Skip to comments.When Islamists Get Caught-The president of the Muslim American Society is caught on tape.
Posted on 10/04/2007 6:46:10 AM PDT by SJackson
When Islamists Get Caught
By Steven Emerson
The Investigative Project on Terrorism | Thursday, October 04, 2007
The Esam Omeish affair is the latest example of a "moderate," "peaceful" American Muslim leader done in by his own words, caught on tape.
Omeish, the president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), was forced to resign last week from his recently-appointed position on Virginia Governor Tim Kaine's immigration commission when videos featuring Omeish posted by Little Green Footballs and the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) were brought to the governor's attention.
Kaine asked for Omeish's resignation after observing one video featuring Omeish at a December 2000 rally praising Palestinians for "...you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land."
Instead of owning up to his words, Omeish told reporters at a press conference Friday that he was taken out of context as part of a "smear campaign" based on"Islamophobia."
When speaking of jihad, he said he did not mean violence. He only meant "exerting full effort." He, like the Muslim American Society, is completely peaceful, espousing only a "path of moderation, engagement and outreach." Omeish is a surgeon, and before that, an honor student a pillar of the community, and nothing more. The re-production of his own words is an "Islamophobic" "smear."
MAS Freedom Foundation Executive Director, Mahdi Bray, went one step further, portraying Omeish as the victim of a not-so-vast right wing conspiracy by those who "send people into our mosques and send people into our conventions dressed as Muslim women with hidden cameras."
Bray, too, has been "caught on tape" by the IPT, raising his arms and cheering loudly in October 2000 as his former colleague, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, announced his support for two notoriously deadly terrorist groups:
Alamoudi: I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas, anybody supports Hamas here?
[Crowd cheers, "Yes!"].
Anybody is a supporter of Hamas here?
[Crowd cheers, "Yes!" Mahdi Bray on stage nods and raises his arms in approval].
Anybody is a supporter of Hamas here?
[Crowd cheers, "Yes!"].
Hear that, Bill Clinton; we are all supporters of Hamas, Allahu Akbar. [Crowd responds].
I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hizballah. Anybody supports Hizballah here?
[Crowd cheers, "Yes!"]
Now, is it "Islamophobia" to show a tape of Bray gleefully cheering on Hamas and Hizballah? Somehow asking Omeish to be accountable for his endorsement of "the jihad way" is over the line.
As with all the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, MAS has its public face of "peace" and "compassion" it plays up in front of the Western media and government officials, and another when comfortably surrounded only by its supporters.
And Omeish is no different. Watch the videos. Here is the entire December 2000 speech.
Without the power of videotape and an historic record, gullible members of the media would probably believe a "jihad" as an approach to "liberate your land" had no violent connotation as Omeish claimed. Sadly, even with powerful and damning video evidence, they might choose to believe the likes of Omeish and Bray, earnest as they are in their denunciations of those who merely produce the evidence.
The Sept. 29 Washington Post story simply took Omeish and his allies at their words. His jihad-way reference "was not a call for violence. It was never any condoning of terrorism or any violent acts," the newspaper quoted Omeish. It sought no other viewpoint. Nor did its reporters appear to ask what it means to say "exerting full effort" is "the way to liberate your land" peacefully.
It could have turned to Imam Abdul Alim Musa, of the Masjid al-Islam in Washington D.C. Musa offered a definition of jihad in stark contrast to Omeish during a MAS rally in Washington in May 2003.
The Post story also cited Brian Becker, national coordinator of the leftist ANSWER Coalition, as a character witness, who called Omeish "one of the foremost leaders" of ANSWER's anti-war rallies and someone who agreed Omeish had fallen to a smear campaign by "right-wing anti-Muslim bigots.
But what the Post did not tell you was that Becker was a comrade of Omeish and actually spoke together with him at a rally supporting Hizballah in July 2006. To Becker, Israel's response to Hamas rockets from Gaza targeting civilians was a "criminal reaggression." He minimized Hizballah's cross-border raid that killed three Israeli soldiers and ended with the kidnapping of two others. He made no reference to Hizballah rocket fire raining down on civilian neighborhoods.
Becker also argued that Israel is supported by U.S. aid because "Israel carries out the fundamental colonial functions against not only the Palestinians but against all Arab people and against other peoples of the Middle East."
