Islamic Relief UK does it have links with radical Islamic preachers?

Islamic Relief UK does it have links with radical Islamic preachers?

We ignore the activities of Islamic Relief UK at our peril

Here is a very interesting article by Sam Westrop and one we in the UK need to take note of.  I have to say that I remain very grateful that on the other side of the pond we see real research into the threats that we are facing in Europe.  I wonder why we do not have more voices in the UK concerning Islamic Relief UK and possible support of terrorism and links with radial Islamic preachers?

Islamic Relief is a Cog in a Dangerous Machine

GOVERNMENTS IN EUROPE AND AMERICA MUST FOLLOW THE UAE’S LEAD AND RESTRICT ISLAMIC RELIEF’S REACH

On June 10, at a drab airport hotel outside the city of Albany in upstate New York, a crowd gathered to break their fast and listen to speakers from the international charitable franchise, Islamic Relief, explain its work in Yemen, Syria and Myanmar. This fundraiser was just one of a dozen events conducted by Islamic Relief across the US that week, and one of the many hundreds of events organised each year in mosques, community centres, schools and other hotels all across the West.

Despite the proclaimed charitable endeavours of Islamic Relief, however, many of these events feature speakers known to preach distinctly uncharitable ideas. In Albany, guests were treated to the musings of Suleiman Hani, who has previously promoted conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.

Founded in 1984 in the English city of Birmingham by students involved with Muslim Brotherhood groups, Islamic Relief is today the largest Islamic charity in the West, with branches in more than 20 countries. It has received at least $80 million of funding from Western governments and international bodies, including the United Nations and the European Union. Its officials are members of government advisory panels, while Western cabinet ministers, European royalty and even Trump administration officials regularly speak at its events. That this international charity regularly promotes extremist preachers has evidently not worried public officials too much. And yet there are plenty of other facts about which politicians should be deeply concerned.

In 2014, the United Arab Emirates designated Islamic Relief Worldwide as a terrorist organisation, because of its links to the global Muslim Brotherhood. In 2016, the banking giant HSBC shut down Islamic Relief’s accounts, following a similar decision made by UBS four years earlier. In 2017, the Bangladeshi government banned Islamic Relief from working directly with Rohingya refugees over reported fears about radicalisation. That same year, the UK Charity Commission started investigating Islamic Relief’s promotion of extremist preachers.

 

Rohingyas.jpg 
In 2017, the Bangladeshi government banned Islamic Relief from working directly with Rohingya refugees over reported fears about radicalisation.

 

Seemingly, however, the scale of Islamic Relief’s bona fide charitable work has been impressive enough for those in the West to turn a blind eye to its ties to global extremist networks, despite the pleas of moderate Muslim activists.

The Middle East Forum, a thinktank in Philadelphia, has now released a report looking extensively at Islamic Relief: its branches, its links to the Muslim Brotherhood, its connections to Hamas, its officials’ extremism and its promotion of preachers who incite hatred against both moderate Muslims and non-Muslims.

There is no doubt that Islamic Relief is a flagship Muslim Brotherhood institution. One of its founders, Essam El-Haddad, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau while also serving as an Islamic Relief board member. In 2012, El-Haddad joined Mohamed Morsi’s campaign team. Following the elections in Egypt, El-Haddad became Morsi’s senior foreign policy adviser. Following the military intervention to remove Morsi, El-Haddad was charged by Egyptian prosecutors with collaborating with Hamas and Hezbollah.

As our report shows in great detail, across the world, other Islamic Relief officials are tied to Muslim Brotherhood networks. In Sweden, for example, a recent government report concluded that Islamic Relief serves to provide “credibility” to the Muslim Brotherhood, and notes that Islamic Relief official Haytham Rahmeh is involved with providing weapons to Muslim Brotherhood fighters in Syria. Meanwhile, Swedish Islamic Relief official Abdallah Salah, is frequently pictured with Muslim Brotherhood insignia.

Islamic Relief collaborates with and funds several Hamas fronts. Islamic Relief UK has given money, for example, to the Al-Falah Benevolent Society, a Hamas da’wah organisation run by Ramadan Tamboura, described by journalists as a “well-known Hamas figure.” Islamic Relief Worldwide, meanwhile, remains financially linked with other organisations connected to terror, including Qatari regime fronts such as the Qatar Charity.

