Satan, deceitfully attempting to cover up the truth.
If the statements by Muslims for America were the only quote of an incendiary nature then it could perhaps be written off as merely the wishful thinking of religious person, desirous of peace but saddled with the baggage of the extremists in his religion.
Reading the comments in response to this blog paint a different picture.
When reader “tommy” accused Islam of attempting to install Sharia law in the United States and blasted the writer for excusing Islam for responsibility in 9-11, Muslims for America sarcastically responded using the moniker “mfa” as they do throughout the website:
December 10th, 2010 at 4:42 amTommy thank you for your comment. I have taken it seriously and will email all the Muslims who were planning on waking up America to refrain from doing so,cause consequences will be far greater than they realize. Believe me this will scare them and thankfully you and I will never hear from them again.
While you are still at the computer, please Google,”CIA FORMED MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD”,read articles on how CIA founded and funded Muslim Brotherhood to make Muslims go after communism. Also Google,”COLONEL IMAM”,another guy trained by CIA at an army base in USA.He took the training and trained one hundred and fifty thousand AL-QUIDA and TALIBAN in camps paid by US TAX PAYER DOLLARS.He closed the camps on 9/12 2001. Thanks for your warning.
With this quote, MFA doubles down on the idea that it was not Islam that committed these terrorist attacks. Now they are instructing readers to read the “truth” which will reveal America’s bloody hands and responsibility for the existence of terrorism.
“Irresponsible” would seem too kind a description for an attitude such as this from an organization attempting to mend soured relations between our cultures. But not completely surprising given that Hasan has also taken to defending Hamas front group CAIR:
But it gets worse.
Co-founder Seeme Hasan, who has been part of the effort to legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood, is quoted as saying:
“The Muslim Brotherhood is doing some good jobs for Muslims in Egypt,” she said. “They’re trying to fight for democracy and free elections. What’s wrong with that?”
She also acknowledged that “some members have done bad things,” for example, “gotten involved with al-Qaida.”
For those of you unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Daily Caller recently provided a glance into the mind on of their senior leaders:
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. (emphasis mine)
The motto of the group is no less of a concern:
- Allah is our objective.
- The Prophet is our leader.
- Qur’an is our law.
- Jihad is our way.
- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
So, this is an organization whose founders excuse Islam from having a role in the 9-11 attacks, refers to any opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque as bigotry, believes that the United States is culpable if not responsible for world wide terrorism through the funding and founding of various militant groups, as well as apologizing on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. In what world is it appropriate for them to be sponsoring an event on religious freedom at CPAC?
Well, aside from the fact that they would likely have paid cash in order to be granted the title sponsor, one need look no further than the the board of ACU. In their world, there’s nothing to see here.
For instance, ACU board member Grover Norquist:
In an open letter to Republicans last fall, Norquist warned that by opposing the 9/11 Mosque of Triumph, the GOP was “alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party – individual liberty, traditional values and the rule of law.” And the 70% of voters who oppose the mosque – most who actually vote Republican (unlike the 89% of of Muslim Americans who voted for Obama in 2008)? Racists whose views should be dismissed out of hand, in the GOP strategist’s estimation. Republicans would do better taking advice from James Carville.
One of those Muslim Americans who cherishes the aforesaid Republican principles is Abduirahman Alamoudi – presently serving a 23-year sentence for fundraising for foreign terrorist groups, including the Libyans.
In 1998, Alamoudi helped to launch Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute, once a regular presence at CPAC, with gifts and loans totaling $20,000.
But that wasn’t the anti-tax activist’s only experience with jihadist money men.
In The American Thinker, Pam Geller writes: “Norquist was an honoree at an event held by Sami Al-Arian’s National Council to Protect Political Freedom in July 2001, two months before 9/11. The award was for being a ‘champion of the abolishment movement against secret evidence.’ In 2006, Al-Arian pleaded guilty (to) ‘conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.’” – which makes Hamas look like Nathan Lane in a burka.
For the video challenged, let me quote Khan:
The early Muslims loved death, dying for the sake of almighty Allah, more than the oppressors loved life…This must be the case when we are fighting…What are our oppressors going to do with a people like us? We are prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam.
Additionally, Kahn’s mother worked for Hamas front CAIR. His father was a founding member of the Mulsim Brothers in the United States which provided fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood & Hamas as well as offering support to Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri. According to Big Peace, Khan also has a close relationship to terrorist Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi, as well as convicted terrorist Sami al Arian, and Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Barzinji.
This has unfortunately, opened a door to the opportunity for a group like Muslims for America to find its way into an event intended for Conservatives. Kahn will be moderating the panel, which includes a speaker, Homeland Security Advisor Muhammad Elibiary, who himself raises a red flag. He was shown to have spoken at a conference honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini, which included speakers from CAIR as well as a few intensely anti-Semitic speakers. For those under the age of 20, the Ayatollah Khomeini was a fundamentalist Muslim who led the revolution in Iran and installed the oppressive theocracy that currently exists. That’s not exactly a model for conservative thought, much less the religious freedom that the panel will be discussing.
The American Conservative Union has taken a lot of heat in recent weeks. From the inclusion of libertarians and gay rights proponents like GoProud, to recent remarks by Board Chairman David Keene indicating he was fine with pro-choice groups becoming part of CPAC. Some of those things may not bother you, and some of them, I admit, don’t bother me. But one area where we should be united is this: As conservatives, we were the first to accept that the responsibility for 9-11 lay at the feet of Muslim extremists bent on destroying our country. Let us not sully the memory of that horrible day by pretending it’s ok to share a table with groups that apologize, sympathize, justify, or ignore the truth of radical Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Does this mean that Muslims should be excluded from events like CPAC? Of course not. Making such a claim is precisely the kind of distraction that those mentioned in this article have used before. It is not their religion that should give one pause. Whether it was Christians, Jews, atheists, or satanists, the concern stems from the undeniable affiliation with groups determined to annihilate our nation. And only through honest and unapologetic acceptance of this can we identify who our enemies are. Ignoring these affiliations in favor of some misguided attempt at political correctness and sensitivity, would make us just as guilty and complicit as the people referred to in this article. We must call attention to the danger inherent in welcoming groups such as these and demand a change.
To quote Ronald Reagan,”Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Make no mistake: There is a huge portion of Islam, some fear all of Islam, that wishes to subjugate the west and supplant our way of life with theirs. Some do it from the barrel of a gun. Some do it from the Mosque. Some do it from within.
*In case it wasn’t apparent, Dr. Thomas Howe is not only the Professor of Philosophy at the seminary, he’s also my father.
Editorial note: It should be recognized that while there is clearly a problem with the influence of radical Islam on the ACU, a lot of great people still work for the organization and have arranged for great panels, such as The Ground Zero Mosque: The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks with panelists Pam Gellar & Robert Spencer.