Despite the denials and obfuscation, MAS officials have justified suicide bombings and terrorism repeatedly.
At a June 2001 press conference and sit-in at the State Department, then-MAS Secretary General Shaker El-Sayed was asked directly whether he condemned "the terrorist attacks from Hamas and the suicide bombings."
"I made a statement that we do support the Palestinian resistance," El-Sayed said. "The so-called Israeli settlers are not civilian population. They are military reserves; they are armed, trained and dangerous. They invade the Palestinian neighborhoods at night and squander everything. They kill, maim, and destroy homes. If I were there, I would use every power in my hand to defend my family."
El-Sayed continued, "so long as occupation continues, we say to the Palestinian people, Go ahead. Continue your fight against occupation no matter what name they give you because we give you the name of courageous people who stand for the rights and we're standing with you.'"
The question was not whether he supported the Palestinians, but whether he condemned Hamas and suicide bombings.
Eighteen months later, at a joint conference sponsored by the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), El-Sayed had this to say (in mixed Arabic and English) about suicide bombers:
El-Sayed (Arabic): And about the subject unfairly named suicide bombers, homicide bombers, or murderers, or killers. Our answer to this issue is simple. To decide that this man is a martyr or not a martyr, it is a pure religious matter. Nobody who is not Muslim has any right to decide for us, we the Muslims, whose is a martyr or another. We as Muslims will decide that. It is in-house business.
The Islamic scholars said whenever there is an attack on an Islamic state or occupation, or the honor of the Muslims has been violated, the Jihad is a must for everyone, a child, a lady and a man. They have to make Jihad with every tool that they can get in their hand. Anything that they can get in their hand and if they don't have anything in their hand then they can fight with their hand without weapons.
In its June 2002 issue, MAS's official publication, the American Muslim, featured a question and answer section with the deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research. When asked about suicide bombings, Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi responded that "Martyr operations are not suicide and should not be deemed as unjustifiable means of endangering one's life."
But back to Omeish and his self-proclaimed non-violent support for "jihad." It includes going to bat in support a specific Hamas activist. Omeish wrote a letter in support of Abdelhaleem Ashqar, a Virginia-based Hamas activist convicted in Chicago last year of obstruction of justice and contempt of court, related to his activities in support of the terrorist group His sentencing is slated for later this year, and his attorneys have actively solicited letters to sway the judge. Omeish, for his part, wrote of Ashqar:
"Never at any time did I sense a radical tone and an extremist agenda in his words or actions. He has never and from what I saw can never aide or abet any terrorist or help finance any act of terror, simply because he does not believe in violence and extremism as a way to voice disenfranchisement or disagreement." (Emphasis added)
It was Ashqar who helped organize a secret 1993 gathering of Hamas members and supporters in Philadelphia. They gathered with the specific intent of finding ways to "derail" the new Oslo peace deal, which group members opposed because it left the state of Israel intact and threatened to marginalize the Islamist Hamas.
During the course of Ashqar's trial, prosecutors entered into evidence a 1993 wiretapped phone conversation between Ashqar and Hamas co-founder, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, in which the two discussed a Hamas attack that day on Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped and then killed. Rantisi then told Ashqar that they had even taken the ID Cards of the two soldiers and both men began laughing.
Others have rallied to Omeish's side, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which also blasts any criticism of itself as an Islamophobic smear. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Dallas terror-financing trial against the Holy Land for Relief and Development (HLF).
The trial has shone new light on CAIR's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.
CAIR issued a statement supporting Omeish, who it said resigned "after being subjected to what he called a smear campaign' by anti-Islam bloggers and Muslim-bashers like Steven Emerson who distorted past comments he made about Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinian people and about jihad.'"
Thankfully, and importantly for the Muslim community at large, not all Muslim leaders are on board with CAIR's (or MAS,' for that matter) specific "Islamic perspective," and they are willing to speak out against its extremism and pressure tactics. As reported in the Virginian Pilot:
Two leaders in South Hampton Road s' Muslim community said they approved of Kaine's action.
Omeish represented "an extremist point of view," said M. Sharif Hafiz, board chairman of the Islamic Center of Tidewater. "I don't subscribe to it," he said. "I am a tolerant, open-minded Muslim."
Imam Vernon M. Fareed of Masjid William Salaam mosque in Norfolk said Omeish's comments "seem out of place."
