Video - Linda Sarsour: Puppet of Siraj Wahhaj.

Siraj Wahhaj: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=716

• Named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• Invited Omar Abdel-Rahman, leader of a terrorist organization known as the Islamic Group, to address his congregation several times
• Advocates the replacement of the U.S. government with an Islamic Caliphate
• Supports violent Islamic jihad.

Siraj Wahhaj was born as Jeffrey Kearse on March 11, 1950 in Brooklyn, New York, where he was raised in the Baptist faith. He studied biology education at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada.

Wahhaj developed an interest in Islam shortly after the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., which prompted him to go "looking for more militancy." He found that militancy in the black separatist movement and became involved with the Nation of Islam (NOI) and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, under whose mentorship Wahhaj converted to Islam in 1969. Wahhaj was also influenced by such major NOI figures as Elijah Muhammed, Warith Deen Muhammed, and Malcolm X. Under the sway of such individuals, Wahhaj in the early 1970s became a Nation of Islam minister and began promoting a separatist doctrine which held that “white people are devils.” (“I preached it. I taught it,” he now acknowledges.) But before long, Wahhaj became cognizant of NOI's differences from mainstream Islam, left the organization, and pursued a career as a traditional Sunni Muslim cleric.

Wahhaj claims to have completed his training as a cleric at Umm al Qura University in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 1978. But that university was not established until 1981. Prior to that time, it was known as The Colleges of Shari’ah and Education and was a branch of the Jeddah-based King Abdul Aziz University, which was renowned as a hub for young radical terrorists. Indeed, Osama bin Laden, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, and Wael Jalaidan—all co-founders of al Qaeda—were affiliated with King Abdul Aziz University in the 1970s and early '80s.

In 1981 Wahhaj founded his own mosque, known as Masjid Al-Taqwa, which initially had a membership of fewer than 25 people and was based inside a friend's Brooklyn apartment. Today, however, Wahhaj’s large Al-Taqwa mosque is recognized by Muslims all around the world.

On numerous occasions during Masjid Al-Taqwa's early years, Wahhaj invited Omar Abdel-Rahman, leader of the terrorist organization known as the Islamic Group, to address his (Wahhaj's) congregation as a guest preacher.

Notwithstanding his ties to King Abdul Aziz University and Omar Abdel-Rahman, Wahhaj, during his first decade as an Imam, managed to cultivate an image as a moderate in the eyes of the American public. As such, in 1991 he was given the honor of being the first Muslim ever to recite an opening prayer before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives.

That same year, however, Wahhaj, in a speech to the Islamic Association of North Texas, characterized Operation Desert Storm (the U.S.-led military campaign to drive Saddam Hussein's invading forces out of Kuwait) as "one of the most diabolical plots ever in the annals of history." Moreover, he predicted that America would fall unless it "accepts the Islamic agenda."

In a September 1991 speech in Toronto, titled “The Afghanistan Jihad,” Wahhaj told his fellow Muslims:

“Those who struggle for Allah, it doesn’t matter what kind of weapons [you use], I’m telling you it doesn’t matter! You don’t need nuclear weapons or even guns! If you have faith in Allah and a knife! If Allah wants you to win, you will win! Because Allah is the only one who fights. And when his hand is over your hand, whoever is at war against my friends, I declare war on them.... The Americans are not your friends ... The Canadians are not your friends ... The Europeans are not your friends. Your friend is Allah, the Messenger and those who believe. These people will never be satisfied with you until you follow their religion ...”

Two months later, Wahhaj urged U.S. Muslims to become politically active as a means of augmenting the influence of their faith: “As long as you remember that if you get involved in politics, you have to be very careful that your leader is for Allah. You don’t get involved in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics are a weapon to use in the cause of Islam.”[1]

In a 1992 sermon, Wahhaj emphasized the importance of jihad to his Al-Taqwa mosque congregation: “I will never ever tell people, 'don’t be violent, that is not the Islamic way.' The violence has to be selected.... Islam is the only answer because it is only Islam that we do it for Allah.... [We are] commanded to do jihad.... [W]hen Allah commands us to fight we are not stopping, no one will stop us.”

In an autumn 1992 address to an Islamic gathering in New Jersey, Wahhaj expressed his desire to have Muslims seize control of the United States and replace the country's constitutional government with an Islamic caliphate. “If we were united and strong,” Wahhaj said, “we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him.... [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

Wahhaj has revisited this theme Islamic dominion over the United States many times over the years. For example, he has said:

• “Islam is better than democracy. Allah will cause his deen [Islam as a complete way of life], Islam, to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen.”[2] (In a related assertion, Wahhaj has called the Islamic way of life a preferable alternative to the “garbage can” of American culture.)
• “In time, democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”
• “Wherever you came from, you came to America. And you came for one reason—for one reason only—to establish Allah’s deen [Islam as a complete way of life], as a servant of Allah.” 

Shortly after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the U.S. State Department designatedSudan, which had become a safe-haven for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, as a state sponsor of terrorism. In response to that designation, Wahhaj said defiantly:

“May Allah bless Sudan … these are people who want to establish the Shari’ah, establish Quran, and Sunnah, they want to establish the religion and therefore hated by the government of the USA…. I’m not going to make you comfortable because our book, the book we believe in, is not Dale Carnegie’s, How to Win Friends and Influence People; But it’s the Quran.”