In 2014, the UAE’s decision to ban Islamic Relief was met with confusion and scepticism in the West. At the time, journalists (some, incidentally, since employed by Muslim Brotherhood media) attacked the UAE and deemed the designation “completely ludicrous and defamatory.” But as the Middle East Forum has discovered, the UAE understood what Western politicians have been unable to grasp – that a charity that has served for three decades as a key conduit for international aid efforts could also be the financial arm for an international movement dedicated to promoting extremism and instability, and to radicalising historically moderate Muslim communities.

Islamic Relief is a vital cog in a dangerous machine. Its duplicity may have won over credulous media and politicians, but now governments in Europe and America must follow the UAE’s lead, and restrict the influence and reach of this international Islamist franchise and its hundreds of millions of dollars. As our report concludes: there are plenty of charities that do not promote extremism and subsidise terrorism; why should taxpayers all over the world fund one that does?

Sam Westrop is the Director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum

 

Red Alert! Protestant Couple ‘Security Threat’ to Turkey!

Red Alert! Protestant Couple ‘Security Threat’ to Turkey!

By Burak Bekdil

Over the past several years Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pressured Greece to construct a mosque in Athens. He has criticized the country which boasts the only European capital without a mosque. He does not hide his passion for mosques worldwide.

In 2015 Erdogan proposed the construction of a mosque in secular, Communist-ruled Cuba. Also in 2015, he went to Moscow for the inauguration of the biggest mosque in the Russian capital.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) demands tolerance for Muslims living in the West even as he moves to deport Pastor Andrew Craig Brunson and his wife (right) for carrying out “missionary activity and receiv[ing] money from sources abroad.”

Earlier this year Erdogan pleasantly announced his presence at the opening of the biggest mosque in Amsterdam. The mosque is called “Hagia Sophia,” named after a Greek Orthodox Christian basilica built in 537 AD in Constantinople, reflecting the typical Muslim extremist obsession with “conquest.” Recently Erdogan has also been eyeing Iraq.

As recently as April, Erdogan attended the opening ceremony of a culture center and mosque in Maryland, United States. The complex, the only one in the United States to feature two minarets, was constructed in the style of 16th century Ottoman architecture, with a central dome, half domes and cupolas, echoing Istanbul’s Suleymaniye Mosque. At the ceremony, Erdogan said: “Unfortunately, we are going through a rough time all around the world. Intolerance towards Muslims is on the rise not only here in the United States but also around the globe.” Intolerance toward Muslims?

Back in Turkey, an article published in the monthly magazine of the country’s powerful (and wealthy) Islamic Directorate for Religious Affairs (Diyanet in Turkish) warned of the spreading new “religion” of Jediism — the religion of the Jedi knights from the Star Wars film series. But not all “religious tolerance” stories in Turkey are equally off the wall.

Synagogues in Turkey have quietly tightened security. Scholar Rifat Bali, who has written several books on Turkey’s Jews, says that Christians and Jews are being targeted.

Indeed, threats against Christians and churches on social media by Islamists in Turkey have intensified. “Some people have sent death threats to the mobile phones of 15 pastors,” says Umut Sahin, the secretary-general of the Union of Protestant Churches, an umbrella organization for Protestant denominations in Turkey.

How do a few thousand Christians threaten a Muslim country of 80 million?

Andrew Craig Brunson, pastor at a protestant church in Izmir, on Turkey’s Aegean coast, survived an armed attack on April 11, 2011. The attacker, Mehmet Ali Eren, shouted: “Traitors! We’ll bomb your church!” Eren had just been acquitted in a trial on charges of being a member of al-Qaeda.

Brunson and his wife, Norine Lyn, have been living in Turkey for 20 years. On October 7, the couple was summoned to a police station. The police told them that they would be deported from Turkey because they “posed a national security threat” to the country. A two-member terror organization? Bombings and killings? Not exactly that, the police explained. The pastor and his wife were being expelled on grounds of posing a security threat because they had carried out “missionary activity and received money from sources abroad.”

There must be merely a few thousand Protestants in Turkey, a country of nearly 80 million people, where politicians often boast that 99% of the population is Muslim. Why do nearly 80 million people view a few thousand people as threats to their national security just because the few thousand belong to a different faith? This question probably falls not into the scope of theological discipline, nor political science, but social psychiatry.