Fareed said he has met Kaine several times. "I perceive the governor as a person who is fair and who is inclusive with religious communities," he said.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy also spoke out against Omeish's CAIR-backed brand of extremism, issuing a release that stated, in part:
"Many of Dr. Omeish's statements and activities in the past have in fact been a manifestation of political Islam and his attempt to use the Muslim community as a tool in a specific Islamist political agenda. This not only violates the core principles of the separation of religion and politics, which is a cornerstone of our nation, but is in fact the main mechanism of influence of transnational Islamism. His public advocacy of 'jihad' in the Middle East by co-religionists implicitly via terrorist organizations like Hezbullah or HAMAS against Israel, an ally of the United States, should certainly highlight the toxicity of Islamism as a political ideology-- regardless of the ideological jujitsu one uses to define 'jihad'. This becomes especially concerning in an individual appointed to contribute to a more sound immigration policy because it begs the question: Will this appointee's point of view be one primarily of American nationalism and security first, or will it be one of transnational global Islamism?"
Omeish and his colleagues at MAS can continue to cry foul when their own words are broadcast publicly. And they can continue trying to spin the meaning of those words. It might just be their best strategy, and clearly some people fall for it. Telling the truth is clearly not an option. The proof is in the video tape.
At this time.
That one’s worth a bookmark.
It’s good that people are starting to realize exactly who the Serbs were fighting against when Bill Clinton through the US Air Force in to support the Jihadists in the former Yugoslavia.
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim... just a sleeper agent.
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim... just a sleeper agent.
Agreed. We let them in, we will pay. They are troublemakers, and enemies of FREE, WESTERN society. Nothing has changed for thousands of years.
What is Islam based on?
Mohammed went into “trances” and fits (like epileptic fits) when he was given the “word of God” and would shout out what he was told. These would be written down by his followers. This is the makeup of the Koran.
When Mohammed was just walking and talking and acting like “normal”, his words and deeds were written down by his followers and this went into the Hadith. Now, acting “normal” for Mohammed was taking 12+ wives (including a 6 year old), taking slaves (including sex slaves), executing infidels, conducting raids for treasure, etc.
Now, this is where it gets complicated.
A large part of the words he spoke in trances were “taken back” by Mohammed. He determined them to be the work of the devil (thus they are called the “Satanic Verses” and these are the same verses that Mr. Salman Rushdie got in trouble for writing about).
Now, how Mohammed determined which verses were from God and which were from Satan I do not know.
Also, there were literally dozens of widely different versions of the Koran and Hadith floating around for several hundred years after Mohammed death until a Fatwah was decreed to destroy all but one version. Now, even Mohammed could not remember what he was told by God and forgot it (those are his words as written in the Hadith) so I do not know how the powers in charge decided which was the correct version.
Also according to the Hadith, Mohammed turned people into monkeys, you can determine a child’s sex depending on whether the male or female has an orgasm first (that advice came directly from the Angel Gabriel), dogs and cats are evil and should be killed, that the devil lives in your nose at night (and how to get rid of him in the morning), chess is forbidden, muslims have one intestine while infidels have seven, dont pray looking up or your eyes will be snatched away, that one wing of a fly is poison but the other is the cure, that drinking camel urine is good for you and I could go on.
And that Mohammed himself didn’t even know if he was going to heaven. If even Mohammed doesn’t know, what chance does the average muslim have?
And for some non-PC info, Mohammed was described as a white man.
Now, if you can bear it, to compare to the Gospels of New Testament.
Jesus was someone who lived a very humble life and was killed for basically saying he was a King and Son of God (blasphemy) by the powers in charge (Roman and Jewish). The government wanted Jesus destroyed and wanted his growing movement destroyed (as it threatened their power). If, after 3 days, the followers of Jesus proclaimed he has risen from the dead, (just as he predicted), and is truly our Savior, the High Officials would have wanted to destroy such a “myth.” They could have easily done this by producing the dead body of Jesus and saying “Your Messiah is still dead and so is your movement” or producing many eye witnesses of the dead Jesus. But they couldn’t.