Wahhaj has long supported every facet of Sharia Law, including its call for brutal punishments like the removal of one's hands as the penalty for theft, and death by stoning as the penalty for adultery. By Wahhaj's reckoning, such harsh measures are wholly justified by Islamic scripture. As he proclaimed in a May 1992 sermon: “I would cut off the hands of my own daughter [if she stole] because Allah stands for Justice.” On another occasion, Wahhaj said: “If Allah says 100 strikes, 100 strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it’s the obedience of Allah and his messenger—nothing personal.”

Wahhaj has been a longtime supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization that seeks to create a worldwide Islamic caliphate, or kingdom, governed by Sharia Law. In the summer of 1994, Wahhaj attended a Hizb ut-Tahrir conference in London, where Islamists openly called for jihad, denounced democracy, and declared that “the Islamic system is the only alternative for mankind.” Less than a week later, back in the U.S., Wahhaj lauded Hizb ut-Tahrir's "scholarly brothers" for their "good insight" and "their pushing for the Khilafah [Caliphate]."

In 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Wahhaj as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Soon thereafter, Wahhaj stated during one of his Al-Taqwa sermons, “I’m not frightened by no list, by no government! I thank Allah. I’m honored that they thought enough of me to put me on a list.”[3]

Moreover, a number of congregants at Wahhaj’s Al-Taqwa mosque were charged and convicted of having provided material support for Islamic terrorists during the period leading up to the World Trade Center bombing of '93. Wahhaj testified in court on behalf of each of them.

One of those congregants, Clement Rodney Hampton-El (a.k.a. "Dr. Rashid"), was a memberof Jamaat al Fuqra, a Black Nationalist organization whose mission is to “purify” Islam through violence.[4] Wahhaj, stating that he had known Hampton-El for ten years, called the defendant “one of the most respected brothers” in his entire mosque.

Another Al-Taqwa congregant, Ibrahim El Gabrowny, was a bomb-maker who assistedIslamic Group leader Omar Abdel-Rahman in his terrorism-related pursuits. When U.S. authorities searched El Gabrowny’s home, they found taped messages from his cousin, the terrorist El Sayyid Nosair,[5] urging violence and jihad: “Without fighting there will not be justice on earth.… We cannot establish God’s rules on earth except by fighting.” Testifying at El Gabrowny's trial, Wahhaj voiced flattering admiration for the defendant, who ultimately was sentenced to 57 years in prison.

Yet another noteworthy Al-Taqwa congregant was a diplomat of the Sudanese Mission to the United Nations, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, whom federal authorities described as the “ring leader” of the 1993 World Trade Center attack. Ali told an FBI informant that “he ha[d] connections that [would] allow him to drive a car carrying a bomb into a parking lot in the United Nations building.” He also conspired to carry out attacks in Israel and referred to Jews as “sons of monkeys and pigs.” “The sword is to be absolutely used and implemented,” he declared. “This is as a principle.”[6] At Ali's trial, Wahhaj testified about his own favorable impression of the defendant, adding: “We don’t accept the idea of terrorism. Our mosque is open to all, but not to fanatics.” In the end, Ali was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

When Omar Abdel-Rahman was on trial in 1995 for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, Wahhaj testified as a character witness on the defendant's behalf. DescribingRahman as a “respected scholar ... bold ... [and] a strong preacher of Islam,” Wahhaj said that he considered it an honor to have had an opportunity to host Rahman at his mosque. 

In February 2001 Wahhaj, along with Ihsan Bagby, founded the Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), an umbrella group for African-American mosques and Islamic centers. Wahhaj went on to serve as the organization's president, and to this day he sits on its executive committee.

In August and September of 2001, just prior to the 9/11 attacks, Wahhaj was a guest speaker at a "jihad camp" in Pennsylvania, where adult participants took part in paintball practice and learned about the glorious afterlife that awaited Islamic martyrs who died for the cause of their faith. The camp was organized by Safet Abid Catovic, a leader of the Benevolence International Foundation, a "charity" that would be shut down in November 2002 on charges that it had provided funding for al Qaeda.

Soon after the horrors of 9/11, Wahhaj spoke at a convention in Baltimore sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America.

On October 20, 2001, Wahhaj, angered by U.S. government's post-9/11 efforts to identify and apprehend Islamic extremists, told a meeting of Muslim activists in Houston:

"[T]his [American] government has already sent in[to] every major [mosque], agent provocateurs. Most of you don't know what that is. All you know is about spies. The government has spies, they have infiltrators. But there's some difference from being a spy and an agent provocateur. What an agent provocateur does, he goes to a [mosque], he looks just like you. He's got a beard just like your beard... And their job is to entrap you no different than the prostitute, the police women dressed as a prostitute, whereas he's coming to the [mosque], dressed as a Muslim."

With similar derision, Wahhaj has referred to the FBI and CIA as the “real terrorists” whom Americans—particularly Muslim Americans—should fear.

In June 2004 Wahhaj spoke at an event titled “Next Generation Muslims—Education & Survival,” which was organized by the Universal Heritage Foundation, a Florida-based outpost of Islamism and anti-Semitism.

At a 2005 Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) banquet in Georgia, Wahhaj expressed support and sympathy for Rafik Abdus Sabir and Tarik Shah, terror operatives who had recently been indicted for plotting to open an al Qaeda training camp in the United States. Both Sabir (a medical doctor who had pledged to fly to Saudi Arabia to provide medical aid and training for al Qaeda terrorists) and Shah (the son of a former Malcolm X aide who was himself associated with the Nation of Islam) had sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

In August 2006 Wahhaj was a guest speaker at an event organized by Young Muslims, where he shared the stage with Mazen Mokhtarm, youth director for the Muslim American Society's New Jersey chapter. Mokhtarm has referred to the terrorist group Hamas as a "heroic" organization.