But there is a more serious aspect of this limitless Islamic hypocrisy. Erdogan should explain why he persistently demands more and more tolerance for Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, including the building of mosques in every capital, while his government can deport two Protestants on the spurious grounds that they pose a security threat to his country. The Islamophobia that Erdogan never ceases to claim exists in the Western world may or may not be a real social malady, but non-Muslimphobia in Turkey is increasingly a contagious malady. Erdogan’s determined denials do not make him right; instead he further proves his religious-ideological incompatibility with Western democracies.

Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based columnist for the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

The Muslim Brotherhood Has Earned Its Terrorist Designation

The Muslim Brotherhood Has Earned Its Terrorist Designation

By Cynthia Farahat

In an April 11 Brookings Institution report titled “Is the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization?” senior fellow Shadi Hamid states that the Trump administration’s proposed designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group “could have significant consequences for the U.S., the Middle East, and the world.”

Contrary to the wishful thinking of the Obama administration, the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be appeased.

Among many astounding claims in the report, the three most misleading among them begin with his statement that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “non-violent Islamist group,” that “there is not a single American expert on the Muslim Brotherhood who supports designating it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization,” and that President Trump’s advisors were enlisting Americans in what Mr. Hamid calls “civilization struggle.”

First, there is overwhelming evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood is indeed a violent terrorist organization. The Brotherhood’s slogan is “‘Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

There is overwhelming evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood is indeed a terrorist organization.

Thus, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that nearly every Sunni terrorist group in the world was either fully or partially founded by active or former Brotherhood operatives.

Brotherhood-linked terrorist organizations include ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and al-Gama’at al-Islamiyya.

Moreover, the Brotherhood also has active militias such as the “95 Brigade,” a Brotherhood terrorist group founded in 1995, which is currently operating under the direction of the Brotherhood Guidance office. The Brotherhood also has a well-funded transnational multi-lingual propaganda machine, which makes it more dangerous.

In a series of interviews with al-Jazeera TV, Osama Yassin, a minister in former President Mohammed Morsi’s cabinet, revealed that the 95 Brigade engaged in the abduction, beating, and torture of “thugs” and threw Molotov cocktails at its opponents.

Osama Yassin (left) and Safwat Hegazy

The brigade’s operatives were also implicated in the killing of anti-Brotherhood protestors. In March 2014, for example, two Brotherhood operatives were sentenced to death after an online video clip showed them killing a teenager by throwing him from a building.

Under Mr. Morsi’s leadership, current Brotherhood leaders were personally involved in torture. During an interview with al-Jazeera TV in 2011, Brotherhood leader Safwat Hegazy bragged about his involvement in torturing a man whom he suspected was a police officer.

Egyptian Ambassador to Venezuela Yehyia Najm is among the numerous victims of what is known in Egypt as the “Brotherhood’s Slaughterhouses.” Ambassador Najm stated that the room where he was held captive and tortured with 49 other people, was “like a Nazi camp.” This is Mr. Shadi Hamid’s idea of a “non-violent group.”

Second, Mr. Hamid’s claim that there are no American experts on the Muslim Brotherhood who support its designation as a terror group, is wrong. The Middle East Forum, one of the America’s most renowned think tanks that specializes in Middle East and Islamic terrorism studies, supports the Brotherhood’s terror designation. Also, Mr. Trump’s advisor, Walid Phares, one of America’s most respected experts on Islamic terrorism and the Middle East, supports the Brotherhood’s terror designation. Andrew C. McCarthy III, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others, also supports the Brotherhood terror designation. Yet, Mr. Hamid chooses to ignore them, as he also chooses to ignore other facts.

Brotherhood-linked terrorist organizations include al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Hamas.

Third, Mr. Hamid claimed that, “This language works to enlist Americans to join the “civilizational struggle” — an idea once reserved for those from the farthest fringes of the far right in the United States, now held by people in the very center of American power: the White House.”

Mr. Hamid may have borrowed the term “civilization struggle,” or “A’mali Jihadia Hadaria” (civilization jihad operation), from the Muslim Brotherhood’s International Apparatus. The nihilistic term first appeared in a 1991 document titled “The Explanatory Memorandum,” which outlined the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic goals for North America. This memorandum was entered as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial in 2008, the largest terror financing case in U.S. history.

This wouldn’t be the first time the Brookings Institution engaged in misleading disinformation on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, a Brookings Institution article stated that the fourth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s 10 thawabet (precepts) in its bylaws specified that “during the process of establishing democracy and relative political freedom, the Muslim Brotherhood is committed to abide by the rules of democracy and its institutions.”