The letters that make up the New Testament were written by the eye witnesses of the events of Jesus. They were written in just one generation when many other eye witnesses were still alive. They were written without collusion from other Apostles. Even if any of the Apostles wanted to “add” to the “myth” of Jesus, they would have done so in a very disjointed and easily detectable fashion. Yet, the main Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that describe the life of Jesus are amazingly in harmony with one another and the small differences are consistent with what we would see today if four people witnessed a major event and wrote about the event apart from each other. The Gospels can be traced back to their sources and are basically unchanged from their originals.
The Bible (especially the New Testament) is the most investigated historical document in the history of the world. It has been investigated by scientists, philosophers and archeologists using technology undreamed of when the Bible was written. It is been desperately tried to be “disproved” for over 2000 years, yet, the Bible still stands as the truth.
The stories of Jesus still make sense to us today. It may be because they are true, it may be because they are based in love or it may be because they were written to tell the people of the Word of God.
PS - There are many topics that could be compared - The stories of a adulterous woman is found in both the Bible and Koran. They seem to sum up each religion.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:1-11)
There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Gamid and said: Allahs Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allahs messenger, why do you turn me away? ... By Allah I have become pregnant. He said Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth. When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag, and said Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said Allahs Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. (Sahih Muslim 4206)
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:28-34)
Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, “What is the next in goodness? He replied, “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s Cause.” The questioner again asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To perform Hajj Mubrur.”
There is nothing peaceful in the Koran when it applies to non-believers. It actually states that Muslims are allowed to pretend to be friends with non-believers to build up strength and take over in the future.
The only ‘moderate’ muslims are the non-religious ones. The closer one is to Islam, the closer they are to evil.
“”...you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.””
In the cult of Islam everything belongs to their moon god Allah and they are given permission in their cult instruction booklet written by that child-molesting murderer known as Mad Mo to kill anyone who opposes him.
They try to hide that by saying Islam does not support murder, so they simply justify killing “infidels” by saying they only kill those who fight Islam and that anyone who opposes Allah owning everything as fighting Islam.
Remember, their instruction booklet, the Qur’an, was written by an insane man riddled with venereal diseases.
The only thing you need to know about the differences between Islam and Christianity can be summed up in one sentence.
Jesus died for your sins, Mohammed would kill you for them.
I gotta disagree with that. The relationship is more akin to that of Bubonic Plague and Pneumonic Plague. Same causative organism, just different forms of the disease. Both are as potentially deadly as Ebola, though.
There are only a few "Satanic Verses."
One thing some people refuse to accept is that in Islam its *explicitly* ok for a believer to lie to an infidel. While one can find instances of deception in the Bible they are either man being sinful (Abraham tell Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister out of fear) or is ordained in that instance by God (Rahab).
I can think of no instance where there is a blanket ‘its ok to lie’
Think! Almost all Christian churches are mission driven, however, not all of the congregation goes on missions. But everyone in the church donates towards the mission for the good of the mission.
So it is in the Muslim tradition, either you donate your tithe or your very life to the Jihad.
A moderate muslim is one who has run out of ammo.
A moderate Muslim is one who is either a borderline apostate or an observant Muslim who will quietly cheer the jihadi attacks done by their more extreme counterparts.
"A moderate Muslim is a Muslim who is not trying to kill you. At this time." Would include both of the above as well as out of ammo Muslims, those traveling to the ambush, those that are trying to kill some other infidel, those that want to enslave you or any others who are not actively intent on killing you at the moment for any reason including personal cowardice on their part.
That is a good description yes.
When Muhammad (circa 600 AC) linked the name of Allah to the religious histories of Judaism and Christianity, this was a way to claim them for Islam. In the light of later events, the claim that Islam was the original religion, and that all preceding prophets were Muslims, can be regarded as an attempt to appropriate the histories of other religions for Islam. The effect is to rob Christianity and Judaism of their own histories.
The fact that Mohammed appropriated the Jewish and Christian Traditions, that the Muslim Tradition OWES to those traditions, creates quite a crisis of confidence for the radical Muslim.
Muslims should not take Christians or Jews for friends. (Al-Maidah 5:51) They must fight against Christians and Jews who refuse Islam until they surrender, pay the poll-tax and are humiliated. (At-Taubah 9:29) [ To this may be added hundreds of Quranic verses on the subject of jihad in the path of Allah, as well as the Book of Jihad found in all Hadith collections. ]
Never the less, we should deny this reality and go on asking ...why do they hate us?
Liars, beggars and thieves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.