Wahhaj was one of the six Islamic clerics who were involved in the infamous “Flying Imams” controversy of November 21, 2006. Having just attended a conference of the North American Imams Federation in Minneapolis, Wahhaj and five fellow Imams were among the passengers waiting to board US Airways Flight 300, which was scheduled to fly from Minneapolis to Phoenix. Shortly before boarding, a number of passengers in the airport terminal heard the Imams making anti-American comments vis à vis the Iraq War, and praying loudly (with repeated chants of "Allah, Allah, Allah"). Then, when the Imams boarded the flight, they sat in separate sections of the plane; some of them asked for seat-belt extensions (which the flight attendants thought the Imams did not need). When a number of passengers expressed alarm regarding the Imams' behavior (and concern that the seat-belt extensions might be used as weapons), authorities required the Imams to deboard the plane prior to takeoff. Wahhaj and his cohorts subsequently depicted themselves as victims of “Islamophobia.”

Over the course of his career as a religious leader, Wahhaj has held numerous prestigious and influential posts. He has served as a board of advisors member of the American Muslim Council; a national board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); vice president of the Islamic Society of North America; a member of the Majlis al Shura, a consultative council of Islamic scholars; executive committee chairman of the Muslim Alliance of North America; a board of trustees member of the North American Imams Federation; and a board of advisors member of the North American Islamic Trust (1989-1993).

Since the early 2000s, Wahhaj has been the designated fundraiser at many CAIR banquets. In that role, he has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the organization.[7]  In October 2009, Wahhaj was a featured speaker at CAIR's 15th anniversary celebration in Washington, DC. A noteworthy fellow speaker at that event was Jesse Jackson.

Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz has said the following about Wahhaj:

• "People like Wahhaj went from Nation of Islam to Saudi Wahhabism, and they preach those extreme views to their followers.... Wahhabism is hostile to all 'nonbelievers,' to secular society, certainly to American society, and it can fit with black radical thought. Despite denouncing Islamic terrorism on a number of occasions, Wahhaj has expressed a desire to remain neutral about Osama bin Ladenand his complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He has said: 'I'm just not so sure I want to be one of the ones who say, Yeah, he did it. He's a horrible man.'"[8]
• "He's a hatemonger, there's no question about it. He's the No. 1 advocate of radical Islamic ideology among African-Americans. His stuff is very appealing to young Muslims who are on a radical path."[9]
• "He'll get up and say American Muslims are under attack, that their civil rights are being denied. He'll say that anybody who questions the community of these Muslim groups, that they're agents of the Zionists. He'll say that the criticism of CAIR, and of him, is all racism, the evil work of the Zionists and the media, and he'll say that America should get out of Afghanistan and any involvement in the Muslim world."[10]

Video - Bild documentary exposes Antisemitism in Europe. (German)

Video - 'Moderate' Egyptian Sheikh of Al-Azhar on Jewish-Muslim Animosity: The Jews Started It.

Video - 'Moderate' Egyptian Sheikh of Al-Azhar on Jewish-Muslim Animosity: The Jews Started It.(MEMRI).

Sheikh of Al-Azhar Ahmad Al-Tayyeb said that it was the Jews who had started the animosity with the Muslims, by rejecting the message of the Prophet Muhammad. 

In a May 5 interview with Egyptian TV's Channel 1, Sheikh Al-Tayyeb said that the Jews “took actual measures to thwart, kill, and bury the Islamic call in its infancy.” 

Even though 1,400 years have passed since the advent of Islam, Sheikh of Al-Azhar said, “we still suffer from Zionist-Jewish interference in the affairs of the Muslims.”

Anti-Semitic incidents in Canada rising highest on record last year: B’nai Brith

Anti-Semitic incidents in Canada rising highest on record last year: B’nai Brith. (GM).

Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the country, a Jewish advocacy group said Tuesday, calling it a “made in Canada” phenomenon.

B’nai Brith Canada, which has been tracking anti-Semitic incidents for 35 years, said 1,728 anti-Semitic incidents were reported across the country last year — a 26 per cent increase from 2015 and the highest number the group has ever recorded.

“That means an average of four to five incidents of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism or violence occurring every day in our country, a country where we pride ourselves as being one of the most tolerant in the world,” said the group’s CEO Michael Mostyn.

The numbers, included in the group’s 2016 report that was released Tuesday, were based on phone calls to their anti-hate hotline and police data.

Amanda Hohmann, national director of B’nai Brith Canada’s League for Human Rights, said the organization believes Canadian anti-Semitism is not a U.S. import.

“While some have sought to link the global increase in anti-Semitism to November’s presidential election in the United States, it’s worth noting that the months of September through December actually saw a relative decrease in anti-Semitic incidents in Canada, in relation to previous years,” Hohmann said.

Twenty per cent of the incidents involved Holocaust denial, a sharp increase from five per cent in 2015, she said.

“Unfortunately, Holocaust denial is no longer only coming from its traditional home in the extreme right,” Hohmann said. “More and more, Islamist extremists are also co-opting this position and spreading the rhetoric of denial, especially within Arab-language media right here in Canada.”