Hamid’s report was published by the Qatar-financed Brookings Institution.

This is a bold misrepresentation of the fourth precept. According to the Brotherhood’s own standards and internal bylaws, the fourth precept is violent jihad and martyrdom, which the Brotherhood states is an obligation of every individual Muslim, as well as the collective obligation of their organization.

There is a civilization jihad or struggle as Mr. Hamid called it, but it’s waged against America and the Western world by the very people he is defending. To answer Mr. Hamid’s question as to whether the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization, the answer is yes, indeed it is a terrorist organization.

Mr. Trump’s administration needs to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group. Congress should also require think tanks to disclose any foreign funding received while lobbying Congress. These financial disclosures will help combat disinformation campaigns targeting lawmakers, including reports like Mr. Hamid’s.

Cynthia Farahat is a fellow at the Middle East Forum and a columnist for the Egyptian daily Al-Maqal.

Why Is Female Genital Mutilation Still Happening in the U.S.?

Why Is Female Genital Mutilation Still Happening in the U.S.?

By Phyllis Chesler

Let’s be clear: FGM (female genital mutilation) is illegal in the United States. That fact did not stop Drs. Humana Nagarwala, Fakhruddin Attar, and his wife Farida Attar, from allegedly performing these criminal and human rights atrocities against two vulnerable 7-year-old girls in the Detroit metro area. The physicians and Attar’s wife have all been arrested. According to Fox 2 News in Detroit the three have been charged with female genital mutilation and conspiracy. The doctors are also charged with making false statements to investigators and trying to obstruct the investigation.

Knowingly subjecting someone to female genital mutilation (FGM), whether within U.S. borders or abroad (“vacation cutting”), is illegal under federal law.

For years, many Muslims have insisted that the practice of FGM has nothing to do with Islam, that it is, originally, an African and pagan custom. This may be true. However, many Muslims believe it is religiously required.

Many Muslims believe female genital mutilation is religiously required.

Boldly, cleverly, the Detroit-area physicians are arguing that FGM is a “religious practice” and that to interfere with it is tantamount to religious discrimination. There is some proof that Mohammed allowed a female “exciser” to perform this mutilation — but he advised her not to “overdo it.”

In the Islamic world, FGM is practiced most widely in the in the Arab Muslim Middle East, both in the Gulf and in African states such as Egypt, Somalia, and Sudan; but it has increasingly spread to Muslim communities in Central Asia (parts of Iraqi Kurdistan and Iran) and to the Far East (Malaysia and Indonesia).

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is not at all like male circumcision. Not only is the capacity for sexual pleasure destroyed, but complications are routine and include bleeding, painful urination, cysts, and dangerous and recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections. The growth of scar tissue can make marital intercourse a nightmare and turn childbirth into an experience of danger and torture.

The New York Times opted not to use the term FGM in its article about the Nagarwala/Attar case. The paper’s Health and Science editor later explained that the term is too “culturally loaded.”

FGM also increases the likelihood of newborn deaths. In addition, some girls and women develop fistulas and become incontinent. They are doomed to defecate and urinate without control. Absent effective surgery, this is a life-long condition that leads to a woman being shunned by her family.

And then there is a life-long post-traumatic stress disorder that normally accompanies the experience of having been forced into such suffering, traditionally at the hands of a female butcher, usually the mother or grandmother.

In the West, misguided concepts of “multi-cultural relativism” and fear of offending an increasingly hostile Muslim and African immigrant population has condemned those girls and women who live among us and who deserve their rights under Western law.

Whether FGM is understood to be a religious or a tribal custom, like polygamy, child marriage, normalized daughter-and-wife battering, incest, and “honor killing,” it has no place in the West.

Those who choose to live here should obey our laws; the freedoms for which we have fought should extend to all Americans, not only to some.

Phyllis Chesler, a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum, is an emerita professor of psychology and women’s studies and the author of sixteen books.

An Onslaught of Islamist Violence Is Europe’s New Normal

An Onslaught of Islamist Violence Is Europe’s New Normal

Last Thursday, in an attack that has started to feel routine, Karim Cheurfi opened fire on French police on the Champs-Élysées in Paris, killing a police officer. Cheurfi then wounded two others before he was shot and killed. Police later found a note in which he expressed support for the Islamic State, which later declared him their “soldier.”

Following similar attacks in London, Stockholm, Paris, Nice, Berlin and Israel, Europe is waking up to the fact that these abrupt acts of murder — using knives, guns and cars — are the new norm.