Mostyn listed a number of examples, including that of the al-Saraha newspaper in London, Ont., which published a report last summer that Mostyn said simultaneously denied the scope of the Holocaust and argued that any slaughter of Jews by the Nazi regime was justified.

He said the paper was initially promoted as recommended reading by a local government-funded immigrant settlement organization. It was condemned by Ontario government officials who had taken out advertisements in the paper after B’nai Brith brought it to their attention.

Barbara Perry, a University of Ontario Institute of Technology professor who studies hate crimes, said she considers a rise in anti-Semitic events in Canada as part of an increase many kinds of hatred across the Western world, which has also fuelled the rise of far-right political parties.

“It’s really a form of othering across the board, and the Jewish community is one of many targets,” she said.

In particular, anti-Semitism in Arabic-language media in Canada likely has its roots in global conflicts, Perry said.

Perry said Canada has also long had anti-Semitism of its own, traditionally focused on Jewish communities in Toronto and Montreal, which has combined with a global movement to create “a perfect storm.”

B’nai Brith Canada credits Arabic speakers with bringing these incidents to the group’s attention, but Mostyn said it was troubling that only a single Arabic speaker came forward with information in each case. Hmmm........We all know the origin of this rise in hatred. Just remember first theycame for the Saturday people next they came for the Sunday people. Read the full story here.

Source

Source

Video - Henri Boulad Jesuit Monk warns:"30 more years and Europe will be Islamic."

Video - Ex-Muslim scholar and Islamic lecturer warns: "Islam wants to dominate."

Source here.

Indonesia: Police fire tear gas at Islamist protesters outside church construction site.

Indonesia: Police fire tear gas at Islamist protesters outside church construction site. (premier).

Indonesian police fired tear gas in order to disperse a group of hard-line Muslim protesters outside a church in Bekasi, Indonesia.

According to the Associated Press, several hundred protesters from the group called Forum for Bekasi Muslim Friendship staged the demonstration to protest against the building of the Santa Clara church.

The church has been under construction since November.
Eye Witnesses told AP that the protesters had tried to force their way into the property and threw rocks and bottles at the building before police fired the tear gas.

Local priest Fr Raymundus Sianipar was advised by police to leave the area for his own safety.
The church has been the target of protests since it received a construction permit in June 2015.

Last year, the demonstrators sealed off the church and demanded the permit be revoked.
Approximately 12,000 Catholics live in Beksai.

Indonesia is number 46 on Open Doors' World Watch List for Christian persecution. Hmmm....Interfaith dialog 101

President of the Global Council of Indian Christians: 'Not only Trump, India does not welcome Muslims either'.

President of the Global Council of Indian Christians: 'Not only Trump, India does not welcome Muslims either'. (AsiaNews).

"Those shocked by Trump’s executive order prohibiting entry to refugees and citizens from seven countries with an Islamic majority, should look to similar laws in India”, says Sajan K George, president of the Global Council of Indian Christians (GCIC). Commenting on the decision of the newly elected American president that has shocked world public opinion, the Christian leader also reports that the Indian government is launching similar policies. An amendment of the Citizenship Act provides that it can only be accorded to minority Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Therefore Muslims are excluded altogether. Even those who are suffering "horrific forms of persecution" such as the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Buddhist Tibetans and Uighurs in China. Below his comment.

President Donald Trump's executive order suspending the country's refugee entry programme for 120 days, and banning the entry of citizens from seven primarily Muslim countries – Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran and Sudan – for 90 days was passed with the apparent objective of protecting US national security.

While many in India have recoiled at the manner in which the Trump administration has made its refugee and immigration policy, Indians should also turn to look at similar legislative provisions being proposed in our own country.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill of 2016 is a short, three-page document that seeks to amend Section 2(b) of the Citizenship Act. The Citizenship Act deals with the acquisition and termination of Indian citizenship. Section 2(b) of the Citizenship Act defines the term "illegal immigrant".
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill proposes to amend the definition of this term by adding this provision:

"Provided that persons belonging to minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who have been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrants for the purposes of this Act.".

Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan to qualify for naturalization as a citizen of India if they are resident in India

The Preamble to the Bill, which seeks to explain the aims and objectives of the act, states:
The phrase "Many persons of India origin including persons belonging to the aforesaid minority communities..." is telling. It is clear that that this proposed amendment is not aimed at all persons of Indian origin but only some, namely non-Muslim ones.

What is even more interesting is that the bill is not aimed at all religious minorities in all neighbouring countries, and it clearly excludes many communities that may be experiencing horrific forms of persecution, such as the Muslim Rohingyas in Buddhist-majority Myanmar or Buddhist Tibetans and Muslim Uighurs in China.

legislation on refugees, or be a signatory to the 1951 Convention, treating the decision to grant refugee status as a matter of political expediency. Even if it does not want to sign the 1951 convention, nothing prevents it from enacting a domestic law that incorporates its principal features. The fact that the government is not interested in doing so means granting protection to victims of persecution is not its primary objective.

What does that leave us with, then? The Bharatiya Janata Party's 2014 election manifesto gives us the answer.

Page 37 of the manifesto states that "India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here". Why should India be a natural home for persecuted Hindus, as opposed to persecuted Muslims or Christians? Invoking the image of the "persecuted Hindu" is a masterful way of pushing the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's notion of India as a 'Hindu nation', and an embattled one at that. Just as the claim of a threat to national security
,
If the Narendra Modi government wants to provide protection to religious minorities in neighbouring countries from persecution – a laudable objective – then it need not have looked further than the existing international frameworks of refugee law.

Central to the definition of a refugee in the 1951 Refugee Convention is a well-founded fear of being persecuted on the grounds of religion, race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion by the country of one's nationality. Till now, India has consistently refused to promulgate a central order

Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting.

Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting. (MEForum). by Daniel Pipes.  Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2017.

On January 27, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to implement his proposed "extreme vetting" of those applying for entry visas into the United States. This article by Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes, who has written extensively on the practicality and enforceability of screening for Islamists, is an advance release from the forthcoming Spring 2017 issue of Middle East Quarterly.

Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27 establishing radically new procedures to deal with foreigners who apply to enter the United States.
Building on his earlier notion of "extreme vetting," the order explains that

to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

This passage raises several questions of translating extreme vetting in practice: How does one distinguish foreigners who "do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles" from those who do? How do government officials figure out "those who would place violent ideologies over American law"? More specifically, given that the new procedures almost exclusively concern the fear of allowing more Islamists into the country, how does one identify them?
I shall argue these are doable tasks and the executive order provides the basis to achieve them. At the same time, they are expensive and time-consuming, demanding great skill. Keeping out Islamists can be done, but not easily.

The Challenge

By Islamists (as opposed to moderate Muslims), I mean those approximately 10-15 percent of Muslims who seek to apply Islamic law (the Shari'a) in its entirety. They want to implement a medieval code that calls (among much else) for restricting women, subjugating non-Muslims, violent jihad, and establishing a caliphate to rule the world.

Islamists—not all Muslims—must urgently be excluded from the U.S. and other Western countries.

For many non-Muslims, the rise of Islamism over the past forty years has made Islam synonymous with extremism, turmoil, aggression, and violence. But Islamists, not all Muslims, are the problem; they, not all Muslims, must urgently be excluded from the United States and other Western countries. Not just that, but anti-Islamist Muslims are the key to ending the Islamist surge, as they alone can offer a humane and modern alternative to Islamist obscurantism.
Identifying Islamists is no easy matter, however, as no simple litmus test exists. Clothing can be misleading, as some women wearing hijabs are anti-Islamists, while practicing Muslims can be Zionists; nor does one's occupation indicate much, as some high-tech engineers are violent Islamists. Likewise, beards, teetotalism, five-times-a-day prayers, and polygyny do not tell about a Muslim's political outlook. To make matters more confusing, Islamists often dissimulate and pretend to be moderates, while some believers change their views over time.

In 2001, the Pentagon invited Anwar al-Awlaki to lunch. In 2011, it killed him by a drone strike.

Finally, shades of gray further confuse the issue. As noted by Robert Satloff of The Washington Institute, a 2007 book from the Gallup press, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, based on a poll of over 50,000 Muslims in 10 countries, found that 7 percent of Muslims deem the 9/11 attacks "completely justified," 13.5 percent consider the attacks completely or "largely justified," and 36.6 percent consider the attacks completely, largely, or "somewhat justified." Which of these groups does one define as Islamist and which not?

Faced with these intellectual challenges, American bureaucrats are unsurprisingly incompetent, as I demonstrate in a long blog titled "The U.S. Government's Poor Record on Islamists." Islamists have fooled the White House, the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury, the Congress, many law enforcement agencies and a plethora of municipalities. A few examples:

• The Pentagon in 2001 invited Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Islamist it later executed with a drone-launched missile, to lunch.
• In 2002, FBI spokesman Bill Carter described the American Muslim Council (AMC) as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States" – just two years before the bureau arrested the AMC's founder and head, Abdurahman Alamoudi, on terrorism-related charges. Alamoudi has now served about half his 23-year prison sentence.
• George W. Bush appointed stealth Islamist Khaled Abou El Fadl in 2003 to, of all things, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
• The White House included staff in 2015 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in its consultations, despite CAIR's initial funding by a designated terrorist group, the frequent arrest or deportation of its employees on terrorism charges, a history of deception, and the goal of one of its leaders to make Islam the only accepted religion in America.

Fake-moderates have fooled even me, despite all the attention I devote to this topic. In 2000, I praised a book by Tariq Ramadan; four years later, I argued for his exclusion from the United States. In 2003, I condemned a Republican operative named Kamal Nawash; two years later, I endorsed him. Did they evolve or did my understanding of them change? More than a decade later, I am still unsure.

Uniform Screening Standards

Returning to immigration, this state of confusion points to the need for learning much more about would-be visitors and immigrants. Fortunately, Trump's executive order, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," signed on Jan. 27, 2017, requires just this. It calls for "Uniform Screening Standards" with the goal of preventing individuals from entering the United States "on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission." The order requires that the uniform screening standard and procedure include such elements as (bolding is mine):

1. In-person interviews;
2. A database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants;
3. Amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent;
4. A mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be;
5. A process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and
6. A mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

Elements 1, 3, 5, and 6 permit and demand the procedure outlined in the following analysis. It contains two main components, in-depth research and intensive interviews.

Research

When a person applies for a security clearance, the background checks should involve finding out about his family, friends, associations, employment, memberships, and activities. Agents must probe these for questionable statements, relationships, and actions, as well as anomalies and gaps. When they find something dubious, they must look further into it, always with an eye for trouble. Is access to government secrets more important than access to the country? The immigration process should start with an inquiry into the prospective immigrant and, just as with security clearances, the border services should look for problems.

Most everyone with strong views at some point vents them on social media.