Over the last five years, there has been a noticeable change in jihadist methods. During the 2000s, Al Qaeda and other violent Islamist groups were preoccupied with large explosions –terrorist acts that took months of planning, networks of contacts, sources of funding, and supplies of explosive material. The effects, when successful, produced enormous casualties and made for dramatic television. But these plots were also ripe for discovery by law enforcement: large money transfers were noticed, explosive materials were tracked, conspirators were surveilled and Muslim informants exposed whole Islamist cells.

Acquiring a gun, picking up a knife, or getting into a car requires hardly any planning.

On the other hand, acquiring a gun, picking up a knife, or simply getting into your car requires hardly any planning at all. Islamists have realized that ersatz terror may kill fewer people than showpiece terror, but its effects are just as terrifying and its success rate is far higher.

Islamist low-tech terrorism was first advocated seriously in 2010. Al-Qaeda in Yemen (led by the late American Islamist, Anwar Al-Awlaki) encouraged Muslims to get in their pick-up trucks, which they referred to as “Ultimate Mowing Machines,” and “mow down the enemies of Allah.”

The late Islamist leader Anwar al-Awlaki, 1971-2011.

Then, in 2014, ISIS called on Western Muslims to use vehicles, knives – anything to hand: “If you are not able to find an I.E.D. or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.”

Cheurfi was born in France, and had a long criminal record. From 2001, he was imprisoned for 11 years after shooting at two police officers from a stolen car. He was not identified as a possible Islamist until December 2016, according to Le Monde, after police were warned that he was planning an attack. In February, he repeated the threats on a messaging app, and was questioned by police. Then, in March, he attempted to contact ISIS fighters in Syria. By that point, he had been included on a list of 16,000 Islamists the security services deemed potential violent extremists.

Europe faces an onslaught. France, in particular, has far more potential terrorists than security service resources to stop them. Along with more effective counter-terrorism work, the only possible long-term solution for Europe, is to actively stamp out all violent and non-violent Islamist influence, and back reformist Muslims instead.

Europe’s radicalization problem has been severely exacerbated by government attitudes towards thMuslim communities.

Over the past few decades, Europe’s radicalization problem has been severely exacerbated by the attitudes of government towards their Muslim communities. European state multiculturalism policy regards its citizens not as individuals, but as blocs — or communities — delineated by ethnicity, race and religion. In order to interact with these communities, governments need intermediaries to manage them. Among European Muslims, where there is no organized clergy, only the Islamists have had the wherewithal to proclaim themselves representatives of the dozens of different, fractious political and religious Islamic sects. To run the communities, governments have handed these Islamist leadership groups taxpayers’ money, political power, and influence over schools, hospitals, prisons, chaplaincy programs, among other things.

Consequently, an entire generation of European Muslims have grown up attending Islamist-run mosques, schools and community centers. Islamist politicians are elected to government offices, Muslim prisoners are placed in the care of Islamist chaplains, and Islamist charities move money to and from the Middle East – much of it partly subsidized by European taxpayers. In strictly secular France, its multiculturalism policy funds ethnic groups rather than religious ones. But because the clear majority of French Muslims are from North Africa, taxpayer subsidy of these communities ends up being claimed by the Islamists as well.

For Karim Cheurfi, radicalization was not necessarily the result of slick propaganda videos produced by Islamic State, or a particularly convincing contact on social media. His introduction to Islamism was offline – it occurred simply by virtue of the fact he was a European Muslim, surrounded and politically represented by a community under the thumb of Islamist ideologues.

For Europe to survive, the Islamists must be squashed. Funding must be cut off, both from Western governments and foreign Islamist regimes. Extremist mosques must be shut down, extremist foreign clerics should be deported, and moderate, anti-Islamist Muslims must be funded and supported. Most importantly, Western Europe must stop organizing its Muslim citizens into homogenous religious and ethnic blocs, ripe for radicalization.

Sam Westrop is the director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Trump Must Designate Muslim Brotherhood to Defeat Radical Islam

Trump Must Designate Muslim Brotherhood to Defeat Radical Islam

The Muslim Brotherhood, Fountain of Islamist Violence

The Muslim Brotherhood, Fountain of Islamist Violence

Erdogan’s War on the West

Erdogan’s War on the West

Linda Sarsour, The Left’s Latest Star

Linda Sarsour, The Left’s Latest Star

by Daniel Pipes, February 3, 2017

Originally published under the title “‘Homegirl in a Hijab’ Returns: Linda Sarsour, an activist venerated by the left, does more damage.”