Also, as with security clearance, this process should have a political dimension: Does the person in question have an outlook consistent with that of the Constitution? Not long ago, only public figures such as intellectuals, activists, and religious figures put their views on the record; but now, thanks to the Internet and its open invitation to everyone to comment in writing or on video in a permanent, public manner, and especially to social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), most everyone with strong views at some point vents them. Such data provides valuably unfiltered views on many critical topics, such as Islam, non-Muslims, women, and violence as a tactic. (Exploiting this resource may seem self-evident but U.S. immigration authorities do not do so, thereby imposing a self-restraint roughly equivalent to the Belgian police choosing not to conduct raids between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.)
In the case of virulent, overt, outspoken jihadis, this research usually suffices to provide evidence to exclude them. Even some non-violent Islamists proudly announce their immoderation. But many Islamists adopt a milder and subtler tone, their goal being to appear moderate so they can enter the country and then impose Shari'a through lawful means. As suggested by some of the examples above, such as Abou El Fadl or CAIR, research often proves inadequate in these instances because cautious Islamists hide their goals and glibly dissimulate. Which brings us to entrance interviews.

Entrance Interviews

Assuming that lawful Islamists routinely hide their true views, an interview is needed before letting them enter the country. Of course, it is voluntary, for no one is forced to apply for immigration, but it also must be very thorough. It should be:
Recorded: With the explicit permission of the person being questioned ("You understand and accept that this interview is being recorded, right?"), the exchange should be visibly videotaped so the proceedings are unambiguously on the record. This makes available the interviewee's words, tone, speech patterns, facial expressions, and body language for further study. Form as well as substance matters: does the interviewee smile, fidget, blink, make eye contact, repeat, sweat, tremble, tire, need frequent toilet breaks, or otherwise express himself in non-verbal ways?

Effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics.

Polygraph: Even if a lie detector machine does not, in fact, provide useful information, attaching the interviewee to it might induce greater truth-telling.
Under oath: Knowing that falsehoods will be punished, possibly with jail time, is a strong inducement to come clean.
Public: If the candidate knows that his answers to abstract questions (as opposed to personal ones about his life) will be made public, this reduces the chances of deception. For example, asked about belief for the full application of Islamic laws, an Islamist will be less likely to answer falsely in the negative if he knows that his reply will be available for others to watch.

Look for inconsistency by asking the same thing in different ways. An example: "May a woman show her face in public?" and "Is a male guardian responsible for making sure his women-folk don't leave the house with faces uncovered?"

Multiple: No single question can evince a reply that establishes an Islamist disposition; effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics, from homosexuality to the caliphate. The answers need to be assessed in their totality.
Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of "Is Islam a religion of peace?", "Do you condemn terrorism?" "How do you respond to the murder of innocents," depend too much on one's definition of words such as peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person's outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: "May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?" "Does a Muslim have the right to renounce Islam?"
Variety in phrasing: For the questions to ferret out the truth means looking for divergence and inconsistency by asking the same question with different words and variant emphases. A sampling: "May a woman show her face in public?" "What punishment do you favor for females who reveal their faces to men not related to them by family?" "Is it the responsibility of the male guardian to make sure his women-folk do not leave the house with faces uncovered?" "Should the government insist on women covering their faces?" "Is society better ordered when women cover their faces?" Any one of the questions can be asked in different ways and expanded with follows-up about the respondent's line of reasoning or depth of feeling.
Repeated: Questions should be asked again and again over a period of weeks, months, and even longer. This is crucial: lies being much more difficult to remember than truths, the chances of a respondent changing his answers increases with both the volume of questions asked and the time lapse between questionings. Once inconsistencies occur, the questioner can zero in and explore their nature, extent, and import.

The Questions

Guidelines in place, what specific questions might extract useful information?

Zuhdi Jasser (L) with the author as teammates at a 2012 Intelligence Squared debate in New York City.

The following questions, offered as suggestions to build on, are those of this author but also derive from a number of analysts devoting years of thinking to the topic. Naser Khader, the-then Danish parliamentarian of Syrian Muslim origins, offered an early set of questions in 2002. A year later, this author published a list covering seven subject areas.
Others followed, including the liberal Egyptian Muslim Tarek Heggy, the liberal American Muslims Tashbih Sayyed and Zuhdi Jasser, the ex-Muslim who goes by "Sam Solomon," a RAND Corporation group, and the analyst Robert Spencer. Of special interest are the queries posed by the German state of Baden-Württemberg dated September 2005 because it is an official document (intended for citizenship, not immigration, but with similar purposes).
Islamic doctrine:

1. May Muslims reinterpret the Koran in light of changes in modern times?
2. May Muslims convert out of Islam, either to join another faith or to be without religion?
3. May banks charge reasonable interest (say 3 percent over inflation) on money?
4. Is taqiya (dissimulation in the name of Islam) legitimate?

Islamic pluralism:

5. May Muslims pick and choose which Islamic regulations to abide by (e.g., drink alcohol but avoid pork)?
6. Is takfir (declaring a Muslim to be an infidel) acceptable?
7. [Asked of Sunnis only:] Are Sufis, Ibadis, and Shi'ites Muslims?
8. Are Muslims who disagree with your practice of Islam infidels (kuffar)?

The state and Islam:

9. What do you think of disestablishing religion, that is, separating mosque and state?
10. When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for female drivers' license pictures), which gets priority?
11. Should the state compel prayer?
12. Should the state ban food consumption during Ramadan and penalize transgressors?
13. Should the state punish Muslims who eat pork, drink alcohol, and gamble?
14. Should the state punish adultery?
15. How about homosexuality?
16. Do you favor a mutawwa' (religious police) as exist in Saudi Arabia?
17. Should the state enforce the criminal punishments of the Shari'a?
18. Should the state be lenient when someone is killed for the sake of family honor?
19. Should governments forbid Muslims from leaving Islam?

Marriage and divorce:

20. Does a husband have the right to hit his wife if she is disobedient?
21. Is it a good idea for men to shut their wives and daughters at home?
22. Do parents have the right to determine whom their children marry?
23. How would you react if a daughter married a non-Muslim man?
24. Is polygyny acceptable?
25. Should a husband have to get a first wife's approval to marry a second wife? A third? A fourth?
26. Should a wife have equal rights with her husband to initiate a divorce?
27. In the case of divorce, does a wife have rights to child custody?

Female rights:

28. Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)?
29. Does a woman have the right to dress as she pleases, including showing her hair, arms and legs, so long as her genitalia and breasts are covered?
30. May Muslim women come and go or travel as they please?
31. Do Muslim women have a right to work outside the home or must the wali approve of this??
32. May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men?
33. Should males and females be separated in schools, at work, and socially?
34. Should certain professions be reserved for men or women only? If so, which ones?
35. Do you accept women occupying high governmental offices?
36. In an emergency, would you let yourself be treated by or operated on by a doctor of the opposite gender?

Sexual activity:

37. Does a husband have the right to force his wife to have sex?
38. Is female circumcision part of the Islamic religion?
39. Is stoning a justified punishment for adultery?
40. Do members of a family have the right to kill a woman if they believe she has dishonored them?
41. How would you respond to a child of yours who declares him- or herself a homosexual?

Schools:

42. Should your child learn the history of non-Muslims?
43. Should students be taught that Shari'a is a personal code or that governmental law must be based on it?
44. May your daughter take part in the sports activities, especially swimming lessons, offered by her school?
45. Would you permit your child to take part in school trips, including overnight ones?
46. What would you do if a daughter insisted on going to university?

Criticism of Muslims:

Denying the Islamic nature of ISIS reveals much about a Muslim.

47. Did Islam spread only through peaceful means?
48. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam, even if it casts doubt on the received history?
49. Do you accept that Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
50. Is the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh Islamic in nature?

Fighting Islamism:

51. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight Islamism, even if this might mean extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)?
52. When institutions credibly accused of funding jihad are shut down, is this a symptom of anti-Muslim bias?
53. Should Muslims living in the West cooperate with law enforcement?
54. Should they join the military?
55. Is the "war on terror" a war on Islam?

Non-Muslims (in general):

Praying at the Hindu Temple in Dubai, founded 1958.

56. Do all humans, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious beliefs, deserve equal rights?
57. Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims?
58. Do you accept the validity of other monotheistic religions?
59. Of polytheistic religions (such as Hinduism)?
60. Are Muslims superior to non-Muslims?
61. Should non-Muslims be subject to Islamic law?
62. Do Muslims have anything to learn from non-Muslims?
63. Can non-Muslims go to paradise?
64. Do you welcome non-Muslims to your house and go to their residences?

Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Islam):

65. May Muslims compel "Peoples of the Book" (i.e., Jews and Christians) to pay extra taxes?
66. May other monotheists build and operate institutions of their faith in Muslim-majority countries?
67. How about polytheists?
68. Should the Saudi government maintain the historic ban on non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina?
69. Should it allow churches to be built for Christian expatriates?
70. Should it stop requiring that all its subjects be Muslim?

Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Harb):

71. Should Muslims fight Jews and Christians until these "feel themselves subdued" (Koran 9:29).
72. Is the enslavement of non-Muslims acceptable?
73. Is it acceptable to arrest individuals who curse the prophet of Islam or burn the Koran?
74. If the state does not act against such deeds, may individual Muslims act?
75. Can one live a fully Muslim life in a country with a mostly non-Muslim government?
76. Should a Muslim accept a legitimate majority non-Muslim government and its laws or work to make Islam supreme?
77. Can a majority non-Muslim government unreservedly win your allegiance?
78. Should Muslims who burn churches or vandalize synagogues be punished?
79. Do you support jihad to spread Islam?

Violence:

80. Do you endorse corporal punishments (mutilation, dismemberment, crucifixion) of criminals?
81. Is beheading an acceptable form of punishment?
82. Is jihad, meaning warfare to expand Muslim rule, acceptable in today's world?
83. What does it mean when Muslims yell "Allahu Akbar" as they attack?
84. Do you condemn violent organizations such as Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Shabaab, and the Taliban?

Western countries:

85. Are non-Islamic institutions immoral and decadent or can they be moral and virtuous?
86. Do you agree with studies that show non-Muslim countries such as New Zealand to be better living up to the ideals of Islam than Muslim-majority countries?
87. Is Western-style freedom an accomplishment or a form of moral corruption? Why?
88. Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries?
89. Do you accept living in Western countries that are secular or do you seek to have Islamic law rule them?
90. What do you think of Shari'a-police patrolling Muslim-majority neighborhoods in Western countries to enforce Islamic morals?
91. Would you like to see the U.S. Constitution (or its equivalents in other countries) replaced by the Koran?