The Obama White House designated her a “champion of change.” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio sought her endorsement. Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders used her as a surrogate in his presidential campaign. She served as a delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention.What to make of Linda Sarsour of Brooklyn, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against President Trump’s immigration order and the new, seemingly ubiquitous symbol of the hard Left-radical Islam alliance?

She appeared on major television shows and the New York Times ran a long puff piece calling her “a Brooklyn homegirl in a hijab.” David Brock’s Media Matters for America advocates for her. She was one of four lead organizers of the anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington. Actress Susan Sarandon and Rep. Keith Ellison endorse her. Sarsour, in brief, is “venerated by leftists,” observes Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi. And Islamists too: for example, Al-Jazeera celebrates her.

If Sarsour is the vaunted star of the leftist-Islamist alliance, conservatives can rest easy.

I learned that Sarsour frequently errs without later correcting herself. She wrongly portrayed the murder of Shaima Alawadi as resulting from hatred of Muslims when in fact Alawadi’s Muslim husband, Kassim Alhimidi, honor-killed her. Worse, she faked a hate crime against herself, scoring political points nationally by portraying a mentally ill homeless man as a violent racist.Sarsour plopped herself into my life in March 2010 when she confused me, Daniel Pipes, with PipeLineNews.org, a “boutique news service” that had run a critical article on her calling her a “Hamas sympathizer.” She responded by showering me with mock gratitude for the attention (“THANK YOU Mr. Pipes!”). Noting her error, I wrote a sarcastic response (“Sarsour ought to shower PipeLineNews.org, not me, with her affections”). When she did not acknowledge her mistake, I took an interest in her career.

I learned about Sarsour’s paranoid loathing for the U.S. government. She portrayed would-be underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a CIA agent, implying that the federal government murders Americans to frame Muslims. She also off-handedly claimed Muslim “kids [are] being executed” in the United States, presumably by the government.

Linda Sarsour signals support for jihad warfare by making the pointed index finger gesture, its symbol.

I learned about Sarsour’s promotion of Islamism. She endorsed Saudi Arabia because the application of Islamic law there brings such alleged benefits as paid maternity leave and no interest payments on credit cards. She signaled support for jihad warfare by making the pointed index finger gesture, its symbol.

I learned about Sarsour’s vicious attacks on Israel. She encouraged stoning the Israel Defense Forces. She posed for a photograph with Salah Sarsour, a Hamas operative jailed by the Israeli authorities in the 1990s. She acknowledges having many male relatives in Israeli prisons.

I learned about Sarsour’s ignorance of history. She promotes a fantasy notion of Islam’s founder, Muhammad: “Our prophet was a racial justice activist, a human rights activist, a feminist in his own right. He was a man that cared about the environment. He cared about animal rights. … He was also the first victim of Islamophobia.” Her musings on American slavery caught my eye: “The sacrifice [that] the black Muslim slaves went through in this country is nothing compared to Islamaphobia [sic] today.”

I learned about Sarsour’s low reputation among her should-be allies. Debbie Almontaser, an Islamist colleague, disparaged her immodesty and lack of humility. Feminist Aki Muthali called her a racist (read again that quote about black slaves).

Sarsour’s social media postings exude vulgarity and vanity.

The anti-Zionist Ikhras website also accused her of harboring “an ugly racism towards African-Americans.” Additionally, it characterized Sarsour’s public persona as “a masquerade inundated with pretense and exaggeration”; it portrayed her as fake religious; and it found her lacking a moral compass or having “genuine convictions or principles.”

I learned how Sarsour answered critics with vitriolic vulgarity. Typical of her charm and grace, she said of Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, two leading anti-Islamists (and the latter a victim of female genital mutilation), “I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

I learned that Sarsour, a plain, ill-dressed woman in a lumbering hijab, indulges in coquettish vanity. She publicly boasts of her “striking good looks,” announces “I am beautiful,” and raves about “Such a beautiful photo taken of me.” Sarsour also clumsily self-inflates, for example, by referring to herself as one of the “amazing people.”

This long record of incompetence, extremism, vulgarity, and eccentricity makes me wonder how Islamists and Leftists jointly swoon, as they do, over Linda Sarsour. If she’s their vaunted star, conservatives can rest easy.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Pin It on Pinterest