This interview:

92. In an immigration interview like this, if deceiving the questioner helps Islam, would lying be justified?
93. Why should I trust that you have answered these questions truthfully?

Observations about the Interviews

Beyond helping to decide whom to allow into the country, these questions can also help in other contexts as well, for example in police interrogations or interviews for sensitive employment positions. (The list of Islamists who have penetrated Western security services is a long and painful one.)

Islamists are hardly the only ones who condemn Israel. Here Jewish Voice for Peace activists protest.

Note the absence of questions about highly charged current issues. That is because Islamist views overlap with non-Islamist outlooks; plenty of non-Islamists agree with Islamists on these topics. Although Leil Leibowitz in contrast sees Israel as "moderate Islam's real litmus test," Islamists are hardly the only ones who demand Israel's elimination and accept Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate political actors – or believe the Bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks or hate the United States. Why introduce these ambiguous issues when so many Islam-specific questions (e.g., "Is the enslavement of non-Muslim acceptable?") have the virtue of far greater clarity?
The interviewing protocol outlined above is extensive, asking many specific questions over a substantial period using different formulations, probing for truth and inconsistencies. It is not quick, easy, or cheap, but requires case officers knowledgeable about the persons being interviewed, the societies they come from, and the Islamic religion; they are somewhat like a police questioner who knows both the accused person and the crime. This is not a casual process. There are no shortcuts.

Criticisms

This procedure raises two criticisms: it is less reliable than Trump's no-Muslim policy and it is too burdensome for governments to undertake. Both are readily disposed of.
Less reliable: The no-Muslim policy sounds simple to implement but figuring out who is Muslim is a problem in itself (are Ahmadis Muslims?). Further, with such a policy in place, what will stop Muslims from pretending to renounce their religion or to convert to another religion, notably Christianity? These actions would require the same in-depth research and intensive interviews as described above. If anything, because a convert can hide behind his ignorance of his alleged new religion, distinguishing a real convert to Christianity from a fake one is even more difficult than differentiating an Islamist from a moderate Muslim.
Too burdensome: True, the procedure is expensive, slow, and requires skilled practitioners. But this also has the benefit of slowing a process that many, myself included, consider out of control, with too many immigrants entering the country too quickly. Immigrants numbered 5 percent of the population in 1965, 14 percent in 2015, and are projected to make up 18 percent in 2065. This is far too large a number to assimilate into the values of the United States, especially when so many come from outside the West; the above mechanism offers a way to slow it down.

Truly protecting the country from Islamists requires a major commitment of talent, resources, and time.

As for those who argue that this sort of inquiry and screening for visa purposes is unlawful; prior legislation for naturalization, for example, required that an applicant be "attached to the principles of the Constitution" and it was repeatedly found to be legal.
Finally, today's moderate Muslim could become tomorrow's raging Islamist; or his infant daughter might two decades later become a jihadi. While any immigrant can turn hostile, such changes happen far more often among born Muslims. There is no way to guarantee this from happening but extensive research and interrogations reduce the odds.

Conclusion

Truly to protect the country from Islamists requires a major commitment of talent, resources, and time. But, properly handled, these questions offer a mechanism to separate enemy from friend among Muslims. They also have the benefit of slowing down immigration. Even before Trump became president, if one is to believe CAIR, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) asked questions along the lines of those advocated here (What do you think of the USA? What are your views about jihad? See the appendix for a full listing). With Trump's endorsement, let us hope this effective "no-Islamists" policy is on its way to becoming systematic.

---

Appendix

On January 18, 2017, just hours before Donald Trump became president of the United States, the Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed ten complaints with the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) for questioning Muslim citizens about their religious and political views. Among the questions allegedly asked were:

1. Are you a devout Muslim?
2. Are you Sunni or Shia?
3. What school of thought do you follow?
4. Which Muslim scholars do you follow?
5. What current Muslim scholars do you listen to?
6. Do you pray five times a day?
7. Why do you have a prayer mat in your luggage?
8. Why do you have a Qur'an in your luggage?
9. Have you visited Saudi Arabia?
10. Will you every visit Saudi or Israel?
11. What do you know about the Tableeghi-Jamat?
12. What do you think of the USA?
13. What are your views about Jihad?
14. What mosque do you attend?
15. Do any individuals in your mosque have any extreme/radical views?
16. Does your Imam express extremist views?
17. What are the views of other imams or other community members that give the Friday sermon at your mosque?
18. Do they have extremist views?
19. Have you ever delivered the Friday Prayer? What did you discuss with your community?
20. What are your views regarding [various terrorist organizations]?
21. What social media accounts do you use?
22. What is your Facebook account username?
23. What is your Twitter account username?
24. What is your Instagram account username?
25. What are the names and telephone numbers of parents, relatives, friends?

CAIR also claims a Canadian Muslim was asked by CBP the following questions and then denied entry:

1. Are you Sunni or Shia?
2. Do you think we should allow someone like you to enter our country?
3. How often do you pray?
4. Why did you shave your beard?
5. Which school of thought do you follow?
6. What do you think of America's foreign policy towards the Muslim world?
7. What do you think of killing non-Muslims?
8. What do you think of [various terrorist groups]?

Finally, CAIR indicates that those questioned "were held between 2 to 8 hours by CBP."

---

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. This analysis derives from a chapter in Conceptualizing Moderate Islam, ed. Richard Benkin (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2017).

Related Topics:  Counter-terrorism, Immigration, US policy  |  Daniel Pipes  |  Spring 2017 MEQ